George Dumbiya Bush

[jango]

Okay, we had a politics thread going well on the old board, let's start it back up here. So without further ado: "Bush is a moron."

If the Arab world was smart -- which I'm sure they are -- they'd take that pathetic speech Bush gave at the United Nations and replace the word "Iraq" with Israel.

Think about it for a sec. What are Bush's three primary reasons for attackin/invading Iraq? One, they've continually denied UN requests, failing to meet global demands. Two, they're a (supposed) threat to the region and "global peace." Thirdly, they (supposedly) have weapons of mass destruction. Now turn the tables at replace the same philosophy with Israel:

Israel has never followed through on UN demands. They've invaded and bombed bordering countries, proving that they are the true threat to the region and peace surrounding it. Finally, they do have weapons of mass destruction (proven) and they're willing to use them.

Clearly there's no real distinction between Iraq and Israel, except for which side you're on.

[Steve]

Bush may be a moron, but wasn't Gore more of a moron?

[hayley]

who the hell are we talking bout...i don't no nufink.:confused:

[hayley]

oh, now the name rings a bell.:rolleyes:

[souldancer]

Jango made some excellent points! And, yes, I have no doubt that Bush is a moron, and the scary thing is how many morons there are in this country to have voted him into office?!!
Gore, is not a moron (IMO), but an intelligent man who ufortunately followed after Clinton's infamous legacy, and didn't have the best campaign strategy. (can someone go help Florida with their elections)

[jango]

Well, Gore was indeed a moron. However, Bush is a bigger moron. ;)

The only one in Washington to appears to know what he's doing is Colin Powell, who should run for the Presidency in 2004 in order to keep this country out of the dumps.

Think about it for a second, before 9/11, Powell had effectively organized "smart sanctions" against Iraq. The US had countries like Russia and Germany backing our sanctions, placing Iraq in tight corner. After 9/11, Bush decides he's won a ticket to attack Iraq, and goes ballistic on everyone. Now we have all but one ally in our "War on Terror" and we're continuing to alienate ourselves from the rest.

Powell was right. Bush is wrong.

[souldancer]

I disagree with your comment that Gore is a 'moron' . Look at the definition. You may have opinions about his politics/views/personality - but you cannot deny intelligence.

Aside from that ;) Yes, Powell is a great role model. I can't debate politics...I just think that America is an adolescent country and it often mirrors in our International affairs and reactions.

[jango]

Well, you can't really judge our "youth" as a nation to be entirely indicative of our experience in foreign policy and relations. Look at European countries that have been around for hundreds and hundreds of years. Does that mean their foreign relation policies are any better? No. *cough*worldwarI*cough* *cough*worldwarII* *cough*crusades*cough* *cough*etc. etc. etc. *cough* It all boils down to the person, and Bush is a moron. Gore was a fool if anything.

[souldancer]

Aging includes dementia that can account for some countries....

And, you have to give some blame to the people that VOTED BUSH IN! He is just who he is (and a host of adjectives could fill this thread)..but who we elect is a reflection of the masses and times...pretty pathetic that we could even have someone like that on a ballot!

OK, 'fool' is more acceptable ;)

[CollectiveSoul]

no Bush is a crackpot(remember my PM)

[jango]

I find it hard to believe that Bush is still a crackpot.

[hayley]

Originally posted by jango
<b>Well, you can't really judge our "youth" as a nation to be entirely indicative of our experience in foreign policy and relations. Look at European countries that have been around for hundreds and hundreds of years. Does that mean their foreign relation policies are any better? No. *cough*worldwarI*cough* *cough*worldwarII* *cough*crusades*cough* *cough*etc. etc. etc. *cough* It all boils down to the person, and Bush is a moron. Gore was a fool if anything. </b>

do you need some cough medicnine, Jango???;)

[allison]

I agree that Powell would make a wonderful president (at least compared to the last few we've been unfortunate enough to have).

[TeriB19]

Something tells me Powell would actually be able to think for himself.

[CollectiveSoul]

My mom and I like Powell. Hes a good guy. I think he would be better off running for president but he said he doesnt want the responsibility of running a country.

[hayley]

Powell:( don't speak of that word, it's my ex's last name....sorry for da usless info, it's just, well, it's hard to explain. :mad:

[souldancer]

Originally posted by TeriB19
Something tells me Powell would actually be able to think for himself.
Yes, how refreshing that would be!! Imagine the US president having his own thoughts. I am not asking for 'original' thoughts, ..nor am I remotely suggesting critical thinking skills...just SOME KIND of neuronal processing. I was quite impressed with Jane Goodall's chimps, and in comparison....
(now, that's mean....

......

and it's not fair...to Flo and the others... )

[Siana]

in my opinion USA shouldn't attack Iraq.God know what may happen..another world war??:( Saddam is not that stupid,i think he has some secret hidden nuclear weapons..........

[TeriB19]

I'm very certain he has them. Why else would the UN weapons inspectors need to be escorted to only the locations Saddam wants them to see? He's definitely got either nuclear weapons or chemical weapons.

[Siana]

i think he has both...God help us if he use them.....

[allison]

Originally posted by souldancer
Yes, how refreshing that would be!! &nbsp; Imagine the US president having his own thoughts. &nbsp;I am not asking for 'original' thoughts, ..nor am I remotely suggesting critical thinking skills...just SOME KIND of neuronal processing. &nbsp;I was quite impressed with Jane Goodall's chimps, and in comparison....
(now, that's mean....

......

and it's not fair...to Flo and the others... )


Yes, very unfair to the chimps.

[Siana]

lol

[TeriB19]

Originally posted by souldancer
Yes, how refreshing that would be!! &nbsp; Imagine the US president having his own thoughts. &nbsp;I am not asking for 'original' thoughts, ..nor am I remotely suggesting critical thinking skills...just SOME KIND of neuronal processing. &nbsp;I was quite impressed with Jane Goodall's chimps, and in comparison....
(now, that's mean....

