Home | Home | Home | Home | Home
Who Would You Like to See Run in 2008? [Archive] - CreedFeed Community

PDA

View Full Version : Who Would You Like to See Run in 2008?


Chase
12-18-2005, 10:40 PM
Who do you think has the best chance of becoming the next president of the United States?

Ana4Stapp
12-18-2005, 10:47 PM
Well I voted for Giuliani, but honestly a woman in White House is an interesting ideathese days...

RMadd
12-19-2005, 12:07 AM
assuming these are our 4 candidates.... I've got to go w/ either Repub on this one. McCain is fairly moderate, and Giuliani would be a sentimental favorite, since he was mayor of NY during 9/11. I'm not opposed to a woman in office, but I sure as hell don't want HRC to be the first. Yikes. I just might move to Canada. And Kerry, well... I just don't like the guy. He was bad enough a year ago that I voted for Bush over him. To be honest, I'm really not sure who else I'd like to see run for the Dems.

But I think that, in all honesty, the quality of candidates from both parties in the past 2 elections ('00 & '04) has been sub-par. I don't think the country is so politically divided: it's that there's 2 very similar candidates (white, wealthy, Christian, etc.) who may differ significantly on only a handful of issues that the parties and media have drummed up to be the things we, as Americans, should worry about. I would be all for voting for the guy who stands up and says "Fuck party politics! I'll do what I and you think is best for this country, regardless of what a monolithic party ideology says." Well, anyone but Ross Perot perhaps. Unfortunately, our electoral system isn't very conducive to this kind of thinking, speech, or activity. So we're stuck with the idea that there's only 2 lenses through which to view the entirety of the American political landscape. It's very frustrating.

Ana4Stapp
12-19-2005, 12:27 AM
assuming these are our 4 candidates.... I've got to go w/ either Repub on this one. McCain is fairly moderate, and Giuliani would be a sentimental favorite, since he was mayor of NY during 9/11. I'm not opposed to a woman in office, but I sure as hell don't want HRC to be the first. Yikes. I just might move to Canada. And Kerry, well... I just don't like the guy. He was bad enough a year ago that I voted for Bush over him. To be honest, I'm really not sure who else I'd like to see run for the Dems.

But I think that, in all honesty, the quality of candidates from both parties in the past 2 elections ('00 & '04) has been sub-par. I don't think the country is so politically divided: it's that there's 2 very similar candidates (white, wealthy, Christian, etc.) who may differ significantly on only a handful of issues that the parties and media have drummed up to be the things we, as Americans, should worry about. I would be all for voting for the guy who stands up and says "Fuck party politics! I'll do what I and you think is best for this country, regardless of what a monolithic party ideology says." Well, anyone but Ross Perot perhaps. Unfortunately, our electoral system isn't very conducive to this kind of thinking, speech, or activity. So we're stuck with the idea that there's only 2 lenses through which to view the entirety of the American political landscape. It's very frustrating.

I got it...and i didnt say Id vote for Hilary if I was american...but just that it was very interesting to see the most powerful nation of the world conducted by a woman --(hey man- Im a woman--*almost* a feminist lol) but dont u think that the problem in your counntry is the ellection system ???

RMadd
12-19-2005, 12:53 AM
I got it...and i didnt say Id vote for Hilary if I was american...but just that it was very interesting to see the most powerful nation of the world conducted by a woman
Oh, I wasn't saying that you would. I was just merely pointing out my own thoughts on the matter. She might be tough and such, but she's really a bit too liberal for mainstream America, and I fear that she might be elected solely because she's a woman, and not based on what she stands for

but dont u think that the problem in your counntry is the ellection system ???
Yeah, definitely. I think the problem with it is not so much the tallying & counting of votes (as well as how those votes count towards electing the President), as seems to have been the problem in recent years. Truth be told, America is really a republic, not a democracy, so the electoral college is one of the facets of this formulation.
Really, though, my problem is more so with the parties and candidates. First, the quality of candidates of late seems piss-poor. Maybe it's because we know more about them than in the past (whether because of media revelations or accusations by the other party or citizens). Also, the whole process starts wayyyyyyyy too early. I remember, in high school, seeing a statistic that showed how campaigning for the election, even as recently as the '70s, didn't really begin until a couple of months before the election (that would be August, September, even October years ago). Since then, however, it's escalated to the point that, now, one year removed from the last election, we're already discussing candidates for the next President, and sometime next year, politicians will begin declaring their intentions to run and you'll start seeing ads for "____ '08."
Back to the issue of party politics: we've got 2 huge parties right now that, together, represent both views on any number of issues in political and social life. If a new issue gains attention that a "third" party (the Greens, Libertarians, etc) has advocated in the past, the Dems or Repubs will gobble up either side to the issue. Third parties are effectively rendered useless in national elections. It's unfortunate because too many people will say "I'm a Republican" or "I'm a Democrat," or adhere to their ideologies (conservative, liberal), and refuse to look at and evaluate each issue for themselves as it presents itself. That produces millions of people who might know where they (and, of course, their party of choice) stands on a particular issue, but they might not quite know why. So I'm essentially stating that our two dominant political parties are making America and Americans dumber in the political realm.

Ana4Stapp
12-19-2005, 01:16 AM
Oh, I wasn't saying that you would. I was just merely pointing out my own thoughts on the matter. She might be tough and such, but she's really a bit too liberal for mainstream America, and I fear that she might be elected solely because she's a woman, and not based on what she stands for

Well, if she a liberal, so I think I would definitely voting for her...lol :D but seriosly I think that she couldnt be voted because SHE IS a WOMAN...the world, is full of chauvinists...as you know.

Yeah, definitely. I think the problem with it is not so much the tallying & counting of votes (as well as how those votes count towards electing the President), as seems to have been the problem in recent years. Truth be told, America is really a republic, not a democracy, so the electoral college is one of the facets of this formulation.

yeah, i know about that, by the way our system here is based in eletronic vote which is not 100% secure, but it reduced the chances of a fraud and accelerated the results.
Its interesting the affirmation you made...very interesting...

Really, though, my problem is more so with the parties and candidates. First, the quality of candidates of late seems piss-poor. Maybe it's because we know more about them than in the past (whether because of media revelations or accusations by the other party or citizens). Also, the whole process starts wayyyyyyyy too early. I remember, in high school, seeing a statistic that showed how campaigning for the election, even as recently as the '70s, didn't really begin until a couple of months before the election (that would be August, September, even October years ago). Since then, however, it's escalated to the point that, now, one year removed from the last election, we're already discussing candidates for the next President, and sometime next year, politicians will begin declaring their intentions to run and you'll start seeing ads for "____ '08."

Again , its not an exclusive phenomenon of Americas politics-- everything is going too fast, too early... and statistics --this is one of the problems I see --you knoew that thatare people that avoid to vote in a best candidate just becuase statistics said he doesnt have chances??? Semms like these people dont want to waste thir votes...you beleive in that?

Back to the issue of party politics: we've got 2 huge parties right now that, together, represent both views on any number of issues in political and social life. If a new issue gains attention that a "third" party (the Greens, Libertarians, etc) has advocated in the past, the Dems or Repubs will gobble up either side to the issue. Third parties are effectively rendered useless in national elections. It's unfortunate because too many people will say "I'm a Republican" or "I'm a Democrat," or adhere to their ideologies (conservative, liberal), and refuse to look at and evaluate each issue for themselves as it presents itself. That produces millions of people who might know where they (and, of course, their party of choice) stands on a particular issue, but they might not quite know why. So I'm essentially stating that our two dominant political parties are making America and Americans dumber in the political realm.
Im not sure if we here are the same way concerning to the politics views...here we have people voting because the "politician' NOT because the party--even though we have people (like me) who prefers vote in the parties not in that person...and we have A LOT of parties now becauseit was definitely the (good) result of 21 years of dictatorship...

Democracy... I think I live in a(most of the times) democratical country ;)

Lunar Shadow
12-19-2005, 02:26 AM
none of the above I would vote Lib as I always do

RMadd
12-19-2005, 02:41 AM
Ana: I learned in a Comparative Politics course that most Central & South American countries tend to prefer politicians who have lively personalities, a "cult of personality," if you will. Is this like 100% true all the time, or just a slight majority of the time that people vote in whoever's more charismatic?

Ana4Stapp
12-19-2005, 09:31 AM
Ana: I learned in a Comparative Politics course that most Central & South American countries tend to prefer politicians who have lively personalities, a "cult of personality," if you will. Is this like 100% true all the time, or just a slight majority of the time that people vote in whoever's more charismatic?

Well, I dont know ...I think in these days we dont have people interestead in "cult of personality" because there arent many politicians who fills that position, except by our president who is an huge example of charismatic leader, but his popularity is downhill right now...

Certainly we have ignorant and too poor people who just vote in politicians that promises GIVE them things ...(like assistencial cards-not sure how to make it clear to you, sorry) that by the way ,never become true....

Steve
12-19-2005, 11:27 AM
Hilary is far too liberal to win over a majority of votes in lots of the red states, and even some of the blue states. If Kerry couldn't pull it off, she's got no chance.

I found a very interesting article regarding Hilary a couple weeks ago (I'll have to find the actual URL) that was pointing out Hilary's voting record in the Senate. Prior to a couple of months ago she was voting against most of the conservative and moderate bills being proposed in the Senate. Then all of a sudden Bill Clinton started making public appearances and giving speeches regarding how Bush screwed up the war and that the troops need to come home. At that same time that Bill started giving these speeches, Hilary changed her voting patterns in the Senate and began voting very moderately. The analyst of the piece pointed out that without a moderate, semi-moderate belief system she probably wouldn't win an election. Seems as if she's preparing herself for a White House run.

Regarding the poll, I think you left out some key people that may be running. I don't think Kerry will win the nomination after his debacle last election. One of the top names being thrown around in the democratic party is Senator Feingold of Wisconsin. Another senator is also being tossed out there but I can't remember his name right now.

RMadd
12-19-2005, 02:25 PM
can't forget some governors either... tho i can't really think of any off the top of my head

Chase
12-19-2005, 05:47 PM
Hilary is far too liberal to win over a majority of votes in lots of the red states, and even some of the blue states. If Kerry couldn't pull it off, she's got no chance.

I found a very interesting article regarding Hilary a couple weeks ago (I'll have to find the actual URL) that was pointing out Hilary's voting record in the Senate. Prior to a couple of months ago she was voting against most of the conservative and moderate bills being proposed in the Senate. Then all of a sudden Bill Clinton started making public appearances and giving speeches regarding how Bush screwed up the war and that the troops need to come home. At that same time that Bill started giving these speeches, Hilary changed her voting patterns in the Senate and began voting very moderately. The analyst of the piece pointed out that without a moderate, semi-moderate belief system she probably wouldn't win an election. Seems as if she's preparing herself for a White House run.

Regarding the poll, I think you left out some key people that may be running. I don't think Kerry will win the nomination after his debacle last election. One of the top names being thrown around in the democratic party is Senator Feingold of Wisconsin. Another senator is also being tossed out there but I can't remember his name right now.

I only put the two front runners from the Republicans and Democrats. There were recent polls done that put Hillary and Rudy as the two contenders in 2008. There are guys like Newt Ginrich, Bill Frist, Mit Romney... and some others who may run. I think McCain is the best choice, but the only issue with him is his age. That may deter him from running. We shall see though.

Ana4Stapp
12-19-2005, 10:51 PM
I only put the two front runners from the Republicans and Democrats. There were recent polls done that put Hillary and Rudy as the two contenders in 2008. There are guys like Newt Ginrich, Bill Frist, Mit Romney... and some others who may run. I think McCain is the best choice, but the only issue with him is his age. That may deter him from running. We shall see though.


Chase, considering Hillary and Giluliani who d you think will obtain more votes????



PS: Really hoping you can answer me this...because seems you are definitely ignoring my posts...:(

Chase
12-20-2005, 02:58 AM
Well... I happen to agree with Steve's belief that Hillary won't win the South. As the modern presidency has shown, the candidate that wins needs to win the South. You can win the big states like California, New York, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts and still not win the Presidency. This was the case with Al Gore and John Kerry. I think that Guiliani would beat Hillary... however, if for some reason the public is sick of having a Republican in office... they could easily put in Hillary. I just have trouble believing that she will actually get any support from the South.

Ana4Stapp
12-20-2005, 05:20 AM
Well... I happen to agree with Steve's belief that Hillary won't win the South. As the modern presidency has shown, the candidate that wins needs to win the South. You can win the big states like California, New York, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts and still not win the Presidency. This was the case with Al Gore and John Kerry. I think that Guiliani would beat Hillary... however, if for some reason the public is sick of having a Republican in office... they could easily put in Hillary. I just have trouble believing that she will actually get any support from the South.


