Deal. I'll see if I can search out additional sources for my informational pleasure.

I still maintain that Bush could use a little more work in the "political-figure-head" department. And I wish he'd get that eyes-squinted, one-side-of-his-lip-upturned smirk off his face. It's scary.

What makes bush so wonderful? I've heard "he kept all his promises," but the thing is... I didnt like his promises. As for keeping the nation safe from terrorism... thats just a concept I find hard to swallow.

But really, what has bush done that I should be proud of him for?

Well protecting us from terrorism is one thing but when he goes as far as to take away our rights to do it its another thing.(patriot act)

Also from what I've heard(it was also in fahrenheit 9/11 but I've heard it long before that) Bush had been informed of attacks being planned on the US and yet he did nothing to prevent it.

Patriot act abuse:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/21/attack/main564189.shtml

In farenheit they said that bush got a report called something like "osama bin laden might use airplanes to attack the us". That wasnt the title but it gave the exact same message.

And I'm curious what you think of the bin laden family being immediately shipped out of the US?

I dont really have anything against the bin ladens being shipped out cause I simply dont know enough about it. I was just curious what someone who supported the patriot act thought of it.

To me, supporters of the patriot act are the same who want to see that anyone who even might be the slightest threat is heavily interigated. Also I'd like to note, before lore gets mad, that this doesnt totally apply to lore as he would like a lesser version of the act, although it does apply to some degree. =p

also, where is this radio address?

I believe he means richard clarke?

After reading an article on the subject I'd have to say that I agree with his decision.

The entire argument of bias in the media is stupid. Sure, there is a lot of liberal bias, but I see just as much conservative bias. The liberals think the conservatives control everything, the conservatives think the liberals control everything. Everyone wants to be the underdog. Let it go, its not helping anyone's argument. Lore may be right about the WMDs, and the Al-Queda ties, but to be honest I find that total bullshit. "Haha, little do you know someone messed up in the office that day and there really WERE ties, it was just a mistake, and then because of the evil liberals no one printed the story." Honestly, that sounds fairly far-fetched.

In summation,

And yes, Happy Hour did start early on this fine Thursday afternoon.

The vast majority of the stuff against Bush.

The liberals could approach it in a reasonable manner, ie "We disagree with your approach, here's why: etc."

Instead, they compare Bush to Hitler, and basically acuse him of committing the greatest war crime America has ever committed.

Let's review the history of what's happened since Bush was elected into office:

1) Bush barely wins Florida

2) Democrats demand a recount with looser standards for what counts as a valid ballot

3) Recount still confirms Bush as winning

4) Democrats demand another recount, and looser standards

5) Recount still confirms Bush as the president

6) Democrats demand yet another recount, this time even looser standards. Of course, these recounts are only taking place in places where Gore is most popular, basically guarenteeing him to gain more votes than Bush would.

7) The law says after so many days and so many recounts, it's over, so Bush wins

8) Unhappy with this result, Gore takes it to the courts. The unquestionably liberal Florida supreme court violates the constitution by specifically and deliberately handing down a ruling which directly conflicts with the law, despite their job being to interpret the law

9) The national supreme court overturns Florida's supreme court ruling on grounds that it was bullshit

10) Bush is President, but not after the democrats have accused him of trying to steal the election (if you want to see more examples of liberal bias in the media, I can tell you exactly what went down election night, and the big fuckup Tom Brokaw made giving away his bias), and basically turn half the population against Bush.

11) A bunch of possible coporate scandals rise, and the "fucking aye liberal" magazine Newsweek publishes their latest edition with the front cover proclaiming this will be a worse scandal than Whitewater, and Bush's presidency is over. Immediately after it's learned that the democrats have far more connections with Enron, the issue is dropped