Why George W. Bush is an Outstanding President

[Forest_Archer]

I think George W. Bush is an outstanding president. Before you neg-rep me, here's why:


He has a whopping approval rating of 39%
He is a redneck
He's learning his ABC's slowly but surely
He graduated from Yale as a C student
His wonderful daughters were arrested once or twice
He knows howda shoot dem terrists!
He says freedom over and over again, hypnotizing mindless Americans into believing that he's half-way decent
He has monkey ears
He made some remarkably awful choices on his Supreme Court Judges


This is kind of like the thread that Inked made about gay people and it inspired me. Bush is an inconsiderate fool.

[***Duo***]

Did you forget?
He knows how to ask for God's Blessing...
"God Bless America."


-Duo

[inked]

Don't forget his "Faith-based Intiatives" or his wonderful supreme court judge choices.

[Quartz]

I think George W. Bush is an outstanding president. Before you neg-rep me, here's why:


He has a whopping approval rating of 39%
He is a redneck
He's learning his ABC's slowly but surely
He graduated from Yale as a C student
His wonderful daughters were arrested once or twice
He knows howda shoot dem terrists!
He says freedom over and over again, hypnotizing mindless Americans into believing that he's half-way decent
He has monkey ears


This is kind of like the thread that Inked made about gay people and it inspired me. Bush is an inconsiderate fool.

He also says "Sipteember eleeventh." Way to much.

[savanna]

he is a terrible person.
i cant stand him.
bleck.
i dont want to talk about him anymore.
i hate him.
so i probably wont be posting here anymore..
heh.

[Forest_Archer]

Wow, I already have 3 reps on this thread. Hah!

[inked]

he is a terrible person.
i cant stand him.
bleck.
i dont want to talk about him anymore.
i hate him.
so i probably wont be posting here anymore..
heh.

You do realize this is an anti-Bush thread, right? Or do you just plain dislike him so much you don't even want to even flame him?

[***Duo***]

Wow, I already have 3 reps on this thread. Hah!

Put that in your sock and sniff it; You coperate, liberal idiots!


-Duo

[dirka dirka]

Yea, he is a horrible president because he is an average guy. Shut the hell up, none of that has to do with anything. You need to learn what makes and breaks a president, and its not how good he can talk.

[inked]

You know Republicans are bashing his latest judical pick, Harriet Miers, too.

[Quartz]

Well, really, I don't give a damn, I'm 13.

He's not my president, I did'nt vote for him.

[savanna]

i hate him so much that i dont WANT to even bash him.

[Forest_Archer]

Oh, we liberal idiots are awful.

And yes, I hope you all know that this is an anti-Bush thread.

[Quartz]

Oh, we liberal idiots are awful.

And yes, I hope you all know that this is an anti-Bush thread.

If they did'nt, they need to lay off the paint chips.

[inked]

He's not my president, I did'nt vote for him.

If you are an American citizen he is your president if you voted for or against him.


EDIT: hah, if you are using a "liberal; loose" interpretation of the word "my" then that completely changes the sentance.

[Quartz]

If you are an American citizen he is your president if you voted for or against him.


EDIT: hah, if you are using a "liberal; loose" interpretation of the word "my" then that completely changes the sentance.

I was being sarcastic.

:p

[dominion138]

I think George W. Bush is an outstanding president. Before you neg-rep me, here's why:


He has a whopping approval rating of 39%
He is a redneck
He's learning his ABC's slowly but surely
He graduated from Yale as a C student
His wonderful daughters were arrested once or twice
He knows howda shoot dem terrists!
He says freedom over and over again, hypnotizing mindless Americans into believing that he's half-way decent
He has monkey ears
He made some remarkably awful choices on his Supreme Court Judges




This is kind of like the thread that Inked made about gay people and it inspired me. Bush is an inconsiderate fool.

hmm...while i don't totally agree with some of bush's choice's i believe he's doing the best he's able to...its easy to to point out what people do wrong but its more productive to point out what can be done to make things better...so what should we have done? said its ok you killed over a thousand of our people and let it go unanswered? that choice was made overwhelmingly and all of america was for it at the time...however america forgets and now that its costing lives...as we were told it would...and money and people are not behind it anymore...so when the time comes around to vote again...don't forget that more than half the nation chose to keep him in office...should we vote for someone that'll tell us to pack up our bags and leave? and what will happen then? will the terrorists take iraq and use it as a staging ground for more attacks against us? thats what we can expect if we bail out now...now i hope that helps people understand that bush isn't an inconsiderate fool and he was only doing what the nation wanted at the time and what he must now do...get support for a war we can't leave yet...

[Quartz]

He also says "Sipteember eleeventh." Way to much.

Haha, I was neg repped for that.

I love how people don't leave there name.

[dominion138]

Haha, I was neg repped for that.

I love how people don't leave there name.


with a gold account upgrade on the forums you can see who reps you...but yes it is polite to leave a name and reason...

[Quartz]

with a gold account upgrade on the forums you can see who reps you...but yes it is polite to leave a name and reason...

Yes but unfortunately, My parents won't spend anything on the internet. So until I'm old enough to do it myself, I'll stay like this.

[dirka dirka]

with a gold account upgrade on the forums you can see who reps you...but yes it is polite to leave a name and reason...
It is also polite not to insult someone who is doing his best, especially when you couldn't do 1/10th as well. You're all idiots for insulting him. Lets sit on our asses and complain... <- sound familiar?


btw, Forest_Archer, its pathetic that you retaliate with a neg

[***Duo***]

If we are being serious...

I don't MIND him being our President, though I don't like some of the decisions he's made.
He is doing a good job, I'll give him that. Under all that stress and what not...
Though, what President HASN'T been bashed or made fun of? :)


-Duo

[T3km4n]

I think George W. Bush is an outstanding president. Before you neg-rep me, here's why:


He has a whopping approval rating of 39%
He is a redneck
He's learning his ABC's slowly but surely
He graduated from Yale as a C student
His wonderful daughters were arrested once or twice
He knows howda shoot dem terrists!
He says freedom over and over again, hypnotizing mindless Americans into believing that he's half-way decent
He has monkey ears
He made some remarkably awful choices on his Supreme Court Judges


This is kind of like the thread that Inked made about gay people and it inspired me. Bush is an inconsiderate fool.
Who the hell cares? Shut up. No one wants to hear you and all your gay liberal friends whine about George Bush even though you don't know shit.

[Sage Thief]

sorry guys but I just think this guy is a complete ass...:(

[inked]

i believe he's doing the best he's able to...
It is not about the best "he" is able to do. We have millions of people who could do the best they could do, should they be president because they can do their best?

its easy to to point out what people do wrong but its more productive to point out what can be done to make things better...
-No child left behind.
-War based on false information
-Faith based and community intiatives
-Attempting to have the republican party control the judiacl branch so that they could rule all the checks and balances of our goverent system. Giving a single party the power to outlaw critical laws that rely on the liberal interpretation of "interstate comerce".
-appointing his personal lawyer a supreme court judge( keep in mind she has zero experience as a judge.)
-Leading our country into the largest debt in history.
-Sacrificed citizens rights for "homeland security"
-ruined foreign affairs
-Imprisioning people in guantanamo bay without trial.


so what should we have done?
It is not all about the "War on Terror" which has sucessfully became "make the world a democracy".

so when the time comes around to vote again...don't forget that more than half the nation chose to keep him in office...

Bush's approval percent is 39% as of October 13, 2005.

Should we vote for someone that'll tell us to pack up our bags and leave?
John F. Kerry did not say he has going to have us leave the war on terror. Here is a quote from the 2004 presidental debates:

I believe in being strong and resolute and determined. And I will hunt down and kill the terrorists, wherever they are.

But we also have to be smart, Jim. And smart means not diverting your attention from the real war on terror in Afghanistan against Osama bin Laden and taking if off to Iraq where the 9/11 Commission confirms there was no connection to 9/11 itself and Saddam Hussein, and where the reason for going to war was weapons of mass destruction, not the removal of Saddam Hussein.

This president has made, I regret to say, a colossal error of judgment. And judgment is what we look for in the president of the United States of America.

I'm proud that important military figures who are supporting me in this race: former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff John Shalikashvili; just yesterday, General Eisenhower's son, General John Eisenhower, endorsed me; General Admiral William Crown; General Tony McBeak, who ran the Air Force war so effectively for his father -- all believe I would make a stronger commander in chief. And they believe it because they know I would not take my eye off of the goal: Osama bin Laden.

Unfortunately, he escaped in the mountains of Tora Bora. We had him surrounded. But we didn't use American forces, the best trained in the world, to go kill him. The president relied on Afghan warlords and he outsourced that job too. That's wrong.


and what will happen then? will the terrorists take iraq and use it as a staging ground for more attacks against us?
No, we would focus on our original intent of removing terrorism from Afganistan and capturing the Terrorist leader who is behind the 9/11 attacks.

now i hope that helps people understand that bush isn't an inconsiderate fool and he was only doing what the nation wanted at the time and what he must now do...get support for a war we can't leave yet...

Um, no.

[***Duo***]

sorry guys but I just think this guy is a complete ass...:(

You're entitled to your opinion.


-Duo

[cuckoo]

Several previous posters were right, Bush is doing his best....what I fail to comprehend is how people can say that's a good thing.

[savanna]

well.
all i have to say:
bush is trying.
i dont like some stuff he is doing, but are we all dead yet?
i guess not.
bitching about it isnt gonna get us far i guess...

[spirit ninja]

yeah definitly man...

[Forest_Archer]

Dirka dirka- You're being silly. You tell me that it's sad that I negged you? Well I did that because you negged me before.

[EleMENTAL]

I have a question:

Since everyone doesn't like George W. Bush, then why was he elected president?

[bobdagangsta]

i didnt vote either so i dont really know.

[dirka dirka]

Dirka dirka- You're being silly. You tell me that it's sad that I negged you? Well I did that because you negged me before.
No. I said its sad that you negged me because I negged you. Thats not a valid reason. Its just plain sad. You're an idiot.