Thanks for your answer, Chase. To sum it up,these south states are too conservative to choose Hillary, right?

uncertaindrumer
12-20-2005, 02:56 PM
I hope McCain runs... Definitely don't wanna see Hilary or Kerry in. DEFINITELY don't want to see Hilary in...

I think the biggest problem is the screwy campaign system we have. It isn't the smartest people who get elected (Bush and Kerry both had D averages in college) or even the most capable people. It's the people who have the money. Granted, that is a generalization, but seriously, does no one think there were better candidates than GEORGE BUSH?! of course there were. Thousands, maybe millions... maybe 300 million. lol. But anyway, I STILL think he was better than Kerry so I was glad he got elected even though I really can't stand him.

There is something wrong with a country when the majority (or at least most of the ones I talk to) couldn't stand EITHER of the candidates but weren't really given a chance at anyone else.

Ah well, ending the rant of the day... I just hope whoever can beat Kerry and Clinton runs...

RMadd
12-20-2005, 03:10 PM
maybe 300 million.
:hammerlol

Chase
12-20-2005, 03:34 PM
Thanks for your answer, Chase. To sum it up,these south states are too conservative to choose Hillary, right?

Absolutely. I just think they're way too conservative to elect Hillary. To put in perspective, I believe it's more likely for the South to back an African-American Republican... then, Hillary, a wealthy, white Democrat.

uncertaindrumer
12-20-2005, 05:48 PM
:hammerlol

Good to see one of my jokes can still elicit a laugh these days :smokin:

Ana4Stapp
12-20-2005, 07:14 PM
Absolutely. I just think they're way too conservative to elect Hillary. To put in perspective, I believe it's more likely for the South to back an African-American Republican... then, Hillary, a wealthy, white Democrat.

I got it, but to you - in which especific issues Hillary 'scares' the southern people ?

uncertaindrumer
12-20-2005, 11:17 PM
Abortion, homosexuality, are probably somewhere near the top of the list.

guitardude1985
12-20-2005, 11:42 PM
I only put the two front runners from the Republicans and Democrats. There were recent polls done that put Hillary and Rudy as the two contenders in 2008. There are guys like Newt Ginrich, Bill Frist, Mit Romney... and some others who may run. I think McCain is the best choice, but the only issue with him is his age. That may deter him from running. We shall see though.

Hmm...to me age really isnt a determining factor when voting for a person running for president. I mean, look at Ronal Reagan he was in his 70's when he was elected and IMO was one of the greatest presidents we ever had and the father of the modern day conservative movement.

I know Hillary is going to run, but it's not like shes going to be just whoosh into the position of running we have to see how she does with the primarys. Who really knows because bush still has three crutial years ahead of him. Pretty much if he can rebound back from low poll numbers we will see what plays out. Also this will be one of the first times a vice president is not going to carry on with what his boss did. I wonder if cheney(not that it's going to happen) could win if he ran?

Ana4Stapp
12-21-2005, 12:52 AM
Abortion, homosexuality, are probably somewhere near the top of the list.


Humm...exactly the words i had imagined to see here, too much liberalism for a very conservative people...

But one interesting note: in England (metropolis) ,from today on, the homosexual 'unions' (not using the word marriage) will be legally allowed but in the US(colonies) this 'topic' is absolutely inconceivable...

Very interesting...:rolleyes:

RMadd
12-21-2005, 12:53 AM
Reagan also looked alot younger than McCain does. Hair dye and a tan do wonders.

Ana4Stapp
12-21-2005, 12:59 AM
I hope McCain runs... Definitely don't wanna see Hilary or Kerry in. DEFINITELY don't want to see Hilary in...


:rolleyes:

Chase
12-21-2005, 02:54 AM
Reagan also looked alot younger than McCain does. Hair dye and a tan do wonders.

Actually, I heard that if McCain gets elected... he'll be the oldest man to take the office of President. Even older than Ronald Reagan. Thomas Jefferson once said that age doesn't matter... just the ideals... or something to that effect.

Chase
12-21-2005, 03:17 AM
Humm...exactly the words i had imagined to see here, too much liberalism for a very conservative people...

But one interesting note: in England (metropolis) ,from today on, the homosexual 'unions' (not using the word marriage) will be legally allowed but in the US(colonies) this 'topic' is absolutely inconceivable...

Very interesting...:rolleyes:

Colonies?! C'mon now... how would you like it if we called you a subject of Portugal? lol j/k... Anyway, the topic of homosexual isn't "inconceivable" in some states. For instance, Massachusetts legalized gay marriage. However, as a whole the majority of Americans are against it (and as a result most states have amendments against it in their state constitutions). I live in California, which is traditionally a Democratic state, but the majority of Californians are against it.

Ana4Stapp
12-21-2005, 02:20 PM
Colonies?! C'mon now... how would you like it if we called you a subject of Portugal? lol j/k... Anyway, the topic of homosexual isn't "inconceivable" in some states. For instance, Massachusetts legalized gay marriage. However, as a whole the majority of Americans are against it (and as a result most states have amendments against it in their state constitutions). I live in California, which is traditionally a Democratic state, but the majority of Californians are against it.


I was kidding too...lol :
But theres no problem cause we were really a colonie of Portugal ( the most important and rich one--that by the way was certainly not a good thing, if you get me....)

Hey I was just thinking interesting the difference between US and England concernin to these polemic issues and put gay marriage as an example. But of course I know isnt a total unanimity, and even in countries like England or Spain (where i "think" gay marriage is allowed too) there are people against it. And I understsnd their position, because it definitely not an easy topic...we have all the culture and religion present in this point of view... Even to me that I am "a little liberal' -this is not an easy issue

Chase
12-21-2005, 06:17 PM
I was kidding too...lol :
But theres no problem cause we were really a colonie of Portugal ( the most important and rich one--that by the way was certainly not a good thing, if you get me....)

Hey I was just thinking interesting the difference between US and England concernin to these polemic issues and put gay marriage as an example. But of course I know isnt a total unanimity, and even in countries like England or Spain (where i "think" gay marriage is allowed too) there are people against it. And I understsnd their position, because it definitely not an easy topic...we have all the culture and religion present in this point of view... Even to me that I am "a little liberal' -this is not an easy issue

I always thought it was funny that little Portugal was powerful enough to control massive Brazil. The same with Spain and Britain... little countries were power.

It it interesting... the U.S. as a whole is more conservative than Great Britain. Yet, nevertheless... Britain still has a strong conservative sect. Margaret Thatcher is one. I'm surprised that so many Brazilians are liberal... based on the fact that Brazil is such a Catholic nation.

uncertaindrumer
12-21-2005, 11:05 PM
Catholic nation

A Catholic nation who doesn't really go to Church, by the looks of it. Sorta like France. Maybe I'm wrong and they do go to Church. They have made abortion illegal, which isn't that liberal.

Ana4Stapp
12-21-2005, 11:11 PM
I always thought it was funny that little Portugal was powerful enough to control massive Brazil. The same with Spain and Britain... little countries were power.

It it interesting... the U.S. as a whole is more liberal than Great Britain. Yet, nevertheless... Britain still has a strong conservative sect. Margaret Thatcher is one. I'm surprised that so many Brazilians are liberal... based on the fact that Brazil is such a Catholic nation.

Lol... How do you know that many barzilians are liberal, Chase??? How? :confused:
I am not sure about that...I know a lot of conservative people ...I think we have a image of a liberal country, but isnt the true. And polemic issues like abortion and gay marriage, for example are not allowed here. Maybe being the biggest Catholic nation is the reason of that.


Just an historic note: Portugal was the first State to appear in the (Spain was the second) Modern Age, so portuguese had a lot of points that gave resulted in the pioneer position concerning to the expansionism in sec XV.They had technology, capital,and the religious support. So while Britain, France and Netherlands were involved in disputes, and having also interior problems to solve , the iberians got ahead of the expansionist process. And after that, everything that Portugal needed to do was to impose a strict colonization model: which means exploitation and the consequence of that of course you know...:rolleyes:

Ana4Stapp
12-21-2005, 11:43 PM
A Catholic nation who doesn't really go to Church, by the looks of it. Sorta like France. Maybe I'm wrong and they do go to Church. They have made abortion illegal, which isn't that liberal.

Are you talking about Brazil??? Cause if you are talking about my country, you are definitely wrong cause brazilians people certainly go to Church.

uncertaindrumer
12-22-2005, 12:13 PM
^Well yeah, that makes sense. I figured Chase had some sort of facts or something to back up his claim Brazil is liberal but apparently not. Not too surprising though.

Ana4Stapp
12-22-2005, 02:42 PM
^Well yeah, that makes sense. I figured Chase had some sort of facts or something to back up his claim Brazil is liberal but apparently not. Not too surprising though.

Well I know we have a liberal image, carnival- for example, but isnt the same of proclaiming all people here is liberal... maybe less conservative than US people...or definitely Portugal people, but..., seriously...Im not sure...:confused:

Anyway I think Chase said to me that he knows some brazilians who live in his city, maybe they are liberal, right???


And not only abortion isnt allowed, gay marriage is definitely a distant possibility here...

uncertaindrumer
12-22-2005, 08:35 PM
^Yeah, which basically measn you are more conservative than the U.S., where abortion is legal and homosexuality is some places.

Go Brazil.

Chase
12-22-2005, 08:49 PM
^Well yeah, that makes sense. I figured Chase had some sort of facts or something to back up his claim Brazil is liberal but apparently not. Not too surprising though.

Well... Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva is a left-wing president from the nation's Worker's Party. The guy is a socialist. In order for the majority to put him in office... would mean that the majority is fairly left wing.

I also never said that Brazil is a liberal nation... I just said that I was surprised by the amount of liberal people in such a strongly Catholic nation.

RMadd
12-22-2005, 10:30 PM
Well... Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva is a left-wing president from the nation's Worker's Party. The guy is a socialist. In order for the majority to put him in office... would mean that the majority is fairly left wing.
either that, or, as Ana & I discussed above, he may've been elected not necessarily for his platform but for his charismatic personality and some promises he may've made.

Ana4Stapp
12-22-2005, 11:48 PM
^Yeah, which basically measn you are more conservative than the U.S., where abortion is legal and homosexuality is some places.

Go Brazil.

:rolleyes: Is that an ironic comment?????

uncertaindrumer
12-22-2005, 11:54 PM
Ironic comment? You mean sarcastic? No. Outlawing abortion is awesome.

uncertaindrumer
12-22-2005, 11:55 PM
Well... Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva is a left-wing president from the nation's Worker's Party. The guy is a socialist. In order for the majority to put him in office... would mean that the majority is fairly left wing.

I also never said that Brazil is a liberal nation... I just said that I was surprised by the amount of liberal people in such a strongly Catholic nation.

Yeah and we have a "conservative" president (not very conservative about wars...) yet our nation is extremely progressive.

RMadd
12-22-2005, 11:59 PM
Bush is faaaaaaaaaaaaaar more neo-conservative than conservative

Ana4Stapp
12-23-2005, 12:12 AM
Well... Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva is a left-wing president from the nation's Worker's Party. The guy is a socialist. In order for the majority to put him in office... would mean that the majority is fairly left wing.

I also never said that Brazil is a liberal nation... I just said that I was surprised by the amount of liberal people in such a strongly Catholic nation.

Its surprising the way you seem to know about Brazil politics and its cool ;) ...but just to bring up something new-- This guy abandoned socialism a log time ago--and connsequently he disappointed millions who voted for him (me include--even though I still love him ;) )

I dont think that the majority brazilian people are socialist, so why choose a socialist??? Lula (his nickname) has a beautiful and sad personal history : he survived poverty and became the charismatic and ethical work leader of the Worker's Party. And people were tired of years and years of explotation and corruption and they wanted to try something new : Lula was the new. Lula was a chance to change things. He was a chance to make things better, especially the social part (always forgot by the others presidents).He was a chance to moralize politics.

But seemed that president forgot his ingenuous socialist ideals, cause he assumed an equilibrated position, especially in economics which disappointed a great number of people, and to get things worse his party is involved in a corruptions scheme.

But I still support him cause im not an ingenuous person to think he can change things in just four years. He needs more time... ;)

Ana4Stapp
12-23-2005, 12:18 AM
either that, or, as Ana & I discussed above, he may've been elected not necessarily for his platform but for his charismatic personality and some promises he may've made.