......

and it's not fair...to Flo and the others... ) I think they may actually do a better job and they'd work for bananas.

[Dogstar]

LMAO! I think Dumbiya kind of looks like a dumbed-down version of Curious George, or maybe Alfred E. Newman.

[TeriB19]

Yeah, I never saw the connection before but I definitely see some Alfred E. Newman in Bush. Great observation. I wonder if we fold a picture of Bush in three pieces, would we get a different picture? (only the older crowd will probably get that one)

[Dogstar]

LMFAO!!! I'd forgotten about those! Good one.

[Siana]

:confused:

[TeriB19]

Mad Magazine. An American satirical mag with the mascot Alfred E. Newman. Looks mysteriously like George W.

[Siana]

ok

[Unforgiven Fan]

why is it that when we get a republican in the white house that we have some bad times..why can't we learn from our mistakes...

Bush is a butt sniffing monkey who does not know what to call the citizens of a certain country...I am pretty sure that bush is a figure head and powell, rice, rumsfeild, and the other cabneit members are really doing t he work becuase bush does not know jack on how to run a country and how to stay out of a country's buisness...

[Lady Valkyrie]

I want to pose this question...

Those of you who oppose Bush, what did you guys think of him right after September 11, 2001? Back then Bush said that they were going to go after the terrorists behind September 11th attacks and those who harbor and help those terrorists. He proposed that if you are not for this war on terrorism you are then against the United States. It is common knowledge that Saddam is funding terrorists and sympathizes with the terroists and has had many ties to the terrorists. Saddam hates America and everything she stands for. Saddam has not let inspectors in for the past 8 years. The U.N. has not been enforcing it's own laws on Saddam. Those in Washington who have been opposeing Bush on this are the same ones who approved of Clinton signing the treaty to use force to enforce the no weapons of mass destruction laws. For the past week those who have been opposing Bush on this has been flip flopping around on this and have been playing politics. They have been screaming to put the issues of national security off until after the elections so they can do the "politicing" of social security and the "kitchen table" issues. In reality the polls, that those who oppsose Bush love to keep track of, are saying that the American people are more behind Bush on this than oppsosed to and that they want this issue dealt with before the elections. Representatives that oppose Bush went as far as to go on a "humanitarian trip" to the Middle East where the "Almighty Saddam" rules and reighns and said that the US is to blame for the state of that country and that their sympathsies go to Saddam. In reality is is the "Almighty Saddam's" way of ruling the country that is keeping his people in bondage and poverty. Then those very same representative, yesterday, stood behind Bush and said that they are behind Bish all the way when it comes to force being used in Iraq. Those in Washington who oppose Bush are self-centered and ignorant and only care about politicing and not the safety of this nation. They themselves agreed with Bush right after September 11, 2001 that they should go after the terrorists and go after those who sponser the terrorists. They are doubleminded and talk out of both sides of their mouths. Whether you like Bush or hate him if you can't agree that we should defend ourselves from terrorists and those who help terrorists then to me you are just plain Un-American. If you are not for us you are against us.

[allison]

I don't agree with alot of Bush's politics but I do like him as a person. I think it's a very unpopular opinion. Sort of how saying you like Creed is unpopular and people make fun of you. It's the same with saying you like Bush. But I don't care, I like Bush. And I like his father too.

As far as Saddam Insane, he needs to be killed. I don't enjoy saying that about a human being, but he is doing so much harm and causing so much human suffering being alive. He is probably the most destructive, evil human being since Hitler. I hate war, but I believe that it is sometimes a necessary evil and I support Bush in the was against terrorists and terrorism.

[Dogstar]

I'm not impressed with Bush post 9/11 at all. We are no closer to rounding up those responsible for the terrorist attacks than were were the week after they happened. We might know a little more, or have heard a little more about them, but we still haven't caught them and brought them to our form of justice.

We are responsible for the state Iraq is in as we bombed the crap out of them in Gulf War to *protect* Kuwait and liberate our oil interests in the Middle East. There also has been no real proof linking Saddam Hussein to the 9/11 attacks. There has been plenty of propaganda in the media, but nothing solid that really links him to it. When/if there is, then I say go after him. IMHO, Bush is looking for something else to rally the country around because we haven't found the 9/11 terrorists (bin Laden) and because our economy is in the toilet. He's just trying to finish the job his father did not.

Another reason I don't like Bush is that every issue is black and white to him. For him there are no gray areas and I'm sorry, but I believe there are many gray areas. And Lady V, show me a politician who doesn't talk out of both sides of his mouth. I have yet to find one. It's what they do for a living.

I believe that we should defend ourselves as a nation, but bombing Iraq is not the answer. Find the real perpetrators and bring them to justice.

[Bridge of Clay]

It seems Bush was elected by the big corporations, to help them, and no one at that time could expect 9/11, then it unfortunately happened... I´m not sure if Bush was ready to deal with it, and now it seems he´s always looking for a war, so he can hide US problems behind it...
But... what if is it prophetical?

I´m not fan of the way Bush is acting on foreing politcs, I disagree a lot... but who can guarantee us that Al Gore or someone else would be better????

It´s easy to point the downs... tha hard part is running a country...

You call Bush a moron... by the way things are going here, our next president will be the biggest morom ever...

[allison]

Originally posted by N30°14'?.7 W84°
It´s easy to point the downs... tha hard part is running a country...

So true.

[Siana]

Originally posted by N30°14'?.7 W84°
It seems Bush was elected by the big corporations, to help them, and no one at that time could expect 9/11, then it unfortunately happened... I´m not sure if Bush was ready to deal with it, and now it seems he´s always looking for a war, so he can hide US problems behind it...
But... what if is it prophetical?