[Forest_Archer]

Well Americans are ignorant, bon-bon eating, lazy creatures. Somehow, ironically, 2% of African Americans now approve of Bush's ways and a lot of them voted for him! Hah! That's weird, I guess everyone is realizing how dumb Bush is.

[dirka dirka]

Well Americans are ignorant, bon-bon eating, lazy creatures. Somehow, ironically, 2% of African Americans now approve of Bush's ways and a lot of them voted for him! Hah! That's weird, I guess everyone is realizing how dumb Bush is.
No. Wrong. You're an idiot. You just sterotyped all Americans. This proves you're dumb as hell.

[Forest_Archer]

I'm American.

[dirka dirka]

I'm American.
and that means nothing to me. I'm typing on my keyboard... see, means nothing.

[inked]

I have a question:
Since everyone doesn't like George W. Bush, then why was he elected president?

Flaws in the Electoral College system, religious evangelical extremist groups, right-wing conservatives, NRA, Florida and Texas, and various other groups mainly based around religious, gun/war/corporal punishment, and anti-liberal groups. Also Kerry's wife and John Edwards did not help his campaign.

[savanna]

i deserved to be negged by dirk, i failed to realize that george bush has a hell of a job and that all his decisions wont make each person happy.
odviously he is doing some stuff right as i said before, because we are all still alive.

[dirka dirka]

Flaws in the Electoral College system, religious evangelical extremist groups, right-wing conservatives, NRA, Florida and Texas, and various other groups mainly based around religious, gun/war/corporal punishment, and anti-liberal groups. Also Kerry's wife and John Edwards did not help his campaign.
and all you can do is complain. My advice is STFU.

It isn't because of any flaws or anything like that. He is the better person for the job.

[Forest_Archer]

Guys, you're all for getting this key piece of information-

Al Gore officially won the election of 2000. However, Bush was 'elected' president.

[dirka dirka]

Guys, you're all for getting this key piece of information-

Al Gore officially won the election of 2000. However, Bush was 'elected' president.
No. Shut up. Its sad idiots like you believe that kind of stuff.

[Forest_Archer]

I know, right? The truth is unbelievable.

[dirka dirka]

I know, right? The truth is unbelievable.
Thats not the truth. Repeat it slower. If Al Gore won then why is Bush President? Answer: Al Gore did not win.

[T3km4n]

Thats not the truth. Repeat it slower. If Al Gore won then why is Bush President? Answer: Al Gore did not win.
He's trying to say Al Gore got more votes, but the electoral college system had the winner as George Bush, but he was just told it by his mommy so he doesn't really understand what he is saying.

[dirka dirka]

He's trying to say Al Gore got more votes, but the electoral college system had the winner as George Bush.
but thats irrelavant. Bush still won.

[T3km4n]

but thats irrelavant. Bush still won.
I know, he doesn't even know what he is saying.

[dominion138]

Flaws in the Electoral College system, religious evangelical extremist groups, right-wing conservatives, NRA, Florida and Texas, and various other groups mainly based around religious, gun/war/corporal punishment, and anti-liberal groups. Also Kerry's wife and John Edwards did not help his campaign.

i try to stay out of politics and pretty much this is why...we have 20 some issues here now each of which would take days to debate fully...i was trying to make a rather simple statement to include everything after all i said i don't agree with all his choices and i was trying to stick to the war...congress voted overwhelmingly to support the "war on terror" and that was the feeling of the nation at the time...also his approval rating was much higher when he was re-elected. that is what america wanted at that time and thats what we got...

[Forest_Archer]

No, I know what I'm talking about, apparently better than you or Dirka.

[dirka dirka]

No, I know what I'm talking about, apparently better than you or Dirka.
No. Not at all. You're 100% wrong. Bush won, not Al Gore.

[Forest_Archer]

Simmer down, dude, let's have a debate, not an arguement.

[inked]

Al Gore officially won the election of 2000. However, Bush was 'elected' president.

No, Gore won Popular vote not electoral. Bush offically won the election both times. The Electoral system is "Flawed" because it is outdated and has served way passed its use. It was intended to calculate the votes from each state more efficently and quickly. With modern technology we can get a more accurate total. With the electoral system an entire state is either for one nominee or the other, and with the popular vote each vote is counted and the nominee gains votes which were given to him/her no matter which way the majority of the state voted. The popluar vote system is better because in theory it adds protection to the minority, which is what much or this country is based on.

If 90% of California wants to make all African-Americans slaves and 10% does not want African-Americans to be slaves, does that mean that California should instate enslavery of black people(This was intended to be a morale idea and not to be argued by amendments to the constitution.)? The answer is no, because the federal government should protect the rights of the minority, which is one thing the Popular vote system does to the electoral system.

[dirka dirka]

Simmer down, dude, let's have a debate, not an arguement.
There is no difference, look up the definitions. You're an idiot.

[***Duo***]

Debate
: a contention by words or arguments: as a : the formal discussion of a motion before a deliberative body according to the rules of parliamentary procedure

Argument
obsolete : an outward sign : INDICATION
2 a : a reason given in proof or rebuttal b : discourse intended to persuade
3 a : the act or process of arguing : ARGUMENTATION b : a coherent series of statements leading from a premise to a conclusion

Pretty close...


-Duo

[inked]

There is no difference, look up the definitions. You're an idiot.

Your are basing your argument off of Webster, or whoever’s definition of a word? Why not ask him for his definition/intent of the words were. I interpreted his original sentence as:
"Simmer down, dude, let's have a debate [intellectual, meaningful argument], not an argument [yelling, closed minded argument]."

[***Duo***]

Your are basing your arguement off of Webster, or whoevers definition of a word? Why not ask him for his definition/intent of the words were. I interpreted his original sentance as:
"Simmer down, dude, let's have a debate[inteluctual, meaningful arguement], not an arguement[yelling, closed minded arguement]."

What a better way to explain it.


-Duo

[dirka dirka]

Your are basing your arguement off of Webster, or whoevers definition of a word? Why not ask him for his definition/intent of the words were. I interpreted his original sentance as:
"Simmer down, dude, let's have a debate[inteluctual, meaningful arguement], not an arguement[yelling, closed minded arguement]."
I don't care what his intent was. He is an idiot. By definition, they are the same.

[Forest_Archer]

Dirka, I am convinced that you are as oblivious as anyone else. So as your signature says, unless you have something intelligent to say, don't post.

As inked said, debate and arguement are very different.

[dirka dirka]

Dirka, I am convinced that you are as oblivious as anyone else. So as your signature says, unless you have something intelligent to say, don't post.

As inked said, debate and arguement are very different.
Show me one thing so far that you posted that intelligent. Also, my sig says nothing about intelligence.

[inked]

I don't care what his intent was. He is an idiot. By definition, they are the same.

If you do not care about his intent, then why critic it?

[dirka dirka]

If you do not care about his intent, then why critic it?
I wasn't. I was simply responding.

[***Duo***]

I wasn't. I was simply responding. PC+

Ah, alright.


-Duo

[Forest_Archer]

Sorry, dirka, beneficial was the word that I was referring to.

Do you think that correcting my use of 'debate' as opposed to 'arguement' was beneficial? I hope that you know the difference by now. You don't need to clerify.

[dirka dirka]

Sorry, dirka, beneficial was the word that I was referring to.

Do you think that correcting my use of 'debate' as opposed to 'arguement' was beneficial? I hope that you know the difference by now. You don't need to clerify.
Do you think insulting bush is beneficial? This entire thread is bullshit. You don't have a clue what you're talking about. Just shut up and crawl back into your hole.

[inked]

You're 100% wrong.
There is no difference, look up the definitions. You're an idiot.

Quite the not-a-critic-but-its-a-response response.

[Forest_Archer]

I think that being aware of our government is beneficial and I don't think that having a monkey for a president is very good.

[***Duo***]

Do you think insulting bush is beneficial? This entire thread is bullshit. You don't have a clue what you're talking about. Just shut up and crawl back into your hole.

Then please Dirka, to not let this thread waste space, provide us with what you know, and how you know what you are talking about it correct. :)


-Duo

[dirka dirka]

Quite the not-a-critic-but-its-a-response response.
No. I'm not even considering half of what he says. I've already formed my opinion, he doesn't know a thing. Therefore I'm just responding, not critiquing everything he says.

[monkus]

Gore > Bush > Kerry.

Kerry had NO idea what he was doing, and actually graduated from Yale with a lower GPA than Bush.

My main problems with Bush are his religious incentives, his conservative social plans, and his Cronyism. For gods sake, hire SOMEONE that knows what they're doing, even if you don't. Harriet Miers is, according to Bush, "A great person." This was his response to many questions concerning her qualification >_<

[dirka dirka]

I think that being aware of our government is beneficial and I don't think that having a monkey for a president is very good.
This has nothing to do with being aware. Everybody who breathes knows the current situations. This is about insulting the president.

Then please Dirka, to not let this thread waste space, provide us with what you know, and how you know what you are talking about it correct? :)


-Duo
I've already provided what I know. Just cause he can't recite shakespeare from memory doesn't mean he isn't a good president. He did win the election, him saying he did not is bullshit.

[The Cheat]

I just have one question for you Bush supporters:

How can you support a man who sends young men to their deaths?

[***Duo***]

This has nothing to do with being aware. Everybody who breathes knows the current situations. This is about insulting the president.


I've already provided what I know. Just cause he can't recite shakespeare from memory doesn't mean he isn't a good president. He did win the election, him saying he did not is bullshit.

Fair enough.

I just have one question for you Bush supporters:

How can you support a man who sends young men to their deaths?

For a war that was based off of false information?
No idea...
Dirka?


-Duo

[Mithrandir]

Gee, a Bush bashing thread. How original.:rolleyes:

Should I or shouldn't I participate...

Thanks but I'll pass.

The Cheat, I happen to believe some things are worth dying for. I wouldn't want a president that would never go to war under any circumstances.

You said one question, I answered it. Thus ends my participation in this thread.

[Forest_Archer]

One of George's most intelligent phrases-

"They misunderestimated me."