YES!!!!!! Hes an extraordinary charismatic guy!!!! He is a 'personality'! ;)

Ana4Stapp
12-23-2005, 12:58 AM
Bush is faaaaaaaaaaaaaar more neo-conservative than conservative

whats the difference???:confused:

Chase
12-23-2005, 03:08 AM
Bush is faaaaaaaaaaaaaar more neo-conservative than conservative

If Bush was a "neo-conservative" we would have American soldiers on the border with Mexico (in fact, he would throw out all of the illegal aliens), we would see him protect the holiday of Christmas, we would see less spending, Iran's government would've already been taken out, every Mosque in American would be surveillanced, and English would be institutionalized as the national language. Bush is far from neo-conservative.

Chase
12-23-2005, 03:24 AM
Its surprising the way you seem to know about Brazil politics and its cool ;) ...but just to bring up something new-- This guy abandoned socialism a log time ago--and connsequently he disappointed millions who voted for him (me include--even though I still love him ;) )

I dont think that the majority brazilian people are socialist, so why choose a socialist??? Lula (his nickname) has a beautiful and sad personal history : he survived poverty and became the charismatic and ethical work leader of the Worker's Party. And people were tired of years and years of explotation and corruption and they wanted to try something new : Lula was the new. Lula was a chance to change things. He was a chance to make things better, especially the social part (always forgot by the others presidents).He was a chance to moralize politics.

But seemed that president forgot his ingenuous socialist ideals, cause he assumed an equilibrated position, especially in economics which disappointed a great number of people, and to get things worse his party is involved in a corruptions scheme.

But I still support him cause im not an ingenuous person to think he can change things in just four years. He needs more time... ;)

In my opinion, I believe that it was in Brazil's best interest that he abandoned most of his socialist ideas. I mean, certain socialist measures are successful... but as a whole, history shows us that socialism is a long term failure. The nation's that lead the world are capitalist... and even China's economy is going capitalist.

Ana4Stapp
12-23-2005, 04:34 PM
In my opinion, I believe that it was in Brazil's best interest that he abandoned most of his socialist ideas. I mean, certain socialist measures are successful... but as a whole, history shows us that socialism is a long term failure. The nation's that lead the world are capitalist... and even China's economy is going capitalist.

Yeah, i agreed that socialism wasnt exactly the best thing, but you know all youth people (out off America I think) experienced those ideals as an alternative to exploitation brought by capitalism. But of course after some years all that innocence is over...;)

Ana4Stapp
12-23-2005, 04:39 PM
^Yeah, which basically measn you are more conservative than the U.S., where abortion is legal and homosexuality is some places.

Go Brazil.

Most of this situation is explained by the power of the Catholic Church here...

RMadd
12-24-2005, 02:47 PM
Bush is far from neo-conservative.
you're absolutely right. he doesn't use religion as a basis for anything, nor do the majority of his current supporters.

uncertaindrumer
12-24-2005, 09:36 PM
you're absolutely right. he doesn't use religion as a basis for anything, nor do the majority of his current supporters.

Oh I wouldn't say that much. HE doesn't, but I know TONS of ultra conservatives who use God as an answer for everything from the war to tax cuts...

Ana4Stapp
12-25-2005, 10:42 PM
Oh I wouldn't say that much. HE doesn't, but I know TONS of ultra conservatives who use God as an answer for everything from the war to tax cuts...


A LOT of people use God and religion as an excuse for everything...and they claim themselves like religious people...:rolleyes:

RMadd
12-26-2005, 01:06 AM
yeah, the funny thing about that, Ana, is that I'm pretty sure Jesus/God wouldn't advocate a war like Bush has.... but I guess it's just appealing to our inner redneck or something like that....

Chase
12-26-2005, 02:11 AM
yeah, the funny thing about that, Ana, is that I'm pretty sure Jesus/God wouldn't advocate a war like Bush has.... but I guess it's just appealing to our inner redneck or something like that....

But would Jesus/God advocate the Taliban support of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan? But would Jesus/God advocate the mass murders of Kurds and Shia at the hands of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party? There's nothing redneck about stopping a regime that funded the 9/11 hijackers and about putting a mass murdering dictator in a prison cell.

Chase
12-26-2005, 02:25 AM
you're absolutely right. he doesn't use religion as a basis for anything, nor do the majority of his current supporters.

You're trying to make Bush out to be aligned with fascism because the man is a Christian. Like I said before... he hasn't done anything to halt the flow of illegal immigrants into the United States... nor has he been conservative with the economy. He hasn't really done much to protect Christian holidays from rabid ACLU members. Being against abortion and gay marriage doesn't make someone a neo-con. John Kerry is against gay marriage... as are many other prominent democrats. Bush didn't invade Iraq because of religion... or for oil. He, like many other countries around the world viewed Saddam Hussein as a legitimate threat to peace in the Middle East. Sure, there was flawed intelligence... but the decision to oust Hussein isn't the product of neo-conservativism. If anything, Bush's foreign policy regarding the Middle East is liberal. The ideas of individual liberties, personal dignity, free expression, religious tolerance, private property, universal human rights, transparency of government, limitations on government power, popular sovereignty, national self-determination, privacy, enlightened and rational policy, the rule of law, fundamental equality, a free market economy, and free trade are all fundamentals of liberal though. Iraqis are now allowed to abide by all of these components.

Ana4Stapp
12-26-2005, 02:04 PM
You're trying to make Bush out to be aligned with fascism because the man is a Christian. Like I said before... he hasn't done anything to halt the flow of illegal immigrants into the United States... nor has he been conservative with the economy. He hasn't really done much to protect Christian holidays from rabid ACLU members. Being against abortion and gay marriage doesn't make someone a neo-con. John Kerry is against gay marriage... as are many other prominent democrats. Bush didn't invade Iraq because of religion... or for oil. He, like many other countries around the world viewed Saddam Hussein as a legitimate threat to peace in the Middle East. Sure, there was flawed intelligence... but the decision to oust Hussein isn't the product of neo-conservativism. If anything, Bush's foreign policy regarding the Middle East is liberal. The ideas of individual liberties, personal dignity, free expression, religious tolerance, private property, universal human rights, transparency of government, limitations on government power, popular sovereignty, national self-determination, privacy, enlightened and rational policy, the rule o law, fundamental equality, a free market economy, and free trade are all fundamentals of liberal though. Iraqis are now allowed to abide by all of these components.

Personally I cant see Bush as a fascist, but I cant stand his foreign policy as everyone here knows...:D But answer me that : do you think these are (the points in black) really the Bush reasons to invade Iraq??? Really???

Chase
12-26-2005, 06:22 PM
Personally I cant see Bush as a fascist, but I cant stand his foreign policy as everyone here knows...:D But answer me that : do you think these are (the points in black) really the Bush reasons to invade Iraq??? Really???

I honestly see that as part of the reason, yes. There's an idea within American foreign policy called "democratic peace." Keep in mind that this isn't a new issue... it was heavily prevalent during the Cold War as well. What this means is that the more democratic nations there are in the world, there is a less chance that these democratic nations will go to war with each other. This a major theme surrounding America's policy on counterterrorism. It's no surprise that the main reason why terrorists are in Iraq is because they don't want Iraqis to live by the principles that I have previously mentioned.

Ana4Stapp
12-26-2005, 06:27 PM
I honestly see that as part of the reason, yes. There's an idea within American foreign policy called "democratic peace." Keep in mind that this isn't a new issue... it was heavily prevalent during the Cold War as well. What this means is that the more democratic nations there are in the world, there is a less chance that these democratic nations will go to war with each other. This a major theme surrounding America's policy on counterterrorism. It's no surprise that the main reason why terrorists are in Iraq is because they don't want Iraqis to live by the principles that I have previously mentioned.

"Democractic peace" using war as a method? So ironic...:rolleyes:

Chase
12-26-2005, 07:44 PM
"Democractic peace" using war as a method? So ironic...:rolleyes:

How do you get Saddam Hussein to step down? How do you get Josef Stalin to step down? How do you Slobodan Milosevic to step down? With them... diplomacy is futile.

If war is a method that will rid the world of these rogue states who have a past of human rights violations... then I guess it's not as costly as allowing them to stay in power for generations.

RMadd
12-27-2005, 12:33 PM
You're trying to make Bush out to be aligned with fascism because the man is a Christian. if the shoe fits... lol (j/k)
Like I said before... he hasn't done anything to halt the flow of illegal immigrants into the United States... before 9/11, he was hoping to create a more liberal (not in the political sense, but just in the sense that it would allow more) immigration policy, working with Vincente Fox (Mexico's president) to develop one agreeable to both states. that's been pretty much pushed to the bottom of the pile now.

nor has he been conservative with the economy. I'm well aware of that: that's why I'm saying he's more neo-conservative than simply conservative. He's really not a traditional conservative at all, but is definitely a neo-con.

Being against abortion and gay marriage doesn't make someone a neo-con. John Kerry is against gay marriage... as are many other prominent democrats.
So John Kerry and "other prominent democrats" can't have neo-conservative beliefs or tendencies? You seem to be saying they, by some rule or something, have to be 100%, straight up liberal? Kerry himself isn't a neo-conservative, but he, as you have pointed out, does have at least one neo-conservative belief (the more opposing liberal view, of course, supports gay marriage & civil union).

Bush didn't invade Iraq because of religion... or for oil. He, like many other countries around the world viewed Saddam Hussein as a legitimate threat to peace in the Middle East. Sure, there was flawed intelligence... but the decision to oust Hussein isn't the product of neo-conservativism. If anything, Bush's foreign policy regarding the Middle East is liberal. The ideas of individual liberties, personal dignity, free expression, religious tolerance, private property, universal human rights, transparency of government, limitations on government power, popular sovereignty, national self-determination, privacy, enlightened and rational policy, the rule of law, fundamental equality, a free market economy, and free trade are all fundamentals of liberal though. Iraqis are now allowed to abide by all of these components. Has someone been watching Fox a bit much lately? It's always about the oil. You have to think, why Iraq, of all countries? There's countries in our own "backyard" that have some pretty crazy leaders, but why don't we do anything about them?

You may want to read this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_in_the_United_States) to get a better understanding as to what constitutes neo-conservatism. It points to hawkish views in foreign policy (i.e. deciding to go to war when there do exist other alternatives), a Christian undercurrent, etc.

Ana4Stapp
12-27-2005, 12:45 PM
Has someone been watching Fox a bit much lately? It's always about the oil. You have to think, why Iraq, of all countries? There's countries in our own "backyard" that have some pretty crazy leaders, but why don't we do anything about them?


Ryan...your said everything! ;)

Chase
12-27-2005, 09:32 PM
Ryan...your said everything! ;)

Why Iraq of all countries? I've already explained why a democratic Iraq is important. It's all strategic to the War on Terror. Look at Iraq's locale. It borders Syria and Iran... two dangerous states that both sponsor terrorism. The majority of Iran's youth is pro-democracy and would probably start a revolution if they had the protection and resources. An invasion of Iran would've been way bloodier than an invasion of Iraq. An invasion of Iraq was even more jusitifiable than an invasion of Syria... because of Saddam Hussein's human rights violations, sponsor of Palestinian terrorists, inability to abide by 16 U.N. weapons resolutions, and role in the Oil for Food scandal. Since the first democratically held elections in Iraq, nations like Egypt, Palestine, Lebanon, Ukraine, and Georgia have held successful elections... and some of these nations have cited the events in Iraq to be major influences on their countries. Nations like Libya have abandoned their weapons programs because Muammar al-Qaddafi saw what happend to Saddam Hussein. The Iraqis are currently trying Saddam Hussein for mass murder... and the first charge is relatively minor compared to his other offenses. Now it's your turn to explain to me why the Middle East and the rest of the world would benefit from Saddam Hussein regime... and moreover... his sons, Uday and Qusay. I mean... the man would likely continue to fund attacks against Israel, and use hostility against his neighbors.

Put the Iraq war into context with the bigger picture of terrorism. Middle Eastern terrorism is the biggest threat to America. Nations that are in our "own backyard" were mentioned... and I presume he was referring to Venezuela and Cuba. This isn't the Cold War and Cuba couldn't afford a war with the United States. Venezuela is probably the only legitimate threat... but why put military resources in a region that is collectively not producing harmful hostilities against the United States. South America is a major producer of illegal drugs that have been smuggled into the United States for years... but the "War on Drugs" has been overshadowed by the evermore important War on Terror.

Neo-conservatism is a term that's branded on politicians that are politically, economically, and socially conservative. Bush obviously isn't conservative with the economy... nor is he completely social conservative. He hasn't done anything to deter illegal immigration into the United States... and trust me, I have seen the first hand effects of illegal immigration. I live on the border and have for my whole life. Things have changed in the past 10 years because our government isn't able to put a halt to illegal immmigration. A liberal border policy should be pushed "to the bottom of the pile" right now. Porous borders present potential threats to the United States due to terrorism and drugs. Why, especially living in a post-9/11 world would it benefit the United States to have a Canadian-esque border policy? Not being a traditional conservative doesn't automatically equate to neo-conservatism. If anything he's less conservative than men like Ronald Reagan. I never said that prominent democrats can't have neo-conservative beliefs... and truth be told, being pro-life isn't a representation of neo-conservatism. It's conservative... sure... but neo-conservative it is not.