I´m not fan of the way Bush is acting on foreing politcs, I disagree a lot... but who can guarantee us that Al Gore or someone else would be better????

It´s easy to point the downs... tha hard part is running a country...

You call Bush a moron... by the way things are going here, our next president will be the biggest morom ever...

tell me,what's going on with the elections in Brasil??

[allison]

Originally posted by Siana
tell me,what's going on with the elections in Brasil??

Yeah, that's right.

[Bridge of Clay]

Until now, it sucks...
The leftist candidate (Fidel Castro´s friend) Lula won the first round, but didn´t get majority, so in 3 weeks there´s a second round, this time only between him and the goverment´s candidate, Jose Serra.

I´m pissed! Brazilians definately don´t know how to vote. This Lula guy sucks. He´s the dumbest dumb ever. He can´t speak English, he studied only until 4th grade (that´s absurd!) and it´s been 20 years he doesn´t work. His political part gives money to him, all this time, because he´s a charismatic leader of leftists. When he used to work, he worked in a plant until the day he cut himself and lost a finger... Plus, he never was a mayor, governor, senator, or whatever: no political experience at all... He also suports Colombian FARC, you know, that terrorist guerrilla...

In the other hand, Jose Serra is one of the brightest minds ever. I think he would be better than President Cardoso. He´s graduated in Economy. The only bad thing about him is that he´s really serious, people say he needs to be more "smily" to touch the population. What is in his way too is that the unemploying is high and population was kinda sacrificed due the efforts to set Brazilian Economy.

I still have hopes on Serra, although it´ll be really difficult to him. Polls point Lula with 55% of the votes, and Serra with only 35%...
The rest have not decided yet...

[allison]

Originally posted by N30°14'?.7 W84°
He´s the dumbest dumb ever. He can´t speak English, he studied only until 4th grade (that´s absurd!) and it´s been 20 years he doesn´t work. Plus, he never was a mayor, governor, senator, or whatever: no political experience at all...

I can't believe someone with so little education and experience can actually vie for the presidency!

Originally posted by N30°14'?.7 W84°
He also suports Colombian FARC, you know, that terrorist guerrilla...

That's the worst part!

Originally posted by N30°14'?.7 W84°
<b>In the other hand, Jose Serra is one of the brightest minds ever. I think he would be better than President Cardoso. He´s graduated in Economy. The only bad thing about him is that he´s really serious, people say he needs to be more "smily" to touch the population. </b>

Unfortunately, how a candidate comes across can matter even more than his qualifications or politics.

I guess politics everywhere suck.

[Bridge of Clay]

Originally posted by allison
I can't believe someone with so little education and experience can actually vie for the presidency!

I can´t believe it either... and I can´t believe there are people who vote on him. he was trade union leader once, but that´s not a big deal... He can´t barely speak portuguese...sometimes he misses the plurals... but his "charismatic" to a lot of people, who think he can solve unemployement coz he know people´s pain... he really is a moron... he´s friend of hugo chavez, also. This the 4th time he´s running for president, but this time he really has chances to win coz the greatest Brazilian genious of marketing is coordinating his campaign...
that sucks...

I once said here I hate hate... but I can´t stand this Lula guy (Lula is his nickname)...

[Read JDM]

I think a lot of you guys are coming out with opinions that are misguided, unresearched, or just plain wrong. Most of you seem to have this guiding light of "Bush is a moron," and you're basing everything you say on this centerpiece. You want to talk about having original thoughts? How about having one of your own? Because the "Bush is a moron" gimmick is so two years ago.

All it's done is led you all to say things like America's responsible for Iraq's poverty, as if it's our fault that the Iraqi people didn't overthrow their dictator, as if it's our fault that their dictator builds palaces rather than feed them (a la his hero, Stalin). The purpose of the American government is to protect the American people -- first and foremost, militarily -- and a war against Sadda, Hussein, while not preferrable, will nonetheless be just (or as just as something so sickening as war can be).

This let's-roll-over-and-ignore-the-ugliness mentality existed prior to WWII and during its early stages, and it's resurfacing like nobody's business now. You're seeing the world for how you'd like it to be, not for how it is.

If you think Bush is bad because the economy's bad, look at the facts: The economic slide started during the Clinton regime. You may have been happier back then because you had a few extra bucks in your pocket, but me, I won't bow at the altar of cash flow -- I want something more, and that includes a respectable moral climate. There might be no such thing as a morally upstanding president, I don't know, but Clinton was perhaps the most corrupt president we'll see in our lifetimes. That doesn't mean I don't like the guy. I wouldn't dare pass up the chance to have a beer with him. But just because he was a better speaker than Bush doesn't mean a thing. I'd rather see a guy mess up pronouncing words, than a guy with perfect speaking skills who uses his words to regularly deceive.

If you still think the USA was better off during the Clinton era, fine. You can go on believing as you already do. You're entitled to be wrong, if you so desire. But the folks in Italy liked Mussolini because the trains ran on time, and I think you all ought to consider that every once in awhile.

Originally posted by jango
Israel has never followed through on UN demands. They've invaded and bombed bordering countries, proving that they are the true threat to the region and peace surrounding it. Finally, they do have weapons of mass destruction (proven) and they're willing to use them.

Why not make stuff up while you're at it? Oh, wait... you did.

Israel does not invade its neighbors, pal. It's the other way around. Israel seizes land when it beats its opponents back, and quite frankly, I don't blame them. Their state is 10-miles wide. Furthermore, the reason they've got weapons of mass destruction is because people with the very same philosophy you espouse would push their entire population into the sea in a heartbeat otherwise.