[Kyir]

Im not going to take sides like last time *shudder*

just want to post this
http://www.jibjab.com/Home.aspx

theres a political animatino section, I'd advise its good to be in d.c., but, whatever

[Mithrandir]

Im not going to take sides like last time *shudder*

just want to post this
http://www.jibjab.com/Home.aspx

theres a political animatino section, I'd advise its good to be in d.c., but, whatever
No no no! This Land is much funnier. Now THIS is good, intelligent, non-partisan humor.

[Jehutyv.2.0]

Do you think insulting bush is beneficial? This entire thread is bullshit. You don't have a clue what you're talking about. Just shut up and crawl back into your hole.
However, you dodged the point. His point which you managed to skillfully avoid was that you, having written those posting rules, should follow them. If you do not, it is blatant hypocrisy. You have not denied having been unbeneficial. I suggest you do so before you become a hypocrite.

[dirka dirka]

One of George's most intelligent phrases-

"They misunderestimated me."
So? So what? He isn't an english teacher. He talks just like every other person. He is average.

I just have one question for you Bush supporters:

How can you support a man who sends young men to their deaths?
Some things are worth death.

[***Duo***]

One of George's most intelligent phrases-

"They misunderestimated me."

http://www.tacticsarena.com/forum/showthread.php?t=20364&highlight=George+Bush

If you wanted quotes.


-Duo

[***Duo***]

So? So what? He isn't an english teacher. He talks just like every other person. He is average.


Some things are worth death.

Somethings, yes. But this war was started over unknown information?
Is that worth it?


-Duo

[HorNeT]

I don't care what you all think. Bush is one of the best presidents ever. He has handled this very well.

[dirka dirka]

However, you dodged the point. His point which you managed to skillfully avoid was that you, having written those posting rules, you should follow them. If you do not, it is blatant hypocrisy. You have not denied having been unbeneficial. I suggest you do so before you become a hypocrite.
Actually, no. I don't have to deny anything. It is obvious 9 out of 10 posts everybody makes are not beneficial. It doesn't make me a hypocrite.

[Jehutyv.2.0]

So? So what? He isn't an english teacher. He talks just like every other person. He is average.


Some things are worth death.
Then, if the time came, would you send yourself to death? Careful, you're treading on hypocrisy again.

[dirka dirka]

Somethings, yes. But this war was started over unknown information?
Is that worth it?


-Duo
The war was started with valid reasons. I don't think it should still be going on. However, you wont find two men who agree on everything.

[dirka dirka]

Then, if the time came, would you send yourself to death? Careful, you're treading on hypocrisy again.
If I had the ability. I would gradly fight against those bastards. Not saying I'd for America, but I would fight against those terrorists.

[Jehutyv.2.0]

Actually, no. I don't have to deny anything. It is obvious 9 out of 10 posts everybody makes are not beneficial. It doesn't make me a hypocrite.
Only post if you have something beneficial to add? Doesn't that mean that if you don't, you shouldn't? You, a programmer should understand that.

Dirka, seeing yo argue like this, it gets me down...you look so petty right now, with no iron behind your words...please, stop.

[***Duo***]

The war was started with valid reasons. I don't think it should still be going on. However, you wont find two men who agree on everything.

True enough.
The war WAS started on the assumption, that they had WOMD.
Apparently, they didn't, which has caused MUCH controversy, even things about George Bush doing this to get revenge.
It was a bad move for George, and an unfortunate one at that.


-Duo

[dirka dirka]

Only post if you have something beneficial to add? Doesn't that mean that if you don't, you shouldn't? You, a programmer should understand that.
Its sad that people still don't understand my sig. I've pointed it out many times

Dirka, seeing yo argue like this, it gets me down...you look so petty right now, with no iron behind your words...please, stop.
Just shut up. Don't resort to insults.

[Jehutyv.2.0]

If I had the ability. I would gradly fight against those bastards. Not saying I'd for America, but I would fight against those terrorists.
Bush doesn't send them to fight terrorists. He sends them to fight "for America."

[The Cheat]

Somethings, yes. But this war was started over unknown information?
Is that worth it?


-Duo


I agree. We had/have no reason to be in Iraq. Did Iraq have WMD? More than likely. Did we find any? NO! So why stay? Also it just seems werid that after years of trying to find Osama bin Laden and failing, we soon say Iraq is evil? Makes you think.......

[Jehutyv.2.0]

Its sad that people still don't understand my sig. I've pointed it out many times


Just shut up. Don't resort to insults.
Is hypocrisy your thing today, or what? How many times have you said the word "idiot" in this thread? Fifty?

[dirka dirka]

Bush doesn't send them to fight terrorists. He sends them to fight "for America."
They do fight terrorists though.

True enough.
The war WAS started on the assumption, that they had WOMD.
Apparently, they didn't, which has caused MUCH controversy, even things about George Bush doing this to get revenge.
It was a bad move for George, and an unfortunate one at that.


-Duo
However, the only reasonable and just move at the time. In retrospec, maybe no..

[dirka dirka]

Is hypocrisy your thing today, or what? How many times have you said the word "idiot" in this thread? Fifty?
There are many idiots here. You just fail to understand my sig.

[Jehutyv.2.0]

They do fight terrorists though.
Hope your hand can hold a lot of straws, because that's all you've got left to grab at.

[***Duo***]

They do fight terrorists though.


However, the only reasonable and just move at the time. In retrospec, maybe no..

http://news.google.com/news?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8
Iraq Constitution Appears Likely to Pass Referendum
Voice of America - 2 hours ago
I suppose things are improving...

Correction: They TRY to figh Terrorists. They end up fighting Insurgents. (Which may be the same thing, in some cases.)


-Duo

[dirka dirka]

Hope your hand can hold a lot of straws, because that's all you've got left to grab at.
WTF are you talking about? Actually say something if you want to argue this.

[Jehutyv.2.0]

There are many idiots here. You just fail to understand my sig.
Doesn't deny the fact that you still resorted to insulting, when you told me not to. How many more times must I say "hypocrisy"?

[dirka dirka]

Doesn't deny the fact that you still resorted to insulting, when you told me not to. How many more times must I say "hypocrisy"?
... No. I'm insulting everyone who is blatantly wrong. I haven't insulted duo yet. You shouldn't insult someone when you don't understand whats going on.

http://news.google.com/news?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8
Iraq Constitution Appears Likely to Pass Referendum
Voice of America - 2 hours ago

Correction: They TRY to figh Terrorists. They end up fighting Insurgents. (Which may be the same thing, in some cases.)


-Duo
Insurgents are terrorists. Terrorists are people who invoke terror. I'd say insurgents do that well.

[Jehutyv.2.0]

WTF are you talking about? Actually say something if you want to argue this.
Hey, I thought you were oh-so familiar phrase "clutching at straws".

Speaking of arguing, you claim that there is no difference between debate and an argument. However, if I felt the need to, I could find several instances on the RD thread where you were accused of arguing, yet claimed it was debating.

[dirka dirka]

Hey, I thought you were oh-so familiar phrase "clutching at straws".
IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY, SAY IT, DON'T TRY TO SPEAK IN CLICHES

Speaking of arguing, you claim that there is no difference between debate and an argument. However, if I felt the need to, I could find several instances on the RD thread where you were accused of arguing, yet claimed it was debating.
Please do find them. I admitably argue.

[Jehutyv.2.0]

... No. I'm insulting everyone who is blatantly wrong. I haven't insulted duo yet. You shouldn't insult someone when you don't understand whats going on..
Once AGAIN you dodge the point. You STILL called them idiots. It is an insult, and you have resorted to it, thus rendering the phrase "don't resort to insults" an act of hypocrisy.

Why can't you let this be? What causes you to discuss this so violently? What happened to the dirka who could argue valiantly?

[cuckoo]

... No. I'm insulting everyone who is blatantly wrong


Looks to me more like you're insulting all those who don't like Bush.

But then again, I suppose from your logic that is "blatantly wrong".

[dirka dirka]

Once AGAIN you dodge the point. You STILL called them idiots. It is an insult, and you have resorted to it, thus rendering the phrase "don't resort to insults" an act of hypocrisy.

Why can't you let this be? What causes you to discuss this so violently? What happened to the dirka who could argue valiantly?
I called them idiots when I was right. You get proved wrong, then insult. There is a difference. If I was wrong, I'd just stop. I wouldn't insult then stop. I never said just dont insult. I said just stop, dont insult.

Looks to me more like you're insulting all those who don't like Bush.

But then again, I suppose from your logic that is "blatantly wrong".
... hand in hand, those who don't like bush in this thread, are mostly arguing the invalid points and being arrogant idiots.

[Hoolwath]

I just mailed this to White House Human Service. They will sooo laugh. I just hope the don't arrest Forest and that they don't close this forums down. :(

[Forest_Archer]

Very clever, cuckoo, I wish I could pos. rep you, but I have given out too many reps to liberals in the last 24 hours. :rolleyes:

Looks like you're being cornered, dirka, so why don't you watch the news and do some research before posting again.

[Jehutyv.2.0]

IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY, SAY IT, DON'T TRY TO SPEAK IN CLICHES


Please do find them. I admitably argue.
Here.

http://www.tacticsarena.com/forum/showpost.php?p=340783&postcount=22086

[dirka dirka]

Very clever, cuckoo, I wish I could pos. rep you, but I have given out too many reps to liberals in the last 24 hours. :rolleyes:

Looks like you're being cornered, dirka, so why don't you watch the news and do some research before posting again.
How am I being cornered? You're the one saying Bush lost and is president. SHOW ME WHERE I'M WRONG

[cuckoo]

... hand in hand, those who don't like bush in this thread, are mostly arguing the invalid points and being arrogant idiots.

And you aren't? If you disagree with something someone says, you can say it and use facts to back up your point, rather than saying they are wrong (how can an opinion be wrong?) and insulting them

EDIT: How am I being cornered? You're the one saying Bush lost and is president. SHOW ME WHERE I'M WRONG

If Bush won, then why did he need the Supreme Court (which is republican controlled) to get him into office?