And yes... I have been watching Fox lately. I'm a huge Family Guy fan. But that's beside the point. Neo-conservatives support the War in Iraq... obviously... as do democrats like Joseph Lieberman. But one neo-conservative policy doesn't make one entirely a neo-conservative. The Bush Doctrine is soley applied to foreign policy... nothing more. If the man isn't conservative with the economy, Christian federal holidays, or border policies... how is he this neo-conservative boogy man? He was absent when the controversy surrounding the 10 Commandments in court houses occurred. The majority of this nation has Judeo-Chistian undercurrents when it comes to their political ideologies. It's not a fluke that gay marriage is only legal in one state... and is overwhelmingly voted against in most of the states that gay marriage is proposed. Most Democrats and most Republicans are for Civil-Unions over gay marriage and that is most likely due to Christian undercurrents. You claim this war is for oil... show me the proof. Following the First Gulf War the United States controlled all of Kuwait's oil reserves. Who controls them now? The Kuwaitis. It sure as hell isn't the United States and if we did, we wouldn't be paying so much for barrels of oil. Prominents Senators are encouraging more drilling in our OWN nation... in places like the ANWAR region of Alaska. Why fight a war for oil when we can drill in the United States? Why fight a war for oil, when terrorism is the primary problem to this nation?

Ana4Stapp
12-27-2005, 10:39 PM
Well, Chase yoiur post is sooo big and also kinda confused...but I think I will give u my complete answer in a little while...(Im almost going to bed cause I got a cold that is making me feel really bad :thud: )

But Ill try answer you with another question: If Bush is so worried about Peace in the world, by giving chance to people to live in democracy as you are alwaays proclaiming...why he didnt try to invade North Korea ? Isnt this country another part of the "Axis of Evil" ????

Ana4Stapp
12-27-2005, 10:46 PM
How do you get Saddam Hussein to step down? How do you get Josef Stalin to step down? How do you Slobodan Milosevic to step down? With them... diplomacy is futile.

If war is a method that will rid the world of these rogue states who have a past of human rights violations... then I guess it's not as costly as allowing them to stay in power for generations.

You know US has a lot of other methods to use instead of war...You know that...

Also, no one here is defending Saddam Hussein, but you need stop putting Bush as the good guy. Hes not.;)

Chase
12-28-2005, 01:22 AM
You know US has a lot of other methods to use instead of war...You know that...

Also, no one here is defending Saddam Hussein, but you need stop putting Bush as the good guy. Hes not.;)

We used diplomacy for ten plus years with Saddam Hussein. That didn't stop mass murders. That didn't stop him from funding terrorists in Palestine. That didn't stop him from threatening Israel. That didn't stop him from breaking 16 U.N. weapons resolutions. That's like asking Adolf Hitler to stop his anti-Semitic genocidal policies. Some guys don't respond to diplomacy, to sanctions, or to U.N. resolutions.

Also... if no one is defending Saddam Hussein... why is Bush the one that is constantly condemned by you guys for putting that mass murdering tyrant out of power? It almost seems like you guys are distraught at the fact that Hussein isn't allowed to continue his acts that have brought him the nickname "the Butcher of Baghdad." You know... a lot of good has come from the war in Iraq. My best friend is currently serving in Afghanistan... and soon Iraq. Other friends of mine are in Iraq. I talk to them constantly and get their opinions of the situtation. I opt to take the words of people who are actually there... rather than some distorted anti-American, foreign rhetoric.

You tell me what other methods will stop Al Qaeda (and other Islamo-fascists) from blowing up weddings, shopping malls, schools, and neighborhoods. You tell me what will convince Osama bin Laden or Al-Zarqawi to stop ordering the executions of innocent humanitarian aid workers. If war isn't the way... then please educate the governments of the United States, Great Britain, Australia, Italy, Russia, Israel, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq. Bill Clinton tried to turn a blind eye to Al Qaeda... and as a result we got multiple embassy bombings, the first World Trade Center bombing, and the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole.

Chase
12-28-2005, 01:33 AM
Well, Chase yoiur post is sooo big and also kinda confused...but I think I will give u my complete answer in a little while...(Im almost going to bed cause I got a cold that is making me feel really bad :thud: )

But Ill try answer you with another question: If Bush is so worried about Peace in the world, by giving chance to people to live in democracy as you are alwaays proclaiming...why he didnt try to invade North Korea ? Isnt this country another part of the "Axis of Evil" ????

I've already explained why invading Iraq makes more sense than Iran and North Korea. Why put you military resources to fight in the Korean peninsula? They're an old Cold War threat that is being contained by South Korea, Japan, and China. It makes a hell of a lot more sense to send troops into a region that is producing Islamic fascism. North Korea's government can't afford to feed their own people, let alone afford a war with the U.S. (and her allies). Put things into perspective... it makes more sense to convince Japan, South Korea, and China to recognize the problems that North Korea is presenting their region... and to ultimately participate in sanctioning Kim Jong Il's government. Once the Japanese are allowed to have a full functioning military again... I believe that there is a greater chance that they'll invade North Korea, as opposed to the United States. Sanctions have been working better than they did with Iraq. As of right now, halting one of the last "rogue" Communist nations shouldn't be number one on the Western world's list. The U.S. has already sent aid and food to the North Korean people and has continuously encouraged them to abandon weapons programs that break nuclear proliferation treaties. Invading Iraq makes more sense than invading North Korea, simply put.

Ana4Stapp
12-28-2005, 11:47 AM
Chase, your post is so big that Ill go for parts, right?

We used diplomacy for ten plus years with Saddam Hussein. That didn't stop mass murders. That didn't stop him from funding terrorists in Palestine. That didn't stop him from threatening Israel. That didn't stop him from breaking 16 U.N. weapons resolutions. That's like asking Adolf Hitler to stop his anti-Semitic genocidal policies. Some guys don't respond to diplomacy, to sanctions, or to U.N. resolutions.

Do you really think that Saddam had chemical weapons? So where were they? Do you think Bush foreign policy is going to stop terrorists in Palestine? Its just the opposite. In Bush era a lot of people hates US, and you have a remote idea why ? Its because WAR!!!!! You cant stop violence using WAR!
And yeah, Allies had to do something to stop Hitler because this guy started invadind Poland...He was a real threat. Nazism was an horrible thing that couldnt continue. So war was the only solution.

You said sometimes some guys sont respond to UN resolutions...neither US. or you forgot that Bush ordered the invasion against UN...:rolleyes:

Also... if no one is defending Saddam Hussein... why is Bush the one that is constantly condemned by you guys for putting that mass murdering tyrant out of power? It almost seems like you guys are distraught at the fact that Hussein isn't allowed to continue his acts that have brought him the nickname "the Butcher of Baghdad." You know... a lot of good has come from the war in Iraq. My best friend is currently serving in Afghanistan... and soon Iraq. Other friends of mine are in Iraq. I talk to them constantly and get their opinions of the situtation. I opt to take the words of people who are actually there... rather than some distorted anti-American, foreign rhetoric.


Oh God! again: NO ONE HERE IS DEFENDING SADDAM!!!!! NO ONE!!!!!
Im not condemning Bush for putting Saddam out of power... Im condemning Bush for using war...This is my point.

A lot of goods come from Iraqs war? What, Chase??? Please let me know, Im extremely curious. Maybe i can change my distorted anti- american rethoric...lol

Seriously, im not anti-American! Im not anti- US! I'm anti- Bush!


You tell me what other methods will stop Al Qaeda (and other Islamo-fascists) from blowing up weddings, shopping malls, schools, and neighborhoods. You tell me what will convince Osama bin Laden or Al-Zarqawi to stop ordering the executions of innocent humanitarian aid workers. If war isn't the way... then please educate the governments of the United States, Great Britain, Australia, Italy, Russia, Israel, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq. Bill Clinton tried to turn a blind eye to Al Qaeda... and as a result we got multiple embassy bombings, the first World Trade Center bombing, and the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole

Well I dont know the methods..I dont work for CIA ...and of course I hate the terorism methods--they are cowards!

And Im not saying that leaders must to close their eyes to Osama actions , of course not, but answer me this: what was the result of invading the miserable Afeghanistan? See? this is waht Im saying...a lot of wars and no one result.

Oh..wait... Im wrong...theres one evident result here: the anti-American feeling is increasing...all over the world...:rolleyes:

Ana4Stapp
12-28-2005, 11:55 AM
I've already explained why invading Iraq makes more sense than Iran and North Korea. Why put you military resources to fight in the Korean peninsula? They're an old Cold War threat that is being contained by South Korea, Japan, and China. It makes a hell of a lot more sense to send troops into a region that is producing Islamic fascism. North Korea's government can't afford to feed their own people, let alone afford a war with the U.S. (and her allies).

Afeghanistan also couldnt afford a war against the all -powerful US...

Put things into perspective... it makes more sense to convince Japan, South Korea, and China to recognize the problems that North Korea is presenting their region... and to ultimately participate in sanctioning Kim Jong Il's government. Once the Japanese are allowed to have a full functioning military again... I believe that there is a greater chance that they'll invade North Korea, as opposed to the United States. Sanctions have been working better than they did with Iraq. As of right now, halting one of the last "rogue" Communist nations shouldn't be number one on the Western world's list. The U.S. has already sent aid and food to the North Korean people and has continuously encouraged them to abandon weapons programs that break nuclear proliferation treaties. Invading Iraq makes more sense than invading North Korea, simply put.

All this diplomacy touches me...but I think that Bush reason is another...isnt this becasue North Korea has nuclear bombs????? So US cant simply invade this? Is the same of invading a miserable country like Afeghanistan or a country that clearly didnt have any chemical weapons like Iraq???? Isnt it?

Chase
12-28-2005, 04:31 PM
Afeghanistan also couldnt afford a war against the all -powerful US...



All this diplomacy touches me...but I think that Bush reason is another...isnt this becasue North Korea has nuclear bombs????? So US cant simply invade this? Is the same of invading a miserable country like Afeghanistan or a country that clearly didnt have any chemical weapons like Iraq???? Isnt it?

Now this is getting offensive. You're now defending Afghanistan. The Afghan Taliban government FUNDED 9/11 and allowed Osama bin Laden to run his terror network from that country. They could obviously could afford to be one of the biggest sponsors of the 9/11 attacks. "Miserable" country? Give me a break. The only thing "miserable" about the Taliban is that they ran away from coalition troops with their tails between their legs.

Iraq didn't "clearly" not have chemical weapons. The man mass murdered people from throughout the 1980s and 1990s. To carry out many of those attacks... he used chemical weapons. Let me ask you this: If you knew the United States and Great Britain was going to invade your country because of your weapons program... would you not try to hide or ship those weapons to a neighboring country? Saddam Hussein isn't a moron... and he has known that Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush were getting tired of his actions. North Korea, as far as we know, has at least ONE nuclear bomb... but was attempting to make more. My argument is that... if North Korea can't even afford to feed its nation... how does it expect to fight a war against South Korea, Japan, the United States, and Great Britain.... and possibly even China? My country is actually feeding that country... go figure... the United States is helping out those in need. It's sad... one year ago we get the Tsunamis in Southeast Asia... and we spend a lot of time and money helping that MUSLIM region. We get earthquakes across the Middle East. The U.S. gives aid to that MUSLIM region. The United States and Great Britain liberated all of Western Europe... and later on Eastern Europe. So many countries bite the had that liberated them or came to their defense.

A couple of days ago, Iraqis unearthed ANOTHER mass grave which held about 20 people. They believe that this was an attack on Shiites after they had an uprising in 1991. According to the L.A. Times, a liberal newspaper, "Human rights experts say Hussein may have killed as many as 300,000 Iraqi Shiite Muslims after the uprising." But still... sadly, to some people... that isn't enough justification to remove this man from power. Sadly.

Ana4Stapp
12-28-2005, 04:41 PM
I have points here:

1) I didnt say taliban was miserable...but ask your soldiers friends if Afeghanistan isnt poor/miserable ?

2) where were the chemicals weapons from Saddam? where???


3) Im not offending you or your country, Chase. Geez, why you cant see that??? Im saying the same thing over and over again...

4) Im trying to understand Bushs reasons in invading certain countries ...because i think he invaded because of the oil! But of course you are going to disagree...:rolleyes:

Ana4Stapp
12-28-2005, 04:44 PM
Also, I NEVER said Saddam Hussein must keep ruling Iraq. I NEVER defended him. You are clearly trying to put words in my mouth.I just dont agree with this war, Chase.