The Arab world is not "smart," as you say, unless by smart you mean cunning, sly, devious, etc. They have carefully crafted a great big story about how oppressed they've been, and so on and so forth, when, in fact, it's the other way around. But hey, you can join the tides of deception; that side was proven wrong in WWII and will be proven wrong again.

Originally posted by jango
Clearly there's no real distinction between Iraq and Israel, except for which side you're on.

That and the distinction between good and evil, sure. Listen: Six million Jews were murdered in World War II. You got that? Six million. Don't make me count from 1 to 6,000,000 just to get that through to you. There's a reason why the Israelis were granted a state after the war, and that reason was that they weren't safe anywhere because everyone's always trying to kill them.

Originally posted by jango
After 9/11, Bush decides he's won a ticket to attack Iraq, and goes ballistic on everyone.

I'll bet you count yourself amongst those who believe Bush "could've done more" to prevent 9/11. But now, when he's trying to show he's got the evidence against Iraq, you're saying he's a hawk, that he should be stopped, etc., etc.

I'll bet you you would've criticized Bush for taking the measures to stop 9/11, had he had the knowledge to do so beforehand. You would've kicked and screamed about profiling and civil liberties, blah, blah, blah, and since 3,000 lives would've been spared, there'd be no 9/11 to prove how off base you are.

Originally posted by jango
Bush is a moron.

And that puts the rest of us where on the totem pole?

Sorry if I managed to get personal here (I tried not to). You touched a very sensitive nerve!!!! ;)

[Dogstar]

<b>The Arab world is not "smart," as you say, unless by smart you mean cunning, sly, devious, etc.</b>

That's a pretty stereotypical, racist thing to say and I find it highly insulting. There are two sides to every story and in this country we get only one, the perspective of the Jews. Yes, the Jews have suffered mightily as the slaughter of 6 million attests, and I can friggin count, so you don't have to do it for me.l But they haven't exactly been saints in ths thing, either. Both sides have to figure out a way to make it work, and so far, killing is the only thing they have managed to accomplish, on BOTH sides.

[jango]

Not to get "personal" or anything, ReadJDM, but your rant there was nothing more than typical conservative jargon that is "so" fifty years ago. We're discussing politics, get used to it. Opinions don't generally drastically change over a two year increment in such discussion. Live with it.

"<i>All it's done is led you all to say things like America's responsible for Iraq's poverty"</i>

No, but we will be if we attack Iraq and launch some moronic crusade against "terror." Then, we the American people, will be dealt the bill. Frankly, if I don't have to pay for the Iraqis now, why would I want to start? This is just a ploy by Bush to distract the majority from the truth of his ill-fated presidency.

"The purpose of the American government is to protect the American people -- first and foremost, militarily "

To begin, I'd like to state that that had to be one of the most fascist statements I've ever read... a la Hitler. One of the government's duties as supported by Locke, was that the hierarchy of our political system would act upon the will of its citizens. Right now, Bush's support for a such a war is waning, which begs the question: Do we really need this "protection"? No. There is NOTHING that links Hussein or Iraq to terrorism. The CIA nor the FBI nor have found anything. This leaves nothing but speculative science fiction stories from the likes of Rumsfield and Bush to drive the attention towards Iraq.

<i>"This let's-roll-over-and-ignore-the-ugliness mentality existed prior to WWII and during its early stages, and it's resurfacing like nobody's business now. You're seeing the world for how you'd like it to be, not for how it is.</i>"

I strongly suggest you take some history lessons. The British practiced appeasement, which, granted, was a disaster. However, there were definite signs that Hitler had plans to take over the world, such as oh, I don't know... invading Poland! Iraq has no ties to anything substantial enough to start a war over! Nothing. Do you propose that we start a 9-13 billion dollar war every time a country decides to disagree? Until you've experienced life outside of the box you live in, you have no room to discuss this. This type of pretentious attitude is what drives these idiotic and paternalistic crusades. Simply put: stupid.

"[i]If you think Bush is bad because the economy's bad, look at the facts: The economic slide started during the Clinton regime. You may have been happier back then because you had a few extra bucks in your pocket"

Again, I advise that you pull out the history book, Clinton turned Bush 41's enormous deficit (one of the largest of all time) into the largest surplus ever. Why is Bush 43 having such a hard time doing anything remotely similar? Blame 9/11 all you will, but his tax cuts did not help AT ALL.

"I'd rather see a guy mess up pronouncing words, than a guy with perfect speaking skills who uses his words to regularly deceive."

Ah yes, the joy of having a bumbling moron in office. The man can't pronounce words! That's pathetic. To hold the highest office in the land, arguably the most powerful man in the world, and he can't form coherent sentences?!? How can you just shove that to the side and ignore that, but not Clinton's life BEYOND fulfilling his duties? Seems like a double standard to me, but typical of your conservative ilk. Clinton was no angel, but he got the job done, Bush 43 has not, but he's about to get us into another 'Nam, which is not going to help at all. Again, you can ignore the facts and have a wrong opinion. That's fine, but when I've got facts on my side, your personal ethics code just doesn't fit into politics. You really ought to know more about a topic before spouting like you did. But not to get "personal" or anything.

"Israel does not invade its neighbors, pal. It's the other way around. Israel seizes land when it beats its opponents back, and quite frankly, I don't blame them. Their state is 10-miles wide. Furthermore, the reason they've got weapons of mass destruction is because people with the very same philosophy you espouse would push their entire population into the sea in a heartbeat otherwise.

*cough*Lebanon*cough* C'mon, get a history book, I'm almost rolling on the floor laughing here.

"<i>The Arab world is not "smart," as you say, unless by smart you mean cunning, sly, devious, etc. They have carefully crafted a great big story about how oppressed they've been, and so on and so forth, when, in fact, it's the other way around. But hey, you can join the tides of deception; that side was proven wrong in WWII and will be proven wrong again.</i>"

Racism at its worst. That is a religious debate that I will not venture into. I am not from Israel, nor am I Arab. Neither you nor I has anything valid to say aside from each side is wrong to murder senselessly. You're really starting to sound pretentious here, if you're going to destroy your own arguments, state that at the top of my posts so as not to waste my precious time.