[dirka dirka]

Here.

http://www.tacticsarena.com/forum/showpost.php?p=340783&postcount=22086
You expect me to answer for something I said half a year ago?

[inked]

http://tacticsarena.com/forum/showpost.php?p=562088&postcount=25

In that post I speified a few reasons I felt Bush is not a great choice.

[The Cheat]

I guess Dirka Dirka is neg people who don't agree with him. THat's wht happened to me.

Quote from SNL

Bush: "I'll work 24/7. That's 24 hours a week, seven months a year."

[dirka dirka]

And you aren't? If you disagree with something someone says, you can say it and use facts to back up your point, rather than saying they are wrong (how can an opinion be wrong?) and insulting them
They arn't telling their opinions when I say their wrong. Saying things like Al Gore won and Bush lost is not an opinion, and is wrong.

They need to provide facts if they want to make that true and its just not. It will be hard to find a news article that says "Bush really won, not Al Gore.."

[Jehutyv.2.0]

I called them idiots when I was right. You get proved wrong, then insult. There is a difference. If I was wrong, I'd just stop. I wouldn't insult then stop. I never said just dont insult. I said just stop, dont insult.


... hand in hand, those who don't like bush in this thread, are mostly arguing the invalid points and being arrogant idiots.
I'm not arguing for or against bush. I'm not here to do that. I've already done that enough.

Even if you think you've proved them wrong, your credibility is destroyed by insults instead of facts. Hypocrite.

[Hoolwath]

You expect me to answer for something I said half a year ago?


Uh! I would like to play this game! I remember Dirka saying nasty things. :cool:

[Warcow]

Insurgents are terrorists. Terrorists are people who invoke terror. I'd say insurgents do that well.

I'd say the people have Iraq have every reason to call the American's terrorists then. Do you think they aren't invoking terror when they bomb "terrorists" and end up killing thousands of innocents? You need to be careful who you label as terrorists.

Many of the "insurgents" are merely men defending their country from a foreign occupation. It's not as black and white as you make it out to be.

Dirka, you really need to stop relying on dictionaries to settle your arguments, what was said was completely fine. Words aren't always used in their strict lexical connotation, and frequently their stipulative definition is more commonly used.

If a man and a woman are having a marital spat, and verbal abuse is flying, I don't think anyone would call that a debate, and yet you can rightfully call it an argument.

[Kyir]

this is getting stupid...

I do not support bush, and I still can get annoyed with people bashing him, sure he's made some stupid (or really stupid) comments. but who hasn't, drop it, and get on with your lifes

[***Duo***]

I suppose the Americans are Terrorists then, as well?
I'm SURE our soldiers invoke terror, so can we call ourselves terrorists?
Darn... Cow beat me to this. :S


-Duo

[Jehutyv.2.0]

You expect me to answer for something I said half a year ago?
I feel like a parrot.

I'm gonna type this in caps so that there is a larger chance of you actually reading it.

YOU STILL SAID IT.

[Warcow]

I suppose the Americans are Terrorists then, as well?
I'm SURE our soldiers invoke terror, so can we call ourselves terrorists?
Darn... Cow beat me to this. :S


-Duo

Beat you to it Duo :)

DOH! And you beat me to saying I beat you saying it!

[dirka dirka]

I'd say the people have Iraq have every reason to call the American's terrorists then. Do you think they aren't invoking terror when they bomb "terrorists" and end up killing thousands of innocents? You need to be careful who you label as terrorists.

Many of the "insurgents" are merely men defending their country from a foreign occupation. It's not as black and white as you make it out to be.

Dirka, you really need to stop relying on dictionaries to settle your arguments, what was said was completely fine. Words aren't always used in their strict lexical connotation, and frequently their stipulative definition is more commonly used.

If a man and a woman are having a marital spat, and verbal abuse is flying, I don't think anyone would call that a debate, and yet you can rightfully call it an argument.
I wasn't relying on the dictionary at all. Everybody I would fight would be invoking terror in one way or another. That is what I meant, I did not mean the people in the plains on 9/11, although they could be included as terrorists. Not to mention that this wasn't even part of the argument. This was just someone asking if I'd fight if the time came to.

[dirka dirka]

I feel like a parrot.

I'm gonna type this in caps so that there is a larger chance of you actually reading it.

YOU STILL SAID IT.
I said alot of things 6 months ago, and so did you.

I suppose the Americans are Terrorists then, as well?
I'm SURE our soldiers invoke terror, so can we call ourselves terrorists?
Darn... Cow beat me to this. :S


-Duo
This is a point. However, I'd feel I was on the right side, or I would not being doing it.

[Forest_Archer]

Kyir- If you don't like my thread, you don't have to read it. I need to get this message clear. Bush is ignorant and liberal organizations are making petitionsto impeach him. I think it's an ingenius idea.

[***Duo***]

Dirka - You are wrong, on atleast ONE thing here: You are being a hypocrite.

I'll show you.

Yea, he is a horrible president because he is an average guy. Shut the hell up, none of that has to do with anything. You need to learn what makes and breaks a president, and its not how good he can talk.

Insult.

It is also polite not to insult someone who is doing his best, especially when you couldn't do 1/10th as well. You're all idiots for insulting him. Lets sit on our asses and complain... <- sound familiar?


btw, Forest_Archer, its pathetic that you retaliate with a neg

Insult.

No. I said its sad that you negged me because I negged you. Thats not a valid reason. Its just plain sad. You're an idiot.

Insult.

No. Wrong. You're an idiot. You just sterotyped all Americans. This proves you're dumb as hell.

Insult.

and all you can do is complain. My advice is STFU.

It isn't because of any flaws or anything like that. He is the better person for the job.

Insult.


No. Shut up. Its sad idiots like you believe that kind of stuff.

Insult.

I'm not even done with the 2nd page of this thread!
Come now Dirka... you have more class than this...
Atleast... I hope.

I'm NOT saying you're wrong about everything, or insulting everything. I AM saying you are being a hypocrite on atleast ONE subject: Insults.
That is ALL I wanted to clear up.
Back to friendly debating! :)


-Duo

[Jehutyv.2.0]

I said alot of things 6 months ago, and so did you.

SUre I did. But the difference between you and me is that I would admit that I was wrong. But I'm not the topic here. You are. You're like the Neo of points, you know that? You still said it and have not admitted fault.

Hypocrite.

[inked]

I feel our soldiers are not terrorists because they are acting in good faith and it is the responsibilty and fault of those who give the order and not that of who in good faith executes the order.

[dirka dirka]

Dirka - You are wrong, on atleast ONE thing here: You are being a hypocrite.
I won't deny I'm insulting alot of these idiots who have no clue what they are saying. It doesn't make me a hypocrite. I only said don't insult when you're cornered or wrong, just stop is what I suggested.

[***Duo***]

I said alot of things 6 months ago, and so did you.


This is a point. However, I'd feel I was on the right side, or I would not being doing it.

Hmmm...

Do you know WHY the people in Iraq and what not, hate us?
Do you know WHY terrorists do what they do?
If so, please explain.


-Duo

[dirka dirka]

SUre I did. But the difference between you and me is that I would admit that I was wrong. But I'm not the topic here. You are. You're like the Neo of points, you know that? You still said it and have not admitted fault.

Hypocrite.
Not at all... I admit I was very wrong 9 out of 10 times I posted back then...

[***Duo***]

SUre I did. But the difference between you and me is that I would admit that I was wrong. But I'm not the topic here. You are. You're like the Neo of points, you know that? You still said it and have not admitted fault.

Hypocrite.

He has admitted to this, J V2. Lets move on to the matters of discussion at hand. :)


-Duo

[Kyir]

Kyir- If you don't like my thread, you don't have to read it. I need to get this message clear. Bush is ignorant and liberal organizations are making petitionsto impeach him. I think it's an ingenius idea.

and do you really think it'll work? if you havn't noticed theres little to no chance of that, and if he was, do you really think anything would change, we'd still be in iraq becuase sadly enough if we left now all hell would break loose probly

[dirka dirka]

Hmmm...

Do you know WHY the people in Iraq and what not, hate us?
Do you know WHY terrorists do what they do?
If so, please explain.


-Duo
Why they hate us is obvious, why they are terrorists is less obvious... there are many reasons. I still feel this is the right side, even if they are fighting for religion or family or anything.

[Mithrandir]

I think it is nothing short of ridiculous that Jehuty doesn't have his 11th rep box after pwning Dirka so patiently and thoroughly.

[***Duo***]

Why they hate us is obvious, why they are terrorists is less obvious... there are many reasons. I still feel this is the right side, even if they are fighting for religion or family or anything.

Terrorists do what they do, more often than not, because they feel they have no other option.
What would you do, if you saw your people dying, all around you every day?
Because some other group is taking your supplies?
Are you going to sit back, and watch as your people die?
No. You are going to do something about it.
Something that will hopefully get peoples attention, to tell them to stop.
How does the rest of the world react?
Not well.


-Duo

[Sage Thief]

Wow the almight duo ssaves the day again.:rolleyes:

[dirka dirka]

I think it is nothing short of ridiculous that Jehuty doesn't have his 11th rep box after pwning Dirka so patiently and thoroughly.
He didn't at all...

Terrorists do what they do, more often than not, because they feel they have no other option.
What would you do, if you saw your people dying, all around you every day?
Because some other group is taking your supplies?
Are you going to sit back, and watch as your people die?
No. You are going to do something about it.
Something that will hopefully get peoples attention, to tell them to stop.
How does the rest of the world react?
Not well.


-Duo
I would fight back in their situation. However, that doesn't change that I feel we are on the right side, and I feel they are terrorists not us.

[***Duo***]

Wow the almight duo ssaves the day again.:rolleyes:

What does that mean? :S


-Duo

[Learz]

*casually steers the conversation*
Well, enough of America liked him as to elect him Pres.
Not starting a war, just pointing that out.



(if this was mentioned somewhere in the last 9 pages, oh well)

[***Duo***]

He didn't at all...