Chase
12-28-2005, 04:53 PM
Chase, your post is so big that Ill go for parts, right?



Do you really think that Saddam had chemical weapons? So where were they? Do you think Bush foreign policy is going to stop terrorists in Palestine? Its just the opposite. In Bush era a lot of people hates US, and you have a remote idea why ? Its because WAR!!!!! You cant stop violence using WAR!
And yeah, Allies had to do something to stop Hitler because this guy started invadind Poland...He was a real threat. Nazism was an horrible thing that couldnt continue. So war was the only solution.

You said sometimes some guys sont respond to UN resolutions...neither US. or you forgot that Bush ordered the invasion against UN...:rolleyes:




Oh God! again: NO ONE HERE IS DEFENDING SADDAM!!!!! NO ONE!!!!!
Im not condemning Bush for putting Saddam out of power... Im condemning Bush for using war...This is my point.

A lot of goods come from Iraqs war? What, Chase??? Please let me know, Im extremely curious. Maybe i can change my distorted anti- american rethoric...lol

Seriously, im not anti-American! Im not anti- US! I'm anti- Bush!




Well I dont know the methods..I dont work for CIA ...and of course I hate the terorism methods--they are cowards!

And Im not saying that leaders must to close their eyes to Osama actions , of course not, but answer me this: what was the result of invading the miserable Afeghanistan? See? this is waht Im saying...a lot of wars and no one result.

Oh..wait... Im wrong...theres one evident result here: the anti-American feeling is increasing...all over the world...:rolleyes:

Imagine of The United States, the Soviet Union, and Great Britain stopped Hitler before 1939. They would've prevented the Holocaust because they took pre-emptive measures. The United States wasn't involved in any war when Osama bin Laden declared war on the United States in 1998. There was no War in Iraq. Instead of finding excuses for why Osama wants to kill Americans and Europeans... realize that the man is anti-semitic, anti-Christian, anti-democracy, anti-capitalist, and anti-all-things-West.

Terrorism in Palestine has declined since Yasser Arafat died.

So Nazism was bad enough to warrant war, but terrorism isn't. Explain that logic to me. Islamic terrorists want to wipe Jews off the face of the Earth... as well as every other non-Muslim. What's the difference?

There was no U.N. Resolution that sanctioned the United States' weapons program. Three U.N. members were outspoken against the decision to invade Iraq because they had oil ties to Saddam Hussein and had diplomats who were involved in the "Oil for Food Scandal." Nice try.

I've explained what good has come from the war in Iraq, but you keep... conveniently, not reading it. Lybia has abandoned it's weapons program. Egypt, Palestine, Lebanon, Ukraine, and Georgia have fought to have democratically held elections. Lebanon fought to force Syria out of their country and demanded the right to freedom. The Ukrainians fought to keep Russia from fixing their elections... and were successful in doing so. Kurds and Shia are now actually being represented in Iraq. Before, it was only the minority Sunnis with rights and power. The victims of Saddam's war crimes... were the Kurds and Shia. Women, in both Afghanistan and Iraq, are now allowed to vote... allowed to get an education... and are allowed to express themselves without being shot. Schools are improving for kids... and both girls and boys will be given an equal opportunity to learn. You won't be executed for speaking out against the government... or torture... women and girls are no longer being raped by Saddam's military. Saddam is no longer living in multiple lavish palaces while his people live in poverty. Post-World War II Germany and Europe weren't fixed over night. Why should Iraq be any different? Die hard Nazis held insurgent-like attacks in Germany... why should Iraq be any different?

Chase
12-28-2005, 04:59 PM
Also, I NEVER said Saddam Hussein must keep ruling Iraq. I NEVER defended him. You are clearly trying to put words in my mouth.I just dont agree with this war, Chase.

But you're not giving any reasons. You're accusing my country of, essentially, being the bad guys here. Alright, if Saddam Hussein must not continue to rule Iraq... then how the hell do you get him to actually give rights to innocent Iraqis? If the U.N. wanted to use force against Hussein... would you endorse it? If Brazil actually participated in the global community and wanted to get rid of Saddam Hussein by force... would you endorse it? Or do you just buy into the trend of the moment... to hate the President for unfounded reasons?

Ana4Stapp
12-28-2005, 05:19 PM
Imagine of The United States, the Soviet Union, and Great Britain stopped Hitler before 1939. They would've prevented the Holocaust because they took pre-emptive measures. The United States wasn't involved in any war when Osama bin Laden declared war on the United States in 1998. There was no War in Iraq. Instead of finding excuses for why Osama wants to kill Americans and Europeans... realize that the man is anti-semitic, anti-Christian, anti-democracy, anti-capitalist, and anti-all-things-West.

Im not finding excuses for Osama, or Saddam or Bush. Dont put words in my mouth, Chase. And also, you dont need to show me how Osama is a despicable human being.

Terrorism in Palestine has declined since Yasser Arafat died.

So Nazism was bad enough to warrant war, but terrorism isn't. Explain that logic to me. Islamic terrorists want to wipe Jews off the face of the Earth... as well as every other non-Muslim. What's the difference?

Theres no difference. They (terrorists and nazis) are always cowards. Im not justifying their actions. I dont want children dying...

There was no U.N. Resolution that sanctioned the United States' weapons program. Three U.N. members were outspoken against the decision to invade Iraq because they had oil ties to Saddam Hussein and had diplomats who were involved in the "Oil for Food Scandal." Nice try.

So let me ask : all the other countries had interests in Iraqs oil? Only US hadnt...interesting...very interesting...

I've explained what good has come from the war in Iraq, but you keep... conveniently, not reading it.

Ive tried to explain my reasons , but you keep , conveniently closing your eyes...Funny!:rolleyes:

Lybia has abandoned it's weapons program. Egypt, Palestine, Lebanon, Ukraine, and Georgia have fought to have democratically held elections. Lebanon fought to force Syria out of their country and demanded the right to freedom. The Ukrainians fought to keep Russia from fixing their elections... and were successful in doing so. Kurds and Shia are now actually being represented in Iraq. Before, it was only the minority Sunnis with rights and power. The victims of Saddam's war crimes... were the Kurds and Shia. Women, in both Afghanistan and Iraq, are now allowed to vote... allowed to get an education... and are allowed to express themselves without being shot. Schools are improving for kids... and both girls and boys will be given an equal opportunity to learn. You won't be executed for speaking out against the government... or torture... women and girls are no longer being raped by Saddam's military. Saddam is no longer living in multiple lavish palaces while his people live in poverty. Post-World War II Germany and Europe weren't fixed over night. Why should Iraq be any different? Die hard Nazis held insurgent-like attacks in Germany... why should Iraq be any different?

Are these women and children still alive? Or they died in war??? Maybe they lost parents... Have you ever see their schockingand terrible images of children injured and crying because of the war??? Can you imagine if it was in US? Maybe you werent defending war...

Anyway, I can see the 'progress' you are trying to prove to me, but you think US and also Britain only invaded Iraq to guide this country to democracy ? This is the point you seem not to realize. So US, trough Bush governement is so charitable, so humanitarian (sorry if itsnt the right word) to spread peace and democracy to the whole world WITHOUT any interest????
Its amazing!!!!

Chase
12-28-2005, 05:37 PM
I'm on my way out the door right now... and I will respond to your promptly later. But Ana... you seem to be one of those people who don't think that sometimes people do the right thing. You seem like you think people are selfish. In regards to Germany and France's ties to Iraqi oil... the equivalent would be like the Germans and French invading Saudi Arabia... our big oil partner in the Middle East. We wouldn't probably endorse an action like that. Americans didn't take the Kuwaitis oil... and quite frankly... I chose to believe that there is good in everybody. Democracy in Middle East is beneficial for that region and the Western World... (and even Asia) for future generations.

Ana... I love you.

Ana4Stapp
12-28-2005, 05:53 PM
I'm on my way out the door right now... and I will respond to your promptly later. But Ana... you seem to be one of those people who don't think that sometimes people do the right thing. You seem like you think people are selfish. In regards to Germany and France's ties to Iraqi oil... the equivalent would be like the Germans and French invading Saudi Arabia... our big oil partner in the Middle East. We wouldn't probably endorse an action like that. Americans didn't take the Kuwaitis oil... and quite frankly... I chose to believe that there is good in everybody. Democracy in Middle East is beneficial for that region and the Western World... (and even Asia) for future generations.

Ana... I love you.

Ill wait for your 'answer'(which Ill respond tomorrow cause you are 6 hours behind me and of course Ill be in my bed while youll posting it-lol), Chase.

But i dont know, its not because i think people cant do the right thing without any interest...Im not sure...maybe its because Im older than you... lol. But frankly I cant see all those good actions(especially coming from politicians) without a economical/political interest...

And also democracy is good for everybody/everywhere always!!!

Chase...I love you too ;)

Ana4Stapp
12-29-2005, 03:57 PM
But you're not giving any reasons. You're accusing my country of, essentially, being the bad guys here. Alright, if Saddam Hussein must not continue to rule Iraq... then how the hell do you get him to actually give rights to innocent Iraqis? If the U.N. wanted to use force against Hussein... would you endorse it? If Brazil actually participated in the global community and wanted to get rid of Saddam Hussein by force... would you endorse it? Or do you just buy into the trend of the moment... to hate the President for unfounded reasons?

Even though you seem to gave up, Chase ...(lol)...I will answer that: I would never endorse a war, even if my own country was involved in this. And of course Im not a person who hates someone (a president in this case) just because its fashion. But, again, dont think I hate Bush for 'unfounded' reasons... Its just the opposite: this guy gave tons of reasons...:rolleyes:

Chase
12-29-2005, 05:59 PM
Im not finding excuses for Osama, or Saddam or Bush. Dont put words in my mouth, Chase. And also, you dont need to show me how Osama is a despicable human being.



Theres no difference. They (terrorists and nazis) are always cowards. Im not justifying their actions. I dont want children dying...



So let me ask : all the other countries had interests in Iraqs oil? Only US hadnt...interesting...very interesting...

.

Ive tried to explain my reasons , but you keep , conveniently closing your eyes...Funny!:rolleyes:



Are these women and children still alive? Or they died in war??? Maybe they lost parents... Have you ever see their schockingand terrible images of children injured and crying because of the war??? Can you imagine if it was in US? Maybe you werent defending war...

Anyway, I can see the 'progress' you are trying to prove to me, but you think US and also Britain only invaded Iraq to guide this country to democracy ? This is the point you seem not to realize. So US, trough Bush governement is so charitable, so humanitarian (sorry if itsnt the right word) to spread peace and democracy to the whole world WITHOUT any interest????
Its amazing!!!!

It's sad that you make it out like my friends who are in arms... and other brave Americans are going around mass killing innocent woman and children. Have you seen the pictures of the victims of terrorist attacks in the Middle East? Just recently... Musab al-Zarqawi's terror group blew up a wedding... a WEDDING... in Jordan. Justify that. So... the fact that Saddam Hussein mass murdered men, women, children, and the elderly in ethnic villages... that isn't enough. Instead... you twist Saddam's crimes and pin them on the United States. Like I said... a nation as corrupt as Brazil really shouldn't criticize American policies. Just because your government is unable to halt a growing crime rate... doesn't mean that every other country's government is selfish and not humanitarian.

I keep telling you the benefits of democracy in the Middle East. Totalitarian governments in the Middle East have allowed terror networks to thrive... and terrorist leaders have CONSTANTLY tried to rally people AGAINST democracy because they know that a democratic nations won't put up with their heinous acts. The United States has been a beacon of freedom for so many people. Why are you sad that Saddam Hussein is no longer in power? You're against war... yet... you have no problem with the UNITED STATES and GREAT BRITAIN defending Europe from Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany. On September 11, 2001, the United States was attacked by terrorists who were funded by the Afghanistan Taliban government. Yet, you're against us going in there and ousting that government.

Ana4Stapp
12-29-2005, 06:09 PM
[QUOTE=Chase]
Like I said... a nation as corrupt as Brazil really shouldn't criticize American policies. Just because your government is unable to halt a growing crime rate... doesn't mean that every other country's government is selfish and not humanitarian.

What ??? Now you are OFFENDING ME!!!!! who said to you my nation is corrupt??? Have you ever visit here? Do you know all brazilians to said that??? Yes, we have corruption here as the same way you have in US...
Ah let me laugh a liitle..your country is humanitarian and mine isnt????
jUst to you know...we sent money and also food, medicine, clothes to people that lost everything in tsunamis...
Your country its so humanitarian that killed a lot of people not only in wars but trough supporting militaries in South America during the Cold war...
So humanitaran your country is...

I wont comment tge rest of your absurd´post...