"I'll bet you you would've criticized Bush for taking the measures to stop 9/11, had he had the knowledge to do so beforehand. You would've kicked and screamed about profiling and civil liberties, blah, blah, blah, and since 3,000 lives would've been spared, there'd be no 9/11 to prove how off base you are."

Your numbers are off, but alas. Bush DID have information, as did Roosevelt. Get with it. You're really not this disillusioned, are you?

"And that puts the rest of us where on the totem pole?"

No farther down, but you do have a chance to redeem yourself in 2004.

EDIT: I apologize for the harsh tone of my words. I do not mean to offend. I'm just so tired of Bush constantly deceiving the American people. We should not fight a war just to be fighting. With legitimate cause, which has not been produced in this case, I'm all for it. But let things run their course.

[Dogstar]

Nice to have ya back, jango!:D

[souldancer]

DS, you took the words out of my mouth!
GREAT to have you back Jango. :) Rock on!
I am lifting my hands up high because I feel this...

[TeriB19]

Well said, as usual Jango. Glad to see you back with us.:P

[Bridge of Clay]

hey, read jdm... I hope you don´t think all arabs are evil... there are good ones and evil ones, as there are good jews and evil jews, good Americans and evil Americans, etc... Stating all arabs are evil is racism. I hope you understand it. I don´t mean to offend you. I´m not defending arabs, I´m just saying that we need more tolerance.

As for Bush, see the pic I´m attaching. You´ll understand. No further comments on him! :lol:

But I´m just kidding. I don´t mean to offend anybody. Sincerelly.
_____________________
Okay, I WAS gonna post an attachment, but for some reason I don´t know, I´m not allowed for Steve to do it.
I could post on the old forum, is it related to the new one? Or is it just personal ? :P

[allison]

Originally posted by jango
[BAh yes, the joy of having a bumbling moron in office. The man can't pronounce words! That's pathetic. To hold the highest office in the land, arguably the most powerful man in the world, and he can't form coherent sentences?!? [/b]

And he's comes out of the gates flying, ladies and gentlemen! It's about damn time you're back Jango.

Anyway, what you said above is asinine. Tell me the last time you heard Bush speak in incoherent sentences? I have watched most if not all of his speeches for the last year and can't recall anything that sticks out in my mind that fits this bill. And even IF he does on occasion, that makes him a bumbling moron? PLEASE. There are plenty of highly intelligent people (Einstein, for one) who's speaking skills are not excellent. Stick to the political arguements.

[Dogstar]

Dang, I wish I still had the e-mail from a friend who collected a multitude of Bush's bumblings. They were indeed fairly incoherent. And there were at least 40 of them, in a span of a couple of months. It may be that some very intelligent people butcher their speech, but when you are the leader of the free world and you are presenting to yourself to that world, I'm sorry, I think you should be able to display a basic command of the language.

[Read JDM]

I'm going to destroy my own arguments. I thought I'd let you know ahead of time, as requested.

Originally posted by jango
This is just a ploy by Bush to distract the majority from the truth of his ill-fated presidency.

Which U.S. city are you willing to bet that you're right? San Francisco? Miami? Let me know. I'll be sure to forward your suggestions. Oh, and you can spare me the talk of losing American lives in the process, by the way. I don't want to lose them any more than you do, and you know it, so I don't very much feel like hearing you accuse me of otherwise.

Originally posted by jango
I'd like to state that that had to be one of the most fascist statements I've ever read... a la Hitler.

I'm sure the family members I never got to meet on account of the Holocaust will be proud to know I turned out like Hitler. Thanks. Thanks a lot.

Originally posted by jango
I strongly suggest you take some history lessons.

Minored in it.

Originally posted by jango
Until you've experienced life outside of the box you live in, you have no room to discuss this. This type of pretentious attitude is what drives these idiotic and paternalistic crusades. Simply put: stupid.

Just because my perspective differs from yours doesn't mean I'm stupid. Thanks again.

Originally posted by jango
Clinton turned Bush 41's enormous deficit (one of the largest of all time) into the largest surplus ever.

And what's your point? I never said Bush 41 was a better president than Clinton. He wasn't. It still doesn't change the fact that the stock markets began their slide before the 2000 Election. The economy of the '90s couldn't have lasted because the abundance of optimism turned into overconfidence, thus bursting the Internet bubble. I'd blame Al Gore for inventing the damned thing, but I'll save you the frustration and just tell you how right you are; I'd like to think Hitler might do the same were he alive today.

Originally posted by jango
Ah yes, the joy of having a bumbling moron in office. The man can't pronounce words! That's pathetic.

Yeah, and since I stumble over the occasional word, I guess I'm pathetic, too. Boy, I sure am glad you're here to set my priorities straight. You're the best. Let's all hold hands now.

Originally posted by jango
<b>Seems like a double standard to me, but typical of your conservative ilk. You really ought to know more about a topic before spouting like you did. But not to get "personal" or anything.</b>

God bless you and yours.

Originally posted by jango
Racism at its worst. Neither you nor I has anything valid to say aside from each side is wrong to murder senselessly.

I'm not going to argue with you. Murder is wrong. I, like you, like everyone, would like to see the violence in the Middle East stop, even if for no other reason than to safely visit the Holy Land some time before I die. I'm not a racist, though. Just in case you care to know. Comments were made about the "Arab world." I responded about the "Arab world." Not about Arabs. Not about people with certain religious beliefs or shades of skin. About the "Arab world." We're talking about trends here, and the trend, as I see it, is that the "Arab world" is not doing enough to... never mind. Just forget about it. When's the next anti-Jew rally?