I would fight back in their situation. However, that doesn't change that I feel we are on the right side, and I feel they are terrorists not us.

EXACTLY!!

You FEEL you are on the right side.
So do they!
Your family/friends are dying, starving, and being killed, while the people that are supposesd to be helping you; Their family/friends sleep safe and sound, with all the provisions neccecary.
That doesn't change the fact that what they are doing is wrong.
BUT! Does that not tell you, WE are partially to blame for that?


-Duo

[Warcow]

There has never EVER been a post more worthy of a boatload of rep than the one Duo has just made. He has said exactly what so many people around the world fail to realize.

Yet, I am unable to reward him for his beautiful post :( Please, please, PLEASE someone rep Duo for that post.

EDIT* Talking about this one.


Terrorists do what they do, more often than not, because they feel they have no other option.
What would you do, if you saw your people dying, all around you every day?
Because some other group is taking your supplies?
Are you going to sit back, and watch as your people die?
No. You are going to do something about it.
Something that will hopefully get peoples attention, to tell them to stop.
How does the rest of the world react?
Not well.


-Duo

[dirka dirka]

EXACTLY!!

You FEEL you are on the right side.
So do they!
Your family/friends are dying, starving, and being killed, while your enemies family/friends sleep safe and sound, with all the provisions neccecary.
That doesn't change the fact that what they are doing is wrong.
BUT! Does that not tell you, WE are partially to blame for that?


-Duo
Yea, but the fact remains, its all in good cause, and I'd still do it. I wouldn't want to have to kill the ones fighting cause they have to, but... I'd gladly fight against terrorists.

[Learz]

You have given out too much Reputation in the last 24 hours, try again later.

Don't look at me.

[Hoolwath]

...



Done! I signed you.

[Mithrandir]

Warcow, I'll pos Duo for you if you neg Dirka for me. Sadly I negged him too recently for it to let me do it again.:(

[***Duo***]

Yea, but the fact remains, its all in good cause, and I'd still do it. I wouldn't want to have to kill the ones fighting cause they have to, but... I'd gladly fight against terrorists.

That is a reason we are fighting, Dirk.
We think one side is wrong, and the other is right.
We are both at fault.


-Duo

[***Duo***]

There has never EVER been a post more worthy of a boatload of rep than the one Duo has just made. He has said exactly what so many people around the world fail to realize.

Yet, I am unable to reward him for his beautiful post :( Please, please, PLEASE someone rep Duo for that post.

EDIT* Talking about this one.

I thank you for the compliment, Cow. :)


-Duo

[dirka dirka]

That is a reason we are fighting, Dirk.
We think one side is wrong, and the other is right.
We are both at fault.


-Duo
but the fact remains, I'd still fight against them, cause something needs to be done to fix this.

[Warcow]

Warcow, I'll pos Duo for you if you neg Dirka for me. Sadly I negged him too recently for it to let me do it again.:(

I have to spread it as well, and I negged Dirka mildly recently as it is.

Thanks for the help guys, I think my newest goal it to make sure Duo hits 11 boxes within the week . . .

[***Duo***]

but the fact remains, I'd still fight against them, cause something needs to be done to fix this.

In a world where fighting is the way of negotiation, that is what many think.
What we need to gear our mind set towards, is trying to make everyone happy.
That is EXTREMELY difficult, however.

This brings us into the Science catagory, boys and girls; Where we need to figure how to solve things such as world hunger.
Then, many of these things wouldn't happen!


-Duo

[Mithrandir]

I have to spread it as well, and I negged Dirka mildly recently as it is.

Thanks for the help guys, I think my newest goal it to make sure Duo hits 11 boxes within the week . . .
I gave him a nice pos anyway.

My goal is to get Dirka down to 10 boxes by the end of the week.

[Jehutyv.2.0]

Why they hate us is obvious, why they are terrorists is less obvious... there are many reasons. I still feel this is the right side, even if they are fighting for religion or family or anything.
The reason that they are terrorists should be obvious. Islamist extremist.

[dirka dirka]

In a world where fighting is the way of negotiation, that is what many think.
What we need to gear our mind set towards, is trying to make everyone happy.
That is EXTREMELY difficult, however.

This brings us into the Science catagory, boys and girls; Where we need to figure how to solve things such as world hunger.
Then, many of these things wouldn't happen!


-Duo
Its difficult cause idiots will always cause terror. The thing is, our attacks, being if we are terrorists are not, were the result of them being terrorists first.

[dirka dirka]

The reason that they are terrorists should be obvious. Islamist extremist.
Thats not the only reason, nor even a valid one.

[***Duo***]

Its difficult cause idiots will always cause terror. The thing is, our attacks, being if we are terrorists are not, were the result of them being terrorists first.


Actually, I am not so sure.

Their country has been oppressed for SO long...
We were there fighting when George Bush Sr. was President.
We may have been a root cause for them losing so many supplies they need.
I'll need to look into that, however.


-Duo

[cuckoo]

but the fact remains, I'd still fight against them, cause something needs to be done to fix this.

Has it ever occured to people that these people are "terrorists" because they are sick of oppression and racism? They are sick of being pushed around, being slapped with sanctions?

Perhaps they don't like being invaded and then ignored? Perhaps they simply want to fight against people oppressing them?

These people were once called "freedom fighters", but now are defaced as terrorists.

[dirka dirka]

Has it ever occured to people that these people are "terrorists" because they are sick of oppression and racism? They are sick of being pushed around, being slapped with sanctions?

Perhaps they don't like being invaded and then ignored? Perhaps they simply want to fight against people oppressing them?

These people were once called "freedom fighters", but now are defaced as terrorists.
... their motive was already talked about.

[Office_Shredder]

but the fact remains, I'd still fight against them, cause something needs to be done to fix this.

How does fighting fix anything? If you haven't noticed, we've been fighting for over four years now, and we haven't gotten very far, have we? We toppled Hussein and the Taliban, and yet..... just yesterday power and water were out in Bagdahd because of insurgent strikes. As we continue to fight in Iraq, we continue to give Al Qaida the justification to join them, AND a local fighting ground for new recruits to train in. And this whole time we've been fighting in Iraq... how much safer have we really been? Do you think all the terror cells in the US decided to not plan anything because we're in Iraq? I find that doubtful at best

[dirka dirka]

How does fighting fix anything? If you haven't noticed, we've been fighting for over four years now, and we haven't gotten very far, have we? We toppled Hussein and the Taliban, and yet..... just yesterday power and water were out in Bagdahd because of insurgent strikes. As we continue to fight in Iraq, we continue to give Al Qaida the justification to join them, AND a local fighting ground for new recruits to train in. And this whole time we've been fighting in Iraq... how much safer have we really been? Do you think all the terror cells in the US decided to not plan anything because we're in Iraq? I find that doubtful at best
Saying fighting solves nothing is just... uninformed. Sure, its not the best way, but its the only way that will work in my opinion.

[***Duo***]

How does fighting fix anything? If you haven't noticed, we've been fighting for over four years now, and we haven't gotten very far, have we? We toppled Hussein and the Taliban, and yet..... just yesterday power and water were out in Bagdahd because of insurgent strikes. As we continue to fight in Iraq, we continue to give Al Qaida the justification to join them, AND a local fighting ground for new recruits to train in. And this whole time we've been fighting in Iraq... how much safer have we really been? Do you think all the terror cells in the US decided to not plan anything because we're in Iraq? I find that doubtful at best

We've been fighting longer than four years.
And, yes. We continually give Terrorists more and more reason to strike. Being in their country, trying to change their ways, while they may be in the US, won't exactly motivate them to stop their activities.


-Duo

[Mithrandir]

How do you tell how many rep points someone has?

By the way, if you neg Dirka, post so here so I can pos you for it.

That means you Jeffery.

[Sage Thief]

Thats not the only reason, nor even a valid one.


Holy crap dude you got a neg from jeff as well they hurt huh?

[Office_Shredder]

dirka, fighting does solve nothing. WWII was a direct byproduct of the rationale at the end of WWI that war solves problems. The Cold War standoff, on the other hand, was solved because at the end of WWII people realized fighting kind of blows, and sat together and talked about all their problems.

[dirka dirka]

Holy crap dude you got a neg from jeff as well they hurt huh?
Not really... barely did a thing.


Seriously guys, I'm waiting for you to make a point. The creater of this thread is just an idiot. I'm still waiting for one of you to say something of merit that makes bush a bad guy.

[dirka dirka]

dirka, fighting does solve nothing. WWII was a direct byproduct of the rationale at the end of WWI that war solves problems. The Cold War standoff, on the other hand, was solved because at the end of WWII people realized fighting kind of blows, and sat together and talked about all their problems.
Wow.. fighting definitly solves things. This can't even be denied... Not every time, sure, but it does solve problems.

[Jehutyv.2.0]

Thats not the only reason, nor even a valid one.
There you go asserting a statement without offering any proof. Again.

[Office_Shredder]

We've been fighting longer than four years.
And, yes. We continually give Terrorists more and more reason to strike. Being in their country, trying to change their ways, while they may be in the US, won't exactly motivate them to stop their activities.


-Duo

I meant the four years since 9/11 that Bush has been here to make sure freedom is on the march :rolleyes:

[dirka dirka]

There you go asserting a statement without offering any proof. Again.
There is plenty of proof... we already talked about their reasons. Duo and I agree on this, they fight cause they have to.

[Office_Shredder]

Wow.. fighting definitly solves things. This can't even be denied... Not every time, sure, but it does solve problems.

No, fighting is what is called a "band-aid solution." You can cover the problem up, but it's just going to pop back again. While band-aid solutions are nice to use while creating a permanent solution, they cannot be relied on as a viable way of putting everything straight.

[***Duo***]

Not really... barely did a thing.


Seriously guys, I'm waiting for you to make a point. The creater of this thread is just an idiot. I'm still waiting for one of you to say something of merit that makes bush a bad guy.

You changed the subject! :(
As for Bush being bad. I don't think he is neccecarily 'bad'.
I won't say he has done an excellent job either.
No one is perfect, but he can definately improve.