And after that...dont say you love me...:mad1:

Chase
12-29-2005, 06:29 PM
[QUOTE=Chase]
Like I said... a nation as corrupt as Brazil really shouldn't criticize American policies. Just because your government is unable to halt a growing crime rate... doesn't mean that every other country's government is selfish and not humanitarian.

What ??? Now you are OFFENDING ME!!!!! who said to you my nation is corrupt??? Have you ever visit here? Do you know all brazilians to said that??? Yes, we have corruption here as the same way you have in US...
Ah let me laugh a liitle..your country is humanitarian and mine isnt????
jUst to you know...we sent money and also food, medicine, clothes to people that lost everything in tsunamis...
Your country its so humanitarian that killed a lot of people not only in wars but trough supporting militaries in South America during the Cold war...
So humanitaran your country is...

I wont comment tge rest of your absurd´post...

And after that...dont say you love me...:mad1:

Wow... so you don't like it when someone who knows nothing about your country criticizes it. You won't comment on the rest? Like when I asked you why you're upset that Saddam Hussein is sitting in a prison cell?

It is a fact that Brazil's crime rate is increasing by the way. However, it's okay for you to basically blame my nation for every death on the planet... but when someone calls your government corrupt, you flip out. I'm sorry... I fail to remember Brazil's contribution to World War I and World War II. I don't really distinctly remember Brazil assisting in liberating Eastern Europe from the Soviet Union. I do remember hearing multiple stories of street crimes in Brazil resulting in the deaths of tourists... some of whom are American.

You constantly post articles trying to taint America's image as being a corrupt, war mongering, and selfish. Now, it's my turn.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=a8yR8mtYCLXo&refer=top_world_news

Ana4Stapp
12-29-2005, 06:37 PM
It is a fact that Brazil's crime rate is increasing by the way. However, it's okay for you to basically blame my nation for every death on the planet... but when someone calls your government corrupt, you flip out. I'm sorry... I fail to remember Brazil's contribution to World War I and World War II.Ill help you, Chase:

http://www.brasilemb.org/profile_brazil/brazil_usa_worldwar.shtml

Ana4Stapp
12-29-2005, 06:52 PM
Still helping you:

http://www.mre.gov.br/cdbrasil/itamaraty/web/ingles/polsoc/dirhum/apresent/index.htm

http://www.mre.gov.br/cdbrasil/itamaraty/web/ingles/relext/mre/relreg/ecentral/index.htm

http://www.aids.gov.br/final/biblioteca/drug/drug1.htm

http://www.mre.gov.br/cdbrasil/itamaraty/web/ingles/relext/mre/relreg/amnorte/eua/index.htm

http://www.worldpress.org/Americas/2072.cfm
As you can easily see we do have a lot of challenges but its too far from a corrupt nation as you already said...

Chase
12-29-2005, 06:55 PM
"Between 1944 and 1945, Brazil sent over 25,000 men - the Brazilian Expeditionary Force (BEF) - to fight in World War II, the only South American country to commit troops to the war effort. The BEF was deployed to Italy where it was attached to the U.S. Fifth Army led by General Mark Clark and placed as a division of General Willis Crittemberger's IV Corps. The BEF played a key role in the Allied victory at Monte Castello and other battles."

They we led by an American general, however. I wasn't aware that they sent 25,000 men though. My grandfather fought in World War II and the Korea War... and my other grandfather was a sailor. My stepfather is a Senior Chief, currently, for the United States Navy. I also have an uncle who served in the U.S. Army. Military is part of my family and my life... so I get offended when I hear people from other country's slander and call our soldiers names. Also, my best friends is fighting in Afghanistan and it's funny that all of the pictures that he takes paint a completely different picture than the foreign media.

War has stopped Nazism, Communism, slavery, and is hurting terrorism. Nobody wants war... nobody likes war. But sadly, when the world has men like Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, and Osama bin Laden... we are left with no choice.

Ana4Stapp
12-29-2005, 06:55 PM
[QUOTE=Ana4Stapp]

Wow... so you don't like it when someone who knows nothing about your country criticizes it. You won't comment on the rest? Like when I asked you why you're upset that Saddam Hussein is sitting in a prison cell?



So you put it just to provoke me? 'Upset that Saddam Hussein is in a prison'?


This is the most nonsense thing you wrote, Chase...:rolleyes:

Chase
12-29-2005, 07:06 PM
Still helping you:

http://www.mre.gov.br/cdbrasil/itamaraty/web/ingles/polsoc/dirhum/apresent/index.htm

http://www.mre.gov.br/cdbrasil/itamaraty/web/ingles/relext/mre/relreg/ecentral/index.htm

http://www.aids.gov.br/final/biblioteca/drug/drug1.htm

http://www.mre.gov.br/cdbrasil/itamaraty/web/ingles/relext/mre/relreg/amnorte/eua/index.htm

http://www.worldpress.org/Americas/2072.cfm
As you can easily see we do have a lot of challenges but its to far from a corrupt nation as you already said...

Good! You're educating me! That's what I want you to do. I called Brazil "corrupt" to show you how it feels to have to defend your nation from people who hardly know the TRUTHS of it. You know more than I do about Brazil and you also know more than the exported, stereotypical image. Give me the benefit of the doubt sometimes when I tell you that America, truly isn't doing things out of selfishness. You don't have to agree with everything... but at least recognize that the U.S. has done a lot of GOOD for the world throughout its history. Every nation has had problems... and that goes for America and Brazil.

Chase
12-29-2005, 07:07 PM
[QUOTE=Chase]

So you put it just to provoke me? 'Upset that Saddam Hussein is in a prison'?


This is the most nonsense thing you wrote, Chase...:rolleyes:

Are you upset that Saddam Hussein is in a prison cell? I'm serious.

Ana4Stapp
12-29-2005, 07:07 PM
[QUOTE=Ana4Stapp]

Wow... so you don't like it when someone who knows nothing about your country criticizes it. You won't comment on the rest? Like when I asked you why you're upset that Saddam Hussein is sitting in a prison cell?

It is a fact that Brazil's crime rate is increasing by the way. However, it's okay for you to basically blame my nation for every death on the planet... but when someone calls your government corrupt, you flip out. I'm sorry... I fail to remember Brazil's contribution to World War I and World War II. I don't really distinctly remember Brazil assisting in liberating Eastern Europe from the Soviet Union. I do remember hearing multiple stories of street crimes in Brazil resulting in the deaths of tourists... some of whom are American.

You constantly post articles trying to taint America's image as being a corrupt, war mongering, and selfish. Now, it's my turn.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=a8yR8mtYCLXo&refer=top_world_news


Only in my country has corruption isnt? http://www.democrats.org/a/national/honest_government/abuse_of_power/

Chase
12-29-2005, 07:12 PM
Don't buy into partisan bullshit. The Republicans will do the same to portray the Democrats as dishonest... and will show evidence that prominent Democrats have done the same things that prominent Republicans have done.

Ana4Stapp
12-29-2005, 07:12 PM
[QUOTE=Ana4Stapp]

Are you upset that Saddam Hussein is in a prison cell? I'm serious.

I LOVE that Saddam Hussein is in a prison cell!!!!!

Chase
12-29-2005, 07:15 PM
[QUOTE=Chase]

I LOVE that Saddam Hussein is in a prison cell!!!!!

Yay!!!!!!!!!!! I mean, whether or not you are for the war... it is a good thing that he facing justice for multiple mass killings of innocent people.

Ana4Stapp
12-29-2005, 07:17 PM
Good! You're educating me! That's what I want you to do. I called Brazil "corrupt" to show you how it feels to have to defend your nation from people who hardly know the TRUTHS of it. You know more than I do about Brazil and you also know more than the exported, stereotypical image. Give me the benefit of the doubt sometimes when I tell you that America, truly isn't doing things out of selfishness. You don't have to agree with everything... but at least recognize that the U.S. has done a lot of GOOD for the world throughout its history. Every nation has had problems... and that goes for America and Brazil.

I do it all the time, Im always educating people...Im a teacher, Chase! But you know some students simply dont want to learn...I hope isnt your case...:rolleyes:



Ill comment your "absurd" post...but let me ask you -you said your best friend is in Afeghanistan...waht especifically he said to you? Id like to know if you dont mind...Im really curious...:D
lol

PS: And yes...maybe I still love you...

Ana4Stapp
12-29-2005, 07:29 PM
Don't buy into partisan bullshit. The Republicans will do the same to portray the Democrats as dishonest... and will show evidence that prominent Democrats have done the same things that prominent Republicans have done.

hahah...now Im provoking you...isnt the same of the brazilian case? I mean theopponents of Lula are saying a lot of bullshit WITHOUT ANY PROOF!!!!! Look, my president was judged and 'massacred' by press without ANY proof!!!! They said that there was a corrupted scheme and that Lula knew about it...He had a huge support from brazilian people (despite all the problem you know,people loved him) but now he has almost nothing...:rolleyes:

Chase
12-29-2005, 07:41 PM
I do it all the time, Im always educating people...Im a teacher, Chase! But you know some students simply dont want to learn...I hope isnt your case...:rolleyes:



Ill comment your "absurd" post...but let me ask you -you said your best friend is in Afeghanistan...waht especifically he said to you? Id like to know if you dont mind...Im really curious...:D
lol

PS: And yes...maybe I still love you...

First of all... my friend is a very honest, genuine, and not brainwashed. So... when he tells me things... I believe him. Here's two pictures of him with some Afghans.

http://myspace-948.vo.llnwd.net/00340/84/92/340402948_l.jpg

http://myspace-322.vo.llnwd.net/00386/22/36/386996322_l.jpg

He describes the enemy as being cowards because when they attack... because they will only attack small groups of American soldiers... and when the do attack, they do it and then run away. He says nothing but good things about the Afghan people. They're nice, polite, and hospitable. The Taliban remnants and Al Qaeda fighters attack in evil and unconventional ways. The rise of women in Afghan society is growing... but they still cover themselves up. However, they are now getting an education and are able to participate in society. He says that the enemy are fearful of the American troops... which seems completely different than the situation in Iraq. Most importantly though... he said: "man so many things have happened since ive been here, so much the news havent covered."

and: "yeah they do, they used to be extremists and fight us till the death but now they give in and give up."

Chase
12-29-2005, 07:43 PM
hahah...now Im provoking you...isnt the same of the brazilian case? I mean theopponents of Lula are saying a lot of bullshit WITHOUT ANY PROVE!!!!! Look, my president was judged and 'massacred' by press without ANY prove!!!! They said that there was a corrupted scheme and that Lula knew about it...He had a huge support from brazilian people (despite all the problem you know,people loved him) but now he has almost nothing...:rolleyes:

Well, I hope Lula isn't corrupt. I've seen what it's like in this country. It's sad that people will try to tear other people apart without proof. It sounds to me that Lula is being put into the same position as President Bush.

Ana4Stapp
12-29-2005, 08:02 PM
First of all... my friend is a very honest, genuine, and not brainwashed. So... when he tells me things... I believe him. Here's two pictures of him with some Afghans.

http://myspace-948.vo.llnwd.net/00340/84/92/340402948_l.jpg

http://myspace-322.vo.llnwd.net/00386/22/36/386996322_l.jpg

He describes the enemy as being cowards because when they attack... because they will only attack small groups of American soldiers... and when the do attack, they do it and then run away. He says nothing but good things about the Afghan people. They're nice, polite, and hospitable. The Taliban remnants and Al Qaeda fighters attack in evil and unconventional ways. The rise of women in Afghan society is growing... but they still cover themselves up. However, they are now getting an education and are able to participate in society. He says that the enemy are fearful of the American troops... which seems completely different than the situation in Iraq. Most importantly though... he said: "man so many things have happened since ive been here, so much the news havent covered."

and: "yeah they do, they used to be extremists and fight us till the death but now they give in and give up."

Now its your turn in educates me;: whats the exact situation in Afeghanistan? I mean in politics, the troops will stay there for how long?
And you also have freinds in Iraq?
Sorry cause im asking you so much... :o but im so curious and id like to know about it...

Ana4Stapp
12-29-2005, 08:10 PM
Well, I hope Lula isn't corrupt. I've seen what it's like in this country. It's sad that people will try to tear other people apart without proof. It sounds to me that Lula is being put into the same position as President Bush.

You know...I always voted for Lula because I always trusted in him, he was like my 'idol' in politics, and guy this is so rare- cause i hate having idols-and no one never found anything wrong or corrupt related to him...so I hope that know that he finally is the president hes still honest.

Whats your opinion about Bushs domestic policy??? You like/aprove it?