Originally posted by jango
Bush DID have information, as did Roosevelt. Get with it. You're really not this disillusioned, are you?

No, but you've proven my point for me, and I thank you. You say Bush had information prior to 9/11. Fine. I'm sure he did. Probably not enough to thwart the attacks, but we all know he had something. Now, he has information about Iraq. It's not a lot. It's not conclusive. It's therefore not enough for us to take action, in your mind. So, I'll ask the same question I asked at the top: Which U.S. city are you willing to bet that you're right? Because if Iraq does, in fact, hand weapons of mass destruction over to terrorist groups, the aftermath will most definitely include talk of what our president could've done to prevent the chaos. You know it. I know it.

Originally posted by jango
You do have a chance to redeem yourself in 2004.

Oh, you mean I can vote for Gore again like I did in 2000? Thanks but no thanks.

Originally posted by jango
EDIT: I apologize for the harsh tone of my words. I do not mean to offend.

Well, you did. You compared my words to Hitler's, you called my opinions racist, you insulted my intelligence, you held my would-be apology against me, and you successfully managed to take my mind off the actual issues at hand in composing my response. All because I didn't like your comparing Iraq to Israel. You're still wrong, though. As the second coming of Hitler, you can take my word for it.

[allison]

woops

[allison]

Originally posted by Dogstar
Dang, I wish I still had the e-mail from a friend who collected a multitude of Bush's bumblings. They were indeed fairly incoherent. And there were at least 40 of them, in a span of a couple of months. It may be that some very intelligent people butcher their speech, but when you are the leader of the free world and you are presenting to yourself to that world, I'm sorry, I think you should be able to display a basic command of the language.

I wish you still had that email too b/c every speech I've seen in the last year or so, has not included said bumblings. I know that there have been some cases where he has fumbled a word or two or three, but not to the extent that people make it out to be. I'd MUCH rather have a president that's an imperfect speaker who's character I can approach respecting than a smooth-talking womanizer of 20-somethings who lied to the public's face as well as under oath (and you CAN'T argue that) who has a gift for public speaking.

[Dogstar]

If you are talking about the Arab world, you are talking about Arabs. So in my view, it's racist. Jango wasn't the only person on this thread to accuse of being one. You also made another offensive post in another thread about Spanish and Taco Bell. I'm sorry for the family members you never met because of the Holocaust, but it doesn't excuse returning racism on Hitler's part with more racism.

[Dogstar]

Originally posted by allison
I wish you still had that email too b/c every speech I've seen in the last year or so, has not included said bumblings. &nbsp;I know that there have been some cases where he has fumbled a word or two or three, but not to the extent that people make it out to be. &nbsp;I'd MUCH rather have a president that's an imperfect speaker who's character I can approach respecting than a smooth-talking womanizer of 20-somethings who lied to the public's face as well as under oath (and you CAN'T argue that) who has a gift for public speaking.

Give me a break. If you think Dubya is Mr. Character, guess again. He hasn't exactly had a sterling past, either. Most of the politicians who reach his level don't. The guy hasn't held an honest job in his life. He's ridden daddy's coattails since the get-go. Only got into Yale because daddy went there. He pretty much ran for president because his gubernatorial adviser said he could win. Not much in the way of a platform.

[allison]

Oh Boy. Maybe people are coming across the wrong way - in a way they did not intend. I was not offended at all by the Taco Bell comment (I actually thought it was hilarious), and, believe me, I despise racism. I have an adopted Japanese sister, and so I understand the ramifications of racism. I do not believe it was meant to offend anyone. He was saying he doesn't know Spanish but he did eat at a Taco Bell the other day. It was a joke, and I don't see how it could have hurt anyone, i.e., Spanish-speaking people. If I am wrong and just not getting it, I would be grateful if someone would explain to me how this is offensive. It sounds just like something that Letterman or Leno would say. I don't really even want to get into this b/c once someone gets accused of being a racist (and I guess I am putting myself at risk for that), they may as well get the hell out of town before being burned at the stake, but I REALLY, REALLY don't think ReadJDM is a racist. I just think there was miscommunication on the board b/c it's easy to be misinterpreted through one's written words.

[allison]

Originally posted by Dogstar
Give me a break. If you think Dubya is Mr. Character, guess again. He hasn't exactly had a sterling past, either. Most of the politicians who reach his level don't. The guy hasn't held an honest job in his life. He's ridden daddy's coattails since the get-go. Only got into Yale because daddy went there. He pretty much ran for president because his gubernatorial adviser said he could win. Not much in the way of a platform.

You're putting words in my mouth. Did I say he is "Mr. Character"???? I said "who's character I can APPROACH respecting", and I was comparing it to Clinton's character. And just about anyone looks like Mother Teresa compared to him. IN MY OPINION

[Read JDM]

Originally posted by Dogstar
You also made another offensive post in another thread about Spanish and Taco Bell.

Dude. Don't even pretend that was offensive. That had nothing to do with Spanish people. I don't think my comments about the Arab world were offensive at all, but I can at least see where they'd be construed as such. I'll let you have that one if you really feel that way. But if the Taco Bell comment also passes for racism, all I can say is you could use a couple of cold ones and a little lightening up.

[Dogstar]

That may be true, Allison, but that's the way it came across to me. And just because it's something Leno or Letterman would say, doesn't make it right or acceptable. I'm getting steamed here, so I think I'm going to go away for a while before I post something I might regret. Sorry.