I meant the four years since 9/11 that Bush has been here to make sure freedom is on the march :rolleyes:

Ah, alright. :)


-Duo

[inked]

-No child left behind.
-War based on false information
-Faith based and community intiatives
-Attempting to have the republican party control the judical branch so that they could rule all the checks and balances of our goverent system. Giving a single party the power to outlaw critical laws that rely on the liberal interpretation of "interstate comerce".
-appointing his personal lawyer a supreme court judge( keep in mind she has zero experience as a judge.)
-Leading our country into the largest debt in history.
-Sacrificed citizens rights for "homeland security"
-ruined foreign affairs
-Imprisioning people in guantanamo bay without trial.

[cuckoo]

... their motive was already talked about.

All I saw you saying was something along the lines of: "these people are terrorists, they attacked us first, I'm not going to sit down and think about WHY they attacked us or if blindly lashing out is right, but I'm on the right side, and support the slaughter of innocents".

[dirka dirka]

No, fighting is what is called a "band-aid solution." You can cover the problem up, but it's just going to pop back again. While band-aid solutions are nice to use while creating a permanent solution, they cannot be relied on as a viable way of putting everything straight.
No, seriously. Sometimes, maybe. However fighting does solve things. Hitler was fought against, and in turn, the problem of him was solved.

You changed the subject! :(
There is really nothing left here. I've made all my points, and everyone cried about me calling people idiots and ignored the points. You're the only one who actually argued with any merit.

[dirka dirka]

All I saw you saying was something along the lines of: "these people are terrorists, they attacked us first, I'm not going to sit down and think about WHY they attacked us or if blindly lashing out is right, but I'm on the right side, and support the slaughter of innocents".
Thats all you saw? Read more.

[Jehutyv.2.0]

There is plenty of proof... we already talked about their reasons. Duo and I agree on this, they fight cause they have to.
There you again! What proof is there that it isn't a valid reason!

[Kyir]

Not really... barely did a thing.


Seriously guys, I'm waiting for you to make a point. The creater of this thread is just an idiot. I'm still waiting for one of you to say something of merit that makes bush a bad guy.

he casued familys all over the U.S. to lose parents and children, that isnt bad enough?

[Office_Shredder]

No, seriously. Sometimes, maybe. However fighting does solve things. Hitler was fought against, and in turn, the problem of him was solved

No.... Hitler was fought against, and the problem of a war hungry Europe was covered up. The creation of the UN is what solved the problem of massive wars spanning the entire planet. Look at WWI. We fought, we won, we went home after grinding Germany into the dust. Why? Because we solved the problem by fighting.... the work was done. No more problem. Then.... just 30 years later... Germany's gearing up its war machine to avenge the wrongs committed by the allies in WWI. Gee, guess the fighting didn't really solve the problem, did it?

[dirka dirka]

-No child left behind.
What about it?

-War based on false information
Some false information, not all... and was he suppose to predict the future and know it was wrong? This doesn't make him bad.

-Faith based and community intiatives
What about it?

-Attempting to have the republican party control the judical branch so that they could rule all the checks and balances of our goverent system. Giving a single party the power to outlaw critical laws that rely on the liberal interpretation of "interstate comerce".
What about it?

-appointing his personal lawyer a supreme court judge( keep in mind she has zero experience as a judge.)
Didn't say I agreed with everything. Infact, I pointed out I didn't agree with everything.

-Leading our country into the largest debt in history.
OHNOZ, BAD PR!! CRY!!

-Sacrificed citizens rights for "homeland security"
Yea, since the citizens would rather have bombs going off every day. I know I would.

-ruined foreign affairs
What about them? What ones?

-Imprisioning people in guantanamo bay without trial.
You can imprison anybody without a trial... you get arrested, goto jail, and wait for trial.

[Mithrandir]

I cannot tell you guys how depressing it is for me, as a Bush-supporter, to watch as the only person on these forums with the spare time and patience to defend Bush against a sea of Bush-haters is dirka dirka, who is positively an embarrassment to everything I stand for about intellectual integrity.

[dirka dirka]

There you again! What proof is there that it isn't a valid reason!
The last part saying it wasnt valid was my opinion. That was obvious.

[dirka dirka]

No.... Hitler was fought against, and the problem of a war hungry Europe was covered up. The creation of the UN is what solved the problem of massive wars spanning the entire planet. Look at WWI. We fought, we won, we went home after grinding Germany into the dust. Why? Because we solved the problem by fighting.... the work was done. No more problem. Then.... just 30 years later... Germany's gearing up its war machine to avenge the wrongs committed by the allies in WWI. Gee, guess the fighting didn't really solve the problem, did it?
I'd say it did. If they didn't fight, he would have killed MANY more. Fighting solved it.

[dirka dirka]

he casued familys all over the U.S. to lose parents and children, that isnt bad enough?
we already covered this

[dirka dirka]

I cannot tell you guys how depressing it is for me, as a Bush-supporter, to watch as the only person on these forums with the spare time and patience to defend Bush against a sea of Bush-haters is dirka dirka, who is positively an embarrassment to everything I stand for about intellectual integrity.
If you think I'm so wrong, or have something else to add, then do it. Don't just sit around and say lets neg dirka, actually try arguing.

[***Duo***]

No.... Hitler was fought against, and the problem of a war hungry Europe was covered up. The creation of the UN is what solved the problem of massive wars spanning the entire planet. Look at WWI. We fought, we won, we went home after grinding Germany into the dust. Why? Because we solved the problem by fighting.... the work was done. No more problem. Then.... just 30 years later... Germany's gearing up its war machine to avenge the wrongs committed by the allies in WWI. Gee, guess the fighting didn't really solve the problem, did it?

Oh contraer'.
It made things worse.
That's really what we need to happen with this war.
So many young deaths, for a repeat of history 30 years later... ? :(


-Duo

[Jehutyv.2.0]

The last part saying it wasnt valid was my opinion. That was obvious.
Hmm. So obvious you don't supply proof? Convenient when you set what is obvious and what is not.

I'm right, you're wrong, for obvious reasons. End of discussion, you lose.

[dirka dirka]

Hmm. So obvious you don't supply proof? Convenient when you set what is obvious and what is not.

I'm right, you're wrong, for obvious reasons. End of discussion, you lose.
No, the last part, being my opinion, wasnt what we were debating on. I provided my opinion on it, however we didn't go into details on that subject. We already went into details on their valid reasons to fight.

[Mithrandir]

If you think I'm so wrong, or have something else to add, then do it. Don't just sit around and say lets neg dirka, actually try arguing.
Unlike other people here, I lack the time and patience to put everything you say back in context to show how empty your arguments are.

Edit: By the way, that isn't a jab at the people arguing with Dirka. I appreciate your patience.

[cuckoo]

Thats all you saw? Read more.

I re-read that part, and all I saw was you making comments like:

Yea, but the fact remains, its all in good cause, and I'd still do it. I wouldn't want to have to kill the ones fighting cause they have to, but... I'd gladly fight against terrorists.

You're just making silly statements with no backing about how your side is right.

[dirka dirka]

Unlike other people here, I lack the time and patience to put everything you say back in context to show how empty your arguments are.
So instead, you make useless comments and flame randomly.

[dirka dirka]

I re-read that part, and all I saw was you making comments like:



You're just making silly statements with no backing about how your side is right.
No. Stop being dumb, seriously. My side is right in my opinion or I wouldnt be on that side.

[Popa Midnight]

On the real... Clinton was the best prez!

[Jehutyv.2.0]

No. Stop being dumb, seriously. My side is right in my opinion or I wouldnt be on that side.
Now I know dirka is bullshitting us.

[Mithrandir]

So instead, you make useless comments and flame randomly.
If they result in you getting more negs, they would be classified as useful comments.

And I never flame randomly. I flame people that earn it. You have earned it in almost every argument I've seen you in. The saddest thing is that you can't see how stubborn and unreasonable you are and everyone here can.

Enjoy your kool-aid young man.

[dirka dirka]

On the real... Clinton was the best prez!
I disagree. He might have been good... politically. However, his personal life set a bad example. He was an okay president.

[dirka dirka]

Now I know dirka is bullshitting us.
ohh yea, i think my side is right, so im bullshiting u...

[dirka dirka]

If they result in you getting more negs, they would be classified as useful comments.

And I never flame randomly. I flame people that earn it. You have earned it in almost every argument I've seen you in. The saddest thing is that you can't see how stubborn and unreasonable you are and everyone here can.

Enjoy your kool-aid young man.
Its not useful to the topic of this thread.


I see how stubborn I am, I'm not unreasonable. Stubborn cause I believe in the war, with sufficient reason.

[TurtleKaze]

... dirka dirka, who is positively an embarrassment to everything I stand for about intellectual integrity.

Speaking of an embarrassment to intellectual integrity... Nuculur weapons?

(Edit) And I'm tired of people referring to Bush as an "average person." He is far below average. If your dad is as rich as he is and president of the US, and you can only scrape by with "C" average? You would have to be damn near retarded.

[cuckoo]

No. Stop being dumb, seriously. My side is right in my opinion or I wouldnt be on that side.

How am I being dumb? You say you're side is right, fine. I challenge that belief and you make some excuse as to why you can't make a decent arguement against it?

I found NO argument in previous posts that refuted my statement.

[***Duo***]

Its not useful to the topic of this thread.


I see how stubborn I am, I'm not unreasonable. Stubborn cause I believe in the war, with sufficient reason.

What is your sufficient reason in believing in the war?
Just that you believe it's right?


-Duo

[Office_Shredder]

For Dirka's benefit (and because I love ranting):
-No child left behind
This is possibly the most anti-education law possible. Essentially.... if your school is not capable of producing continued statistically significant improvements in education in every possible field, your funding gets cut. What I don't get is how cutting funding is supposed to help the kids get an education. Sure, the incentive to make sure kids get educated is nice, but the goal is impossible.

-War based on false information
Bush actively ignored the advice of people within his administration who told him to slow down and look a bit deeper, because the evidence of WMD was shaky. He had opportunities to come to the realization that Hussein didn't have a stockhold of nuclear weapons under his bed, but decided not to look at the problem rationaly.