Chase
12-29-2005, 08:22 PM
Well... I am about to leave the house... but we will continue this discussion soon ;)

Ana4Stapp
12-29-2005, 08:29 PM
I keep telling you the benefits of democracy in the Middle East. Totalitarian governments in the Middle East have allowed terror networks to thrive... and terrorist leaders have CONSTANTLY tried to rally people AGAINST democracy because they know that a democratic nations won't put up with their heinous acts. The United States has been a beacon of freedom for so many people. Why are you sad that Saddam Hussein is no longer in power? You're against war... yet... you have no problem with the UNITED STATES and GREAT BRITAIN defending Europe from Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany. On September 11, 2001, the United States was attacked by terrorists who were funded by the Afghanistan Taliban government. Yet, you're against us going in there and ousting that government.

Here are finally my comments in your 'absurd' post (lol)

1) As Ive already said - Im happy becaue Saddam is in prison cell.

2) I felt so sorry about all that terrible atack US suffered in september 11--all those images shocked and depressed me greatly. All that innocent people (and there was a significant number of brazillian who died in that tragedy).

3) So I think that war was an admissible 'answer' to that tragedy, because US was attacked first. Even though , invading Afeghanistan didnt show any concrete result in capturing Osama ...

4) IAM NOT AGAINST US Chase! Please try to understand it...

Ana4Stapp
12-29-2005, 08:33 PM
Well... I am about to leave the house... but we will continue this discussion soon ;)


Okay...it was very cool debating/disagreeing (while listening to Oasis--Dont look back in anger-btw-an appropriate title :D )







PS: Hey...but at least say that you still love me, uh? ;)

Ana4Stapp
12-30-2005, 02:55 PM
Chase,

I dont know if Im gonna to be here tonight (for you still day, right?) to continue our debate Chase, (sorry) because its almost the last day of the year and I still have tons of things to do...but I'll give you something to you to increase your 'education'- lol

Have fun:
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/35640.htm




PS: I know its too big, but still a very good and complete source.

luvscott4ever
01-01-2006, 06:18 AM
I would only have to say: Maynard for President!!!!

Ana4Stapp
01-04-2006, 02:47 PM
Well... I am about to leave the house... but we will continue this discussion soon ;)

:rolleyes:

No replies??
+

No posts?
+

No questions ????

+

No more arguments?????????



=

I WON !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ;)

Chase
01-04-2006, 04:25 PM
You won? No... I'm sure no one really agrees that the U.S. isn't allowed to defend themselves after the attacks or 9/11 by ousting the government that funded it (the Taliban)... or the fact that Iraq isn't better off with Saddam Hussein sitting in a prison cell that prevents him from ordering the mass executions of innocent Kurds and Shia. Or that it's better to send Osama bin Laden's terror network hugs and kisses instead of bombs. Or that war never works... especially after it stopped Nazi German and imperial Japan.

Ana4Stapp
01-04-2006, 04:34 PM
Now its your turn in educates me;: whats the exact situation in Afeghanistan? I mean in politics, the troops will stay there for how long?
And you also have freinds in Iraq?
Sorry cause im asking you so much... but im so curious and id like to know about it...


Whats your opinion about Bushs domestic policy??? You like/aprove it?

Questions not answered...:rolleyes:

Ana4Stapp
01-04-2006, 09:55 PM
You won? No... I'm sure no one really agrees that the U.S. isn't allowed to defend themselves after the attacks or 9/11 by ousting the government that funded it (the Taliban)... or the fact that Iraq isn't better off with Saddam Hussein sitting in a prison cell that prevents him from ordering the mass executions of innocent Kurds and Shia. Or that it's better to send Osama bin Laden's terror network hugs and kisses instead of bombs. Or that war never works... especially after it stopped Nazi German and imperial Japan.

:rolleyes: WOW!!!! Just WOW !!!!!

Chase
01-05-2006, 01:16 AM
Questions not answered...:rolleyes:

The reason why the United States and its allies invaded Afghanistan was to oust the Taliban regime. This government was the direct sponsor behind the 9/11 attacks and harbored Al Qaeda training camps.

An entire summary of the invasion can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._invasion_of_Afghanistan

The American troops in Afghanistan will leave when they are asked by the Afghan government, headed by President Hamid Karzai.

I also have friends who are serving honorably in Iraq and defending that nation from a vicious Al Qaeda insurgency.

Ana4Stapp
01-05-2006, 12:26 PM
^
I still cant see you answering this ::rolleyes:

Whats your opinion about Bushs domestic policy??? You like/aprove it?

Ana4Stapp
01-05-2006, 01:06 PM
The reason why the United States and its allies invaded Afghanistan was to oust the Taliban regime. This government was the direct sponsor behind the 9/11 attacks and harbored Al Qaeda training camps.

An entire summary of the invasion can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._invasion_of_Afghanistan

The American troops in Afghanistan will leave when they are asked by the Afghan government, headed by President Hamid Karzai.

I also have friends who are serving honorably in Iraq and defending that nation from a vicious Al Qaeda insurgency.




OK,Ok... Ill read that...and by the way , you can read it:http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/NWO/CIA_Created_Osama.htm

and this:http://www.slate.com/id/2102243/


and tell me what u think::rolleyes:

guitardude1985
01-05-2006, 03:45 PM
Personally, if hillary does get the nomination by election day I think people will come out in droves to vote against her. The only real reason she got elected to the senate in 2000 was meerly because her husband was a extremely popular president still in office at the time. In essense she's liberal as hell, but I wonder even as she pushes herself to the middle if she could really pull out heavy solid democatic voters. Also, kerry's major votes kinda came simply from people who dissliked bush and just voted for him...voting for anybody with the democatic ticket even if it were not kerry. I personally would not of voted for him even if I were a democrat just because I viewed him as a pompous ass.

revisfoot
01-05-2006, 04:51 PM
You know who I would vote for in a HEARTBEAT?

Senator George Allen, the first-string Presidential talent out of Virginia.

Although, it would ROCK to see a Hilary v. Condi showdown!

I am a capitalist Conservative Republican, but I have to admit that McCain scares the HELL out of me. He's too into his own world and his own ideas (the ban on torture bill?! come on!) that he wouldn't make the best sound decisions.

Allen '08!

guitardude1985
01-05-2006, 08:57 PM
You know who I would vote for in a HEARTBEAT?

Senator George Allen, the first-string Presidential talent out of Virginia.

Although, it would ROCK to see a Hilary v. Condi showdown!

I am a capitalist Conservative Republican, but I have to admit that McCain scares the HELL out of me. He's too into his own world and his own ideas (the ban on torture bill?! come on!) that he wouldn't make the best sound decisions.

Allen '08!

Mc Cain scares me to, just because of his vietnam expericence I tend to think it's kinda screwed with his mind. To me he's a loose cannon. Yea, I think that would be the political event of the 21st century to see hillary and condi go at it. Both are extremely articulate women, however have you read the book "condi vs hillary" ? revisfoot? I'm looking to, however after reading the first chapter it seems more like a wet dream oriented fantasy in dick morris's mind. Altough he has some points I will say. Like, even though condi has not served any political office's if elected she would be one of the few presidents not to be in gouverment since Eisenhower.

Chase
01-05-2006, 11:20 PM
^
I still cant see you answering this ::rolleyes:

Ana... judging by how I've been refuting every accusation you've thrown at America's foreign policy... wouldn't you assume that I do believe that my country has the right to defend itself and give Iraqis the common freedoms that they are endowed to.

I approve with the decision to oust Saddam Hussein in Iraq and the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.

I can't see why you think the United States doesn't have the right to respond to a brutal attack on 9/11 by getting rid of the government that was the direct sponsor of it.

Sorry, I can't repsond to everything promptly... I'm busy during the days with work.

Chase
01-05-2006, 11:28 PM
OK,Ok... Ill read that...and by the way , you can read it:http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/NWO/CIA_Created_Osama.htm

and this:http://www.slate.com/id/2102243/


and tell me what u think::rolleyes:

It doesn't surprise me that you would actually subscribe to the ideas of a website that is called CONSPIRACY ARCHIVE

I've heard and read stuff like that from nearly every anti-American conspriacy theorist who can't think for themselves. Not saying it's you... but at least look at where you get you're information. Instead of placing the blame with Osama bin Laden... it's always America's fault. Every time an insane Islamo fascist declares war on the American people and the rest of the Western world... it always ends up being Americas fault. Everytime the RUTHLESSLY MURDER people... it always ends up being America's fault. Like the U.S. donated some guns to the resistance movement against the Soviets 21 freaking years ago... and it somehow resulted in two giant comercial airliners ending up in the two World Trade Center towers and the birth of Al Qaeda. Well gee, wouldn't you think that if the American government was assisting Osama bin Laden so much... who would view them, somewhat, as an ally?

Ana4Stapp
01-05-2006, 11:29 PM
Ana... judging by how I've been refuting every accusation you've thrown at America's foreign policy... wouldn't you assume that I do believe that my country has the right to defend itself and give Iraqis the common freedoms that they are endowed to.

I approve with the decision to oust Saddam Hussein in Iraq and the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.

I can't see why you think the United States doesn't have the right to respond to a brutal attack on 9/11 by getting rid of the government that was the direct sponsor of it.

Sorry, I can't repsond to everything promptly... I'm busy during the days with work.


Yeah...I know what is ur opinion about Bush foreign policy...but waht about his domestic policy?...this was my question to you...

PS: Answer when you have the time...;)

Chase
01-05-2006, 11:30 PM
Personally, if hillary does get the nomination by election day I think people will come out in droves to vote against her. The only real reason she got elected to the senate in 2000 was meerly because her husband was a extremely popular president still in office at the time. In essense she's liberal as hell, but I wonder even as she pushes herself to the middle if she could really pull out heavy solid democatic voters. Also, kerry's major votes kinda came simply from people who dissliked bush and just voted for him...voting for anybody with the democatic ticket even if it were not kerry. I personally would not of voted for him even if I were a democrat just because I viewed him as a pompous ass.

Hillary Clinton does what John Kerry starting doing at the end of his campaign: pander like hell to every group that is donating money.

Ana4Stapp
01-05-2006, 11:34 PM
Hillary Clinton does what John Kerry starting doing at the end of his campaign: pander like hell to every group that is donating money.

Im not defending her ...but this is the way all the politicians act when they are in campaign...:rolleyes:

Chase
01-05-2006, 11:39 PM
You know who I would vote for in a HEARTBEAT?

Senator George Allen, the first-string Presidential talent out of Virginia.

Although, it would ROCK to see a Hilary v. Condi showdown!

I am a capitalist Conservative Republican, but I have to admit that McCain scares the HELL out of me. He's too into his own world and his own ideas (the ban on torture bill?! come on!) that he wouldn't make the best sound decisions.

Allen '08!

Wait a minute John McCain, a war hero and Senator since 1987 scares you... but Condi Rice... a woman who doesn't have nearly the same amount of experience as him doesn't? You essentially don't like McCain because he isn't a polarizing G.O.P. lapdog that will follow the far right everso blindly. This is a divided and polarized nation because of the leaders of the Democratic and Republican parties. I assume you're referring to the "McCain Detainee Amendment" that was supported in the Senate 90-9. The main was a prisoner of war for five and a half years. What separates the United States from our enemies is the way we conduct ourselves in times of war. We're recruiting terrorists as we speak more and more as stories of torture are leaked. Terrorists are effectively using it in their propaganda machine AGAINST the United States. He's not saying "don't kill the terrorists," he's pushing some form of humanity. Saddam Hussein, for example, used torture. Adolf Hitler, for instance, used torture. The United States military and government is better than that.

Ana4Stapp
01-05-2006, 11:51 PM
It doesn't surprise me that you would actually subscribe to the ideas of a website that is called CONSPIRACY ARCHIVE

I've heard and read stuff like that from nearly every anti-American conspriacy theorist who can't think for themselves. Not saying it's you... but at least look at where you get you're information. Instead of placing the blame with Osama bin Laden... it's always America's fault. Every time an insane Islamo fascist declares war on the American people and the rest of the Western world... it always ends up being Americas fault. Everytime the RUTHLESSLY MURDER people... it always ends up being America's fault. Like the U.S. donated some guns to the resistance movement against the Soviets 21 freaking years ago... and it somehow resulted in two giant comercial airliners ending up in the two World Trade Center towers and the birth of Al Qaeda. Well gee, wouldn't you think that if the American government was assisting Osama bin Laden so much... who would view them, somewhat, as an ally?


I figured that the name could make some confusion here...but believe me it wasnt my intention...sorry.

Im not blaming US ...waht your problem, Chase? No one is sayign US is wrong and consequently Osama is right...of course not. He needs to pay for every death he caused...

Your answers always have meaning, even though i dont agree with them but saying 'the U.S. donated some guns to the resistance movement against the S oviets 21 freaking years ago... ' is completely insane ...and yes CIA trained and supported Osama at that time. Everyone knows that.

Chase
01-05-2006, 11:58 PM
Im not defending her ...but this is the way all the politicians act when they are in campaign...:rolleyes:

Yes... to an extent. Nevertheless, some politicians do it more than others. Bush and Kerry are prime examples. Everybody knew where Bush stood on terrorism... whereas Kerry's ideologies were constantly changing with the wind.

Chase
01-06-2006, 12:15 AM
I figured that the name could make some confusion here...but believe me it wasnt my intention...sorry.

Im not blaming US ...waht your problem, Chase? No one is sayign US is wrong and consequently Osama is right...of course not. He needs to pay for every death he caused...

Your answers always have meaning, even though i dont agree with them but saying 'the U.S. donated some guns to the resistance movement against the S oviets 21 freaking years ago... ' is completely insane ...and yes CIA trained and supported Osama at that time. Everyone knows that.

I'm not saying that you're saying that in particular... but I can guarantee that the authors of that little piece you posted a link for believe that the U.S. is to blame. Why else would they would they take the time to try their best at linking the U.S. behind the attacks of 9/11.

The Mujahidin in Afghanistan was primarily funded by wealth Pakistanis and Saudis... and indirectly by the United States and Great Britain in order to halt the spread of Soviet-based Communism. The Maktab al-Khadamat, the group that Osama bin Laden created, limited its activities to fundraising, logistics, housing, education, refugee care, recruitment and the financing of other mujahideen. They did not have any direct armed combatants. The only thing that "is completely insane" is the accusation that the "CIA trained and supported Osama at that time." What did they train him to do to? Shoot a gun? Train him to be a boxer? He assisted more in financing... not armed combat.

Ana4Stapp
01-06-2006, 12:29 AM
I'm not saying that you're saying that in particular... but I can guarantee that the authors of that little piece you posted a link for believe that the U.S. is to blame. Why else would they would they take the time to try their best at linking the U.S. behind the attacks of 9/11.

The Mujahidin in Afghanistan was primarily funded by wealth Pakistanis and Saudis... and indirectly by the United States and Great Britain in order to halt the spread of Soviet-based Communism. The Maktab al-Khadamat, the group that Osama bin Laden created, limited its activities to fundraising, logistics, housing, education, refugee care, recruitment and the financing of other mujahideen. They did not have any direct armed combatants. The only thing that "is completely insane" is the accusation that the "CIA trained and supported Osama at that time." What did they train him to do to? Shoot a gun? Train him to be a boxer? He assisted more in financing... not armed combat.

Well are you admmiting that he was assisted by CIA???:rolleyes:

Chase
01-06-2006, 01:15 AM
Well are you admmiting that he was assisted by CIA???:rolleyes:

I said Osama bin Laden "assisted more in financing... not armed combat." What does that have to do with the C.I.A. training him? You made an aimless claim the the C.I.A. was, essentially, giving him lessons on how to be a terrorist. What's up with that? :wtf: lol

Ana4Stapp
01-06-2006, 02:45 AM
I said Osama bin Laden "assisted more in financing... not armed combat." What does that have to do with the C.I.A. training him? You made an aimless claim the the C.I.A. was, essentially, giving him lessons on how to be a terrorist. What's up with that? :wtf: lol

Well, Chase making fun of (my) words...is actually an old subterfuge to avoid answering aimless claims...very inteligent ...:rolleyes:

revisfoot
01-06-2006, 12:35 PM
Wait a minute John McCain, a war hero and Senator since 1987 scares you... but Condi Rice... a woman who doesn't have nearly the same amount of experience as him doesn't? You essentially don't like McCain because he isn't a polarizing G.O.P. lapdog that will follow the far right everso blindly. This is a divided and polarized nation because of the leaders of the Democratic and Republican parties. I assume you're referring to the "McCain Detainee Amendment" that was supported in the Senate 90-9. The main was a prisoner of war for five and a half years. What separates the United States from our enemies is the way we conduct ourselves in times of war. We're recruiting terrorists as we speak more and more as stories of torture are leaked. Terrorists are effectively using it in their propaganda machine AGAINST the United States. He's not saying "don't kill the terrorists," he's pushing some form of humanity. Saddam Hussein, for example, used torture. Adolf Hitler, for instance, used torture. The United States military and government is better than that.


Let's have a moment of introspective here, with a moment of hypothetical questioning as well...

Let's say that, in the midst of this global war on terror, we find a man, linked with al-Queda, who has vital information that could save THOUSANDS of American lives. Let's say, supposedly, he has the information inside him about al-Queda using planes as bombs to run into nuclear plants across America. (PanTex may be one of them -- our nation's largest manufacturer of nuclear arms) Would you be AGAINST doing whatever possible to get this information, to extract the facts from this man? Sometimes, torture is an evil neccessary. It is. I'm not talking about Abu Graib, either. That, my friend, was a black mark on the American military. I'm not talking about humiliating these people, I'm talking about professional torture that has been used for decades (blowing water into the eardrum at a high capacity as to explode the eardrum -- this works about 80% of the time, usually with only one ear.) Maybe Mr. McCain would like to go back to Vietnam and have his ANKLES CHAINED TO HIS BACK again; the thing is, even though this ammendment may seem so high and mighty and righteous, it HINDERS the process of protecting America.

revisfoot
01-06-2006, 12:40 PM
And, for the thing about McCain being a war hero, and all that, let me quote one very wise Jedi Master:
"Wars not make one great."

The thing is, is I know where Condi stands, I know where McCain stands. McCain is too rogue for me, too into his own thought process, that I believe he as President woudl hinder the nation. Although, I will admit this, that America will NEVER elect McCain into the Presidency, because of this. He is too much of a loose canon. Rice, on the other hand, has her feet planted firmly in the ground. She is strong-willed and smart enough, that I think she could do the job. Remember: the Presidency is not all about wargaming. It's mostly being CEO of a VERY large business. I think she would make a great businesswoman, with the help of a few wargames (ie, Powell, Rumsfield, etc) behind her.

revisfoot
01-06-2006, 12:42 PM
And Guliani?! Ha! A pro-choice, pro-gay rights candidate for the REPUBLICAN PARTY?! He would NEVER win over the Conservative base, which, by the way, makes up a very substancial part of the GOP.

Chase
01-06-2006, 02:57 PM
Let's have a moment of introspective here, with a moment of hypothetical questioning as well...

Let's say that, in the midst of this global war on terror, we find a man, linked with al-Queda, who has vital information that could save THOUSANDS of American lives. Let's say, supposedly, he has the information inside him about al-Queda using planes as bombs to run into nuclear plants across America. (PanTex may be one of them -- our nation's largest manufacturer of nuclear arms) Would you be AGAINST doing whatever possible to get this information, to extract the facts from this man? Sometimes, torture is an evil neccessary. It is. I'm not talking about Abu Graib, either. That, my friend, was a black mark on the American military. I'm not talking about humiliating these people, I'm talking about professional torture that has been used for decades (blowing water into the eardrum at a high capacity as to explode the eardrum -- this works about 80% of the time, usually with only one ear.) Maybe Mr. McCain would like to go back to Vietnam and have his ANKLES CHAINED TO HIS BACK again; the thing is, even though this ammendment may seem so high and mighty and righteous, it HINDERS the process of protecting America.

"Have his ankles chained to his back again?" Why? Because he doesn't think having out military treat prisoners of war in the same fashion that the Nazis did? It all depends on how you define torture. Sleep depravation is a form of torture and I have no problem with that. Yet... you just said that Abu Ghraib "was a black mark on the American military," and then a second later you go on to say that you think the Vietcong should go and torture the hell out of an American Senator? How has it hindered terrorism? We haven't caught Osama bin Laden. We haven't caught Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. We haven't stopped the insurgency in Iraq. In fact... since reports of torture leaked... there have been spikes of violece and terrorism in the Middle East. Remembe when the media said that our troops were flushing copies of the Koran down the toilet? Thousands of Pakistanis and other Muslims were protesting in the streets. Show me how torture has worked. Islamic extremists obviously have no problem dying... they would probably die before they give up vital information. You can't protect America by using a tactic that is going to keep increasing the amount of American enemies. Like I've said before... Al Qaeda has a very effective propaganda machine and when reports of torture are leaked, they jump all over that and say that this is why Arabs should fight the "infidels." I have no problem with domestic spying... but when it comes to torture... either do it and not have ANYTHING leak... or don't do it at all. You can torture them all day, but when some moron thinks it's in America's best interests to tell the world that American soldiers are defacing the religion of Islam, you're going to have a massive problem. How is this halting Islamic extremism?

Chase
01-06-2006, 03:06 PM
And Guliani?! Ha! A pro-choice, pro-gay rights candidate for the REPUBLICAN PARTY?! He would NEVER win over the Conservative base, which, by the way, makes up a very substancial part of the GOP.

Wait a minute... America isn't going to elece some far-right, Bible thumping, fascist. You think the Conservative base of the Republican Party would rather go Democrat then vote for a moderate? The problem with America is that the Democrats are lead by far left, liberal socialists and that the Republicans are lead by the far right. Both sides are at fault for creating a polarized nation that is engaged in a political civil war. Americans want moderate candidates... candidates who are actually WILLING to work with the other side.

Chase
01-06-2006, 03:14 PM
And, for the thing about McCain being a war hero, and all that, let me quote one very wise Jedi Master:
"Wars not make one great."

The thing is, is I know where Condi stands, I know where McCain stands. McCain is too rogue for me, too into his own thought process, that I believe he as President woudl hinder the nation. Although, I will admit this, that America will NEVER elect McCain into the Presidency, because of this. He is too much of a loose canon. Rice, on the other hand, has her feet planted firmly in the ground. She is strong-willed and smart enough, that I think she could do the job. Remember: the Presidency is not all about wargaming. It's mostly being CEO of a VERY large business. I think she would make a great businesswoman, with the help of a few wargames (ie, Powell, Rumsfield, etc) behind her.

Wait a minute. The Presidency is not about wargaming... that's exactly right! We have basically been in a war for entire Bush presidency and she's had two roles in this government. One as National Security Advisor... and as Secretary of State. What was she prior to that? A provost at Stanford. Being a provost at Stanford isn't CLOSE to being a "CEO" or anything else. I love Condi, don't get me wrong... but I don't think she's ready to be President. McCain would get the swing voters because he doesn't follow the President blindly like Rumsfeld or Condi. He's a military mind that could effectively fight terrorism and actually TRY to reunite this divided nation.

JulieCitySlicker
01-07-2006, 11:02 PM
If Hilary Clinton gets it then I'll have to shoot myself:wtf: :eek: :rolleyes:

guitardude1985
01-08-2006, 11:03 PM
If Hilary Clinton gets it then I'll have to shoot myself:wtf: :eek: :rolleyes:

If hillary does get in (shudders) then this will be an almost euopean succession...

Bush , 41 1989-93
Clinton , 93-2001
Bush 43, 2001-2009
Clinton , 2009-?

Quite a pattern huh? And expeacially in a 20 year time frame.

Ana4Stapp
01-08-2006, 11:31 PM
If hillary does get in (shudders) then this will be an almost euopean succession...

Bush , 41 1989-93
Clinton , 93-2001
Bush 43, 2001-2009
Clinton , 2009-?

Quite a pattern huh? And expeacially in a 20 year time frame.

Well, just following your thought...is there any possible 'new' name in Bush family to try to run it('after' Hillary)? Just curious...

Chase
01-08-2006, 11:33 PM
If hillary does get in (shudders) then this will be an almost euopean succession...

Bush , 41 1989-93
Clinton , 93-2001
Bush 43, 2001-2009
Clinton , 2009-?

Quite a pattern huh? And expeacially in a 20 year time frame.

Well, what's funny about that is that Democrats were accusing the U.S. of being a monarchy after President Bush was elected. I'm sure, like always, they'll change their opinions once Hillary officially announces her intentions to run for President.

guitardude1985
01-09-2006, 01:02 PM
To answer both you guys I'll say this.

I do not think (after bush finishes his second term) there will be another bush on the presidential ticket for a long, long time. Jeb bush I would think after his gouvenorship is done will return to private life. Funny, after W's reelection time put him person of the year and I bought it. In there I learned a few things. One, bush and kerry were actully distant cousins...but the connection went all the way back to the 1500's. However, there is a bush (I forget his name) who's a lawyer and is in his late 30's so perhaps and this is pushing it that he MAY consider a run for president 10-15 years from now.

Now, the bush familiy is all many aspects a american dynasty. Yea, It will be a clinton succession is hillary does become president. But there's a difference between the bush's and the clintons's...and that's familiy. The result would not be a son following in the father footsteps but rather a wife in the husbands.