[Dogstar]

Originally posted by allison
<b>You're putting words in my mouth. &nbsp;Did I say he is "Mr. Character"???? &nbsp;I said "who's character I can APPROACH respecting", and I was comparing it to Clinton's character. &nbsp;And just about anyone looks like Mother Teresa compared to him. &nbsp;IN MY OPINION </b>

The words Mr. Character were mine, not intended to put words in your mouth. I'm well aware that you were comparing Bush's character to Clinton's. And I simply disagree with your view of his character. I'm not defending any of the lies Clinton told. I think what he did was despicable. All I was saying was that most politicians, IMHO, don't have a lot of interest in really helping anyone but themselves. They don't have admirable character, IMHO.

[Dogstar]

Originally posted by Read JDM
Dude. Don't even pretend that was offensive. That had nothing to do with Spanish people. I don't think my comments about the Arab world were offensive at all, but I can at least see where they'd be construed as such. I'll let you have that one if you really feel that way. But if the Taco Bell comment also passes for racism, all I can say is you could use a couple of cold ones and a little lightening up.

Construed as such? What you uttered was one of the oldest stereotypes in the book.

Really? Nothing to do with Spanish people, on a thread posted by a Spanish person????? Riiiiiiiiight.

[allison]

Originally posted by Dogstar
All I was saying was that most politicians, IMHO, don't have a lot of interest in really helping anyone but themselves. They don't have admirable character, IMHO.

I completely agree with you that most politicians are only out for themselves and don't have much character at all. I'd say that's a true statement.

[allison]

Originally posted by Dogstar
That may be true, Allison, but that's the way it came across to me. And just because it's something Leno or Letterman would say, doesn't make it right or acceptable. I'm getting steamed here, so I think I'm going to go away for a while before I post something I might regret. Sorry.

I do understand how the 'Arab world' comment could have been seen as racist (although I don't believe that was the intention). But I still do not believe the Taco Bell comment was racist but, again, I would like for someone to explain to me why b/c if I am missing something, and I could stand to be enlightened, I sincerely want to know.

Leno and Letterman could not get away with truly racist comments on their shows. People would be all over them in a heartbeat (which they should!).

[Dogstar]

Look, I'm not a member of the PC police squad, but there are so many things people say that they don't even realize are offensive. When I read the Taco Bell comment, it came off as snide to me and stereotypical. To me, it was like someone saying, Hey, I don't know a lot of black people, but I've eaten fried chicken. It made me cringe.

[Read JDM]

I agree with Allison here. If there's something I'm missing, enlighten me. I know it doesn't bother me when someone mentions gefilte fish. I don't even like the stuff. So, I am almost offended by your finding my Taco Bell comment offensive, if you want to know the truth.

Over this past weekend, I got into a similar debate. I was watching a movie about a child with Down Syndrome with some friends, and in reaction to the treatment the main character was receiving, I started to say, "Down Syndrome people really get the raw deal. They're really cool when people treat them like people." Three words into my sentence, however, I was cut off by someone who was offended by my calling them "Down Syndrome people" as opposed to "people with Down Syndrome." Well, I guess the intent of a message obviously means nothing to some people, because they're only waiting to pounce on you or accuse you for meaning something you didn't mean, never minding the fact that what you're saying is something positive about an oft-persecuted minority.

But the point is, my comment about Taco Bell had nothing to do with Spanish people whatsoever. It had to do with wanting to segue into an anecdote about someone singing Stairway To Heaven in Polish two times in a row. So, if you really think that's racist, fine, whatever, believe what you want. It wasn't intended to be racist by the person who wrote it, nor does it seem any more racist to that person in retrospect.

[souldancer]

Originally posted by Read JDM
I agree with Allison here. If there's something I'm missing, enlighten me. But the point is, my comment about Taco Bell had nothing to do with Spanish people whatsoever. It had to do with wanting to segue into an anecdote about someone singing Stairway To Heaven in Polish two times in a row. So, if you really think that's racist, fine, whatever, believe what you want. It wasn't intended to be racist by the person who wrote it, nor does it seem any more racist to that person in retrospect.
Well, we all view and interpret things differently - I respect your intentions and follow-up post. I didn't mean to offend you, just wanted to post my opinion, expression, reaction...and am still confused as to how a writer could make this tangent/transition. Do you remember the chihuahua thing?
Granted, maybe I am just one of those overly sensitive types from the west coast (let's see, as you face the continent, I believe that is on the left). Take care JDM and Allison! Thanks for your post DS! Let's all keep rocking on - or would you rather do the samba? ;)

[souldancer]

Originally posted by Read JDM
. But if the Taco Bell comment also passes for racism, all I can say is you could use a couple of cold ones and a little lightening up. DANG, I missed this post. Pass me a Red Seal Ale and how about a Conn. brew for you DS?! ;) And, no, I don't smoke.

[allison]

Originally posted by allison
I completely agree with you that most politicians are only out for themselves and don't have much character at all. &nbsp;I'd say that's a true statement.

...and come to think of it, it's also prejudiced - my pre-judging a group of people. But I guess when it's a prejudiced statement about a certain group of people (that society approves of prejudice towards, i.e., politicians, George W. Bush, Republicans, etc.), it's not offensive. Things can really get complicated here, so I suggest we give Read the benefit of the doubt b/c it's really the intentions that count (like we talked about in the cussing thread), and I do not believe in my heart that he meant any harm.

[allison]

Originally posted by souldancer
Let's all keep rocking on - or would you rather do the samba? ;)

LOL :)

[Read JDM]

Originally posted by allison
...and come to think of it, it's also prejudiced - my pre-judging a group of people. &nbsp;But I guess when it's a prejudiced statement about a certain group of people (that society approves of prejudice towards, i.e., politicians, George W. Bush, Republicans, etc.), it's not offensive. &nbsp;Things can really get complicated here, so I suggest we give Read the benefit of the doubt b/c it's really the intentions that count (like we talked about in the cussing thread), and I do not believe in my heart that he meant any harm.