-Faith based and community intiatives
This is a bad one, I don't get it either.

-Attempting to have the republican party control the judical branch so that they could rule all the checks and balances of our goverent system. Giving a single party the power to outlaw critical laws that rely on the liberal interpretation of "interstate comerce".
This is another bad one. It's not his fault that he wants the courts to vote how he believes :rolleyes:

-appointing his personal lawyer a supreme court judge( keep in mind she has zero experience as a judge.)
Miers is a terrible pick for a judge. According to her supporters, she's trustworthy because she's religious, and because they have information on her they're not allowed to share. This sounds awfully suspicious to me. What information can you not tell us? Bush was turned down by several other candidates because they didn't want their whole history paraded down the street for people to see.... so why does Miers get this extra layer of secrecy? Probably because they aren't hiding anything except her mediocrity.

-Leading our country into the largest debt in history.
Bush came into office with one of the biggest (if not the biggest) surpluses in history. Then he blew it. So much for smaller government

-Sacrificed citizens rights for "homeland security"
The idea that the FBI can wire tap people without proving they pose a potential threat is frighteningly similar to... say.... the KGB. But Bush is pro-democracy, don't worry :)

-ruined foreign affairs
The unilateral invasion of Iraq ruined our relations with Europe. Our "coalition" of 37 nations or whatever has supplied a whopping 10,000 troops to Iraq... if that. So much for international support. International support is nice because when Katrina roles around, it means we have military support in the country because a portion of our troops in Iraq are replaced with European troops, which helps expedite the process of evacuation and rescuing people

-Imprisioning people in guantanamo bay without trial.
The consitution GARAUNTEES the right to a fair and speedy trial. The people in Guantanamo Bay haven't even been CHARGED with anything yet, except being "enemy combatants." Which is just a POW dressed up in fancy language. Which, furthermore, means yes, they do have international rights along with those the consitution specifies.

[Jehutyv.2.0]

I disagree. He might have been good... politically. However, his personal life set a bad example. He was an okay president.The Monica thing? Isn't his personal life supposed to be a private thing? I agree that his lying was bad, but that didn't stop him from being a good president! I mean, nobody harps on Bush for being a bad role model. If they wanted to, they would. But that isn't what being a president is about...If his personal life is the only thing keeping you from judging him as a president, then every political thing you've said is worthless.

[dirka dirka]

How am I being dumb? You say you're side is right, fine. I challenge that belief and you make some excuse as to why you can't make a decent arguement against it?

I found NO argument in previous posts that refuted my statement.
You've got to be kidding... THIS ENTIRE THREAD IS ABOUT MY BELIEF.







Alright, seriously this is just bullshit. I'm not coming around these forums anymore unless I'm stoned so I won't find it in me to argue. You guys fail to accept truths because I call the people stating things are fact, when its false, idiots. The original point: "Bush didn't win the election." He obviously did, he is president is my proof. Duo never stated things as fact, until he established them, and they were indeed fact. Thats why you didn't find me calling him an idiot. P'z!!

[Office_Shredder]

I'd say it did. If they didn't fight, he would have killed MANY more. Fighting solved it.

Like I said, fighting is a good way of covering up the problem so it doesn't bother you while you devise a permanent solution. I'm not being sarcastiic here, it really is effective. But using fighting AS the solution solves very little in the long run

[dirka dirka]

My last post, so you guys don't get pissed that I didn't respond to every point.

The Monica thing? Isn't his personal life supposed to be a private thing? I agree that his lying was bad, but that didn't stop him from being a good president! I mean, nobody harps on Bush for being a bad role model. If they wanted to, they would. But that isn't what being a president is about...If his personal life is the only thing keeping you from judging him as a president, then every political thing you've said is worthless.
His personal life is public though. Thats the thing, he set a bad example through his personal life. Other than that, I have nothing against him.

Office_Shredder: I already knew all of that.

What is your sufficient reason in believing in the war?
Just that you believe it's right?


-Duo
I believe the base of trying to help those in need is good. Sure, it got carried away. I would have stopped it long ago, two people never agree on everything. However, I would have started it.

[Jehutyv.2.0]

ohh yea, i think my side is right, so im bullshiting u...
More of how you presented it. You basically said, "I chose this side, so it has to be the right one!" and insulted them. If you're serious, this is sad.

[Jehutyv.2.0]

My last post, so you guys don't get pissed that I didn't respond to every point.

His personal life is public though. Thats the thing, he set a bad example through his personal life. Other than that, I have nothing against him.

And Bush's daughters getting arrested doesn't even elicit an eyelash-batting from you. Nice logic.

[Popa Midnight]

I disagree. He might have been good... politically. However, his personal life set a bad example. He was an okay president.
Who care's about his personal life aslong as he did his job.

When Clinton was prez we never had hard times financially.
Now with Bush he's getting our money.
I know that it's for the war and the hurricanes but it's 2 much.

[***Duo***]

I just got through reading your post, O_S.
I believe that just about everything you said was naturally correct.
Thank you for pointing out some of these key issues.


-Duo

[inked]

No Child Left Behind- Federal Government is not allowed to make laws or restrictions on education, that is a state responsiblity. Why is this bad? It is bad because it is inflating the powers of the federal government and stealing from the states powers.

War based on false information- Un inspections said there were no WMD's, and yet the Bush Administration invaded Iraq in search of WMD's anyways. How would you like it if England assumed the United States has a huge underground drug trafficing system to England supported by the federal government, and then England invaded us and slaughtered everybody who pshyically opposed the invasion? And then England after a few years decides there is no drugs and instead imprisions Bush for being a terrorist leader?

Faith based and community intiatives-
Establishs a government religion, which happens to be slightly unconstitional. Also it allows the Federal government to outsource problems such as the Hurricane Relief to religous groups. Whats wrong with that? Religous groups can discriminate on who recieves help, and who can help (includes race, religion and gender since the government has no right to limit how religionous groups hire thier workers.).

-Attempting to have the republican party control the judical branch so that they could rule all the checks and balances of our goverent system. Giving a single party the power to outlaw critical laws that rely on the liberal interpretation of "interstate comerce".
The removal of many laws written by democratic party, based on the loose intrepretation of the interstate commerce clause. Which include many discrimination and civil rights laws.

-Imprisioning people in guantanamo bay without trial.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
Is two years speedy? because an American citizen is being held there without trial because George Bush labeled him a terrorist. Do you realize what this could lead to? He could label you or me a terrorist for no reason and imprision us with no intention of release.

-foreign affairs.
If you can't see how this has ruined foreign afairs I think you should be argueing how it hasn't because to most informed people it obviously has. I'll give you a major hint though: No United Nations approval.

[cuckoo]

You've got to be kidding... THIS ENTIRE THREAD IS ABOUT MY BELIEF.

No it isn't. This thread is about Bush-bashing. At least that't what the creator of the thread meant for it to be.

Alright, seriously this is just bullshit. I'm not coming around these forums anymore unless I'm stoned so I won't find it in me to argue. You guys fail to accept truths because I call the people stating things are fact, when its false, idiots.

Just before you say they were your opinions and now you claim they're truths? We have given proof as to why our "false" claims are not false, and all you can do is reiterate your opinion.

The original point: "Bush didn't win the election." He obviously did, he is president is my proof. Duo never stated things as fact, until he established them, and they were indeed fact. Thats why you didn't find me calling him an idiot. P'z!!

Once again, the original point was Bush-bashing, read the first post.

But just to restate my ignored point, Bush was not the winner of the election, he was elected by the Supreme Court.

[Office_Shredder]

Faith based and community intiatives-
Establishs a government religion, which happens to be slightly unconstitional. Also it allows the Federal government to outsource problems such as the Hurricane Relief to religous groups. Whats wrong with that? Religous groups can discriminate on who recieves help, and who can help (includes race, religion and gender since the government has no right to limit how religionous groups hire thier workers.).
Religious groups actually aren't allowed to discriminate on who receives help if they get governmental funding. While I agree that Bush is attempting to inject religion into the government, I don't think he should be cutting off funding to faith based groups (keep in mind the government also funds groups besides Christians) simply because most of them are good at getting the job done, and the government isn't.

-Attempting to have the republican party control the judical branch so that they could rule all the checks and balances of our goverent system. Giving a single party the power to outlaw critical laws that rely on the liberal interpretation of "interstate comerce".
The removal of many laws written by democratic party, based on the loose intrepretation of the interstate commerce clause. Which include many discrimination and civil rights laws.

Discrimination and civil rights laws rely on the loose interpretation of interstate commerce? In case you haven't noticed, by controllling the executive and legislative branches, the Republican Party has been given the keys to the judicial branch by the public. So it is their right, by law, to choose the judges that go on the courts. You can bash them for thinking the way they do, but you can't complain that they pick judges who think the same way they do... that's just called good policy (for them anyway)

[***Duo***]

Not really... barely did a thing.


Seriously guys, I'm waiting for you to make a point. The creater of this thread is just an idiot. I'm still waiting for one of you to say something of merit that makes bush a bad guy.

Um... I thought the thread was based off of this?


-Duo

[Warcow]

These theads always get out of hand so very quickly . . .

Sigh, politics are so silly.

My vote? Feudalism! RAWR! :*paladin:

[***Duo***]

These theads always get out of hand so very quickly . . .

Sigh, politics are so silly.

My vote? Feudalism! RAWR! :*paladin:

Interesting concept...
Make it happen. :)


-Duo

[Jehutyv.2.0]

These theads always get out of hand so very quickly . . .

Sigh, politics are so silly.

My vote? Feudalism! RAWR! :*paladin:
Go forth with your legions of cow-knights! Rase your hooves proudly in the air! Cry moo, and let slip the cows of war!

[inked]

Religious groups actually aren't allowed to discriminate on who receives help if they get governmental funding. While I agree that Bush is attempting to inject religion into the government, I don't think he should be cutting off funding to faith based groups (keep in mind the government also funds groups besides Christians) simply because most of them are good at getting the job done, and the government isn't.

http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLibertylist.cfm?c=37

Discrimination and civil rights laws rely on the loose interpretation of interstate commerce? In case you haven't noticed, by controllling the executive and legislative branches, the Republican Party has been given the keys to the judicial branch by the public. So it is their right, by law, to choose the judges that go on the courts. You can bash them for thinking the way they do, but you can't complain that they pick judges who think the same way they do... that's just called good policy (for them anyway)

The Equal Pay Act amended the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1963. The Equal Pay Act prohibits paying wages based on sex by employers and unions. It does not prohibit other discriminatory practices bias in hiring. It provides that where workers perform equal work in jobs requiring "equal skill, effort, and responsibility and performed under similar working conditions," they should be provided equal pay. The Fair Labor Standards Act applies to employees engaged in some aspect of interstate commerce or all of an employer's workers if the enterprise is engaged as a whole in a significant amount of interstate commerce.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in many more aspects of the employment relationship. It applies to most employers engaged in interstate commerce with more than 15 employees, labor organizations, and employment agencies. The Act prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Sex includes pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions. It makes it illegal for employers to discriminate in hiring, discharging, compensation, or terms, conditions, and privileges of employment. Employment agencies may not discriminate when hiring or referring applicants. Labor Organizations are also prohibited from basing membership or union classifications on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

The American with Disabilities Act (ADA) was enacted to eliminate discrimination against those with handicaps. It prohibits discrimination based on a physical or mental handicap by employers engaged in interstate commerce and state governments. The type of discrimination prohibited is broader than that explicitly outlined by Title VII.

The federal courts to say what is and isn't interstate commerce. The loose interpretation which has been held for a while has said that almost everything is interstate commerce and must follow laws like those above and many others. With judges with stricter interpretations of interstate commerce there is a much higher chance that all of those laws and many others will be not applicable to much of what they protect currently.

[Realist]

Forest Archer, sarcasm hint: Don't make it so over-obvious. If some people are too stupid to get your sarcasm without you telling them, let them wallow in their stupidity.

[Forest_Archer]

Well I tried the sarcasm in the beginning, but I just couldn't take it and had to be true to the terrible facts. That's when I just said 'ya know what? Bush stinks.'

[uniquinous]

Yea, he is a horrible president because he is an average guy. Shut the hell up, none of that has to do with anything. You need to learn what makes and breaks a president, and its not how good he can talk.

Yes, that DOES make him horrible. The president should NOT be average - he should be much much better, while able to relate to the average joe. Similarly, doctors need to be able to relate with their patients and provide empathy from understanding. However, it would be a horrible decision to make any lay-person a doctor if they want.


in conclusion: don't do crack

[Forest_Archer]

The thing is, dirka, this is America. Personally, I won't settle for a 'normal guy,' like you said Bush was. Maybe you think that some average guy makes a good president, but I don't.:cool:

[inked]

I think this is Canada. Just most of us are Americans.

[dirka dirka]

The thing is, dirka, this is America. Personally, I won't settle for a 'normal guy,' like you said Bush was. Maybe you think that some average guy makes a good president, but I don't.:cool:
Why?

[dominion138]

I think this is Canada. Just most of us are Americans.

i'm not an expert but because of the .com in the address doesn't it make it american...canada is .ca right?...

[uniquinous]

Why?
You seem to like dictionary definitions. I encourage you to look up "average". If you have to choose between a GREAT leader, and an AVERAGE leader, are you saying you would put your nation in the hands of an average person? (I'm really asking.)

[Jeffery]

i'm not an expert but because of the .com in the address doesn't it make it american...canada is .ca right?...
TAO is a .com domain which people from any country can register, but is hosted in the US and ran by people from Canada.

[dirka dirka]

You seem to like dictionary definitions. I encourage you to look up "average". If you have to choose between a GREAT leader, and an AVERAGE leader, are you saying you would put your nation in the hands of an average person? (I'm really asking.)
Find me a great man that wants to be president. Everybody has their flaws, most everybody is average. There is NOTHING wrong with average. In fact, between Great and Average, I'd pick average. I want someone who can relate to most everybody else as president.

TAO is a .com domain which people from any country can register, but is hosted in the US and ran by people from Canada.
Bills moved to NY, if thats the person you are refering to from Canada.

[uniquinous]

yeah but the US owns Canada

[Hellblazer]

I think George W. Bush is an outstanding president. Before you neg-rep me, here's why:


He has a whopping approval rating of 39%
He is a redneck
He's learning his ABC's slowly but surely
He graduated from Yale as a C student
His wonderful daughters were arrested once or twice
He knows howda shoot dem terrists!
He says freedom over and over again, hypnotizing mindless Americans into believing that he's half-way decent
He has monkey ears
He made some remarkably awful choices on his Supreme Court Judges


This is kind of like the thread that Inked made about gay people and it inspired me. Bush is an inconsiderate fool.
Don't do drugs! lol

[Jeffery]

yeah but the US owns Canada
Many Canuckians would disagree with you.

[dirka dirka]

yeah but the US owns Canada
I, being an American, even disagree with that.

[dominion138]

TAO is a .com domain which people from any country can register, but is hosted in the US and ran by people from Canada.

thanks jeff

[choplocker-17]

Those are some silly reasons to say why someone is a good president :p . + You can't say someone is a good president until there done because after there done it shows what they did or what they didnt do.

[uniquinous]

I want someone who can relate to most everybody else as president.

Yes, but my point is that a GREAT person can do that. In fact, I would say one of the things that would make a GREAT president is the ability to relate to the average citizen. I believe W is an average guy who can't relate to the mass population for beans. BEANS!

[Jeffery]

Maybe Bush just needs to find a Monica, and loosen up a bit.

[dirka dirka]

Those are some silly reasons to say why someone is a good president :p . + You can't say someone is a good president until there done because after there done it shows what they did or what they didnt do.
and even then, its up for debate. However, people have opinions, but I just hate when people provide false information.

[dirka dirka]

Yes, but my point is that a GREAT person can do that. In fact, I would say one of the things that would make a GREAT president is the ability to relate to the average citizen. I believe W is an average guy who can't relate to the mass population for beans. BEANS!
I believe he can relate to the population well. I believe a great person, such as those making alot of money for their job and are overachieving, can't relate to the average american. We have differing opinions, and truly there is no information that can conclude a static fact on this topic.

[uniquinous]

Why do you think he spends all his time at that ranch? So he can stratergate his next plan? No, it's for Sheila. Everyone knows he has a thing for livestock...

:jester:

[uniquinous]

I believe he can relate to the population well. I believe a great person, such as those making alot of money for their job and are overachieving, can't relate to the average american. We have differing opinions, and truly there is no information that can conclude a static fact on this topic.

I agree with your last sentence, but his recent approval ratings blatantly disagree with everything else in this quote.

[Forest_Archer]

Find me a great man that wants to be president. Everybody has their flaws, most everybody is average. There is NOTHING wrong with average. In fact, between Great and Average, I'd pick average. I want someone who can relate to most everybody else as president.


Try John Kerry.. hmm, what a novel idea! He can relate to people and he's great at the same time. People call those 'democrats.'

[dominion138]

Why do you think he spends all his time at that ranch? So he can stratergate his next plan? No, it's for Sheila. Everyone knows he has a thing for livestock...

:jester:

thats not funny...weather you like him or not he's still the president and deserves respect...if you degrade him you degrade the nation that elected him

[dirka dirka]

thats not funny...weather you like him or not he's still the president and deserves respect...if you degrade him you degrade the nation that elected him
and, actually what he said is slander (i believe) and is against the law

[dominion138]

Try John Kerry.. hmm, what a novel idea! He can relate to people and he's great at the same time. People call those 'democrats.'

kerry had 6 positions to every issue trying to make everyone happy...thus the reason he wasn't elected

[***Duo***]

and, actually what he said is slander (i believe) and is against the law

I don't think so. :rolleyes:
You see people making fun of the President all the time, though they are never arrested.
Freedom Of Speech.


-Duo

[uniquinous]

thats not funny...weather you like him or not he's still the president and deserves respect...if you degrade him you degrade the nation that elected him

It was a joke - completely different in tone and context as the other serious posts I've made. No need to go on demoting me on that silly reputation thing for it. I would have made a joke at a democrats expense just as quickly. ya know, lighten things up just a bit???

maybe?

...guess not. :allok:

[dirka dirka]

I don't think so. :rolleyes:
You see people making fun of the President all the time, though they are never arrested.
Freedom Of Speech.


-Duo
If what they say is false and hurts someone's reputation, it is slander. Freedom of Speech only goes so far, but... how would it look, the president suing some small town 19 year old kid.

[uniquinous]

and, actually what he said is slander (i believe) and is against the law

Yeah, slander is trying to pass off something like "the president rigged the election to guaruntee his win" as truth. This was clearly a joke. It's perfectly legal to joke - says so in the constitution.

[cuckoo]

thats not funny...weather you like him or not he's still the president and deserves respect...if you degrade him you degrade the nation that elected him

Respect is earned, not given. Bush deserves as much respect as he has earned-none.

[dominion138]

Yeah, slander is trying to pass off something like "the president rigged the election to guaruntee his win" as truth. This was clearly a joke. It's perfectly legal to joke - says so in the constitution.

oh?...so its ok to yell fire in a crowded hallway?

[dirka dirka]

Respect is earned, not given. Bush deserves as much respect as he has earned-none.
Are you still alive? Might there be a chance that you wouldn't be alive if he wasn't president and didn't make some of the laws he did? Both of those question can be answered with the same answer. I think he does deserve definitly some respect.

[Jeffery]

oh?...so its ok to yell fire in a crowded hallway?
That wouldn't be considered a joke, because it could endanger peoples lives.

[dirka dirka]

oh?...so its ok to yell fire in a crowded hallway?
I think that has something to do with... disturbing the public.

[dominion138]

Respect is earned, not given. Bush deserves as much respect as he has earned-none.

bush earned his respect when he was elected to office...