Thank you. (I only wish I thought of that point you made about approved persecution against W first!)

[creedfaner]

Originally posted by jango
<b>Think about it for a sec. What are Bush's three primary reasons for attackin/invading Iraq? One, they've continually denied UN requests, failing to meet global demands. Two, they're a (supposed) threat to the region and "global peace." Thirdly, they (supposedly) have weapons of mass destruction. Now turn the tables at replace the same philosophy with Israel:

Israel has never followed through on UN demands. They've invaded and bombed bordering countries, proving that they are the true threat to the region and peace surrounding it. Finally, they do have weapons of mass destruction (proven) and they're willing to use them. </b>

Sudam is just as sick as the people doing a kill spree in Washington. He supposedly has weapons of mass destruction, but Isreal doesnt. Sudam is next to Hitler and Stalin, Sudam is killing his own people. Sudam is more of a threat to the world becuase of the "supposedly" weapons of mass destruction. What can Isreal do to anyone? They can barely defend themselves from a small war against Pakistan. Another thing why Isreal isnt a threat to us, we basicly helped them. We helped them in WWII and pretty much have for a long time now. Sudam is a threat becuase he threatens us for one. Second, why are the buildings that the UN inspectors visit, why are they so clean and empty? Becuase Iraq is basicly hiding SOMETHING.

Isreal does that bombing to defend themselves...its self defence.

[Dogstar]

Originally posted by souldancer
DANG, I missed this post. &nbsp;Pass me a Red Seal Ale and how about a Conn. brew for you DS?! ;) &nbsp;And, no, &nbsp;I don't smoke.

Hell, yeah, I'll take couple of Pete's Wicked Ales.

[Bridge of Clay]

Originally posted by souldancer
Let's all keep rocking on - or would you rather do the samba? ;)

No, please let´s all keep rocking on!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :jam: :crest:

This may sound weird to you, but I HATE samba.. it sucks! I know it´s typical Brazilian music, but I just can´t stand it...
But if you wanna try Brazilian music, get Bossa Nova... great lyrics and quality technic melodies... it´s not rock, but it´s good... I´m not a fan of bossa nova, but it´s cool...

Did I tell you I hate samba???

[Bridge of Clay]

hey, Sudam is that tiny country... Sadam is the crazy one...

[Siana]

so true.....

[Bridge of Clay]

take a look at this:
http://www.nytimes.com/auth/login?URI=http...cas/20BRAZ.html (http://www.nytimes.com/auth/login?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/20/international/americas/20BRAZ.html)

[GoodGodGirl23]

:confused:

[TeriB19]

Originally posted by N30°14'?.7 W84°
take a look at this:
http://www.nytimes.com/auth/login?URI=http...cas/20BRAZ.html (http://www.nytimes.com/auth/login?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/20/international/americas/20BRAZ.html) Marcos, I know you're not trying to sell us newspaper subscriptions.;) In order to access what you're trying to show us we have to register for something. Can you try it again?:)

[Bridge of Clay]

Yeah, I know... I read it in Portuguese, it was transcrpited from NY Times... then I tried to get the original, but I was too lazy to register... but I don´t think you have to pay to register... it just takes time, submiting forms... I hate this kind of site!!!!
heheehe sorry... I´ll try to find it later

[jango]

Originally posted by creedfaner
<b>Sudam is just as sick as the people doing a kill spree in Washington. He supposedly has weapons of mass destruction, but Isreal doesnt. Sudam is next to Hitler and Stalin, Sudam is killing his own people. Sudam is more of a threat to the world becuase of the "supposedly" weapons of mass destruction. What can Isreal do to anyone? They can barely defend themselves from a small war against Pakistan. Another thing why Isreal isnt a threat to us, we basicly helped them. We helped them in WWII and pretty much have for a long time now. Sudam is a threat becuase he threatens us for one. Second, why are the buildings that the UN inspectors visit, why are they so clean and empty? Becuase Iraq is basicly hiding SOMETHING.

Isreal does that bombing to defend themselves...its self defence. </b>

Israel does indeed possess weapons of mass destruction. Saddam is not threatening us, we are threatening him.

[creedfaner]

how about you look into Saddam's past jango...

Saddam's Chemical Attacks:
--1986 March - UN Secretary General reports Iraq's use of mustard gas and nerve agents against Iranian soldiers, with significant usage in 1981 and 1984.

--1988 March 16 - Iraq attacks the Kurdish town of Halabjah with mix of poison gas and nerve agents, killing 5000 residents.

--1988 February-September- Iraq military operation "Anfal" results in 50,000-100,000 deaths throughout northern Iraq. Iraq uses chemical weapons, mass executions and forced relocation to terrorize the area.

Iraqi Invasion of Kuwait:
--1990 August 2 - Iraq invades Kuwait and is condemned by the United Nations Security Council Resolution 660, which calls for the full withdrawal.

--1990 November 29 - UN orders Iraqi withdrawal by January 15, 1991.

--1991 January 17 - The Gulf War starts with coalition forces begin aerial bombing of Iraq, "Operation Desert Storm".

--1991 Mid-March/early April - Iraqi military forces suppress rebellions in the south and north of the country, creating a humanitarian disaster on the borders of Turkey and Iran.

No-Fly Zones and Other
--1996 August 31 - In response to a call for aid from the KDP, Iraqi forces launch an offensive into the northern no-fly zone and capture Arbil.

--2000 November - Iraq rejects new weapons inspections proposals.


Look at the statistics jango...He is doing something, always has been. We are going around in circles, cant you tell? We inspected him once, then war broke out. Now we are pushing it again, but we do not want to take chances. And what makes you think Bush will send in troops before inspectors? Yes, he MIGHT if Saddam doesnt let them in after awhile.

[Siana]

I'm sick of terrorism!Look what's going on in Russia now.......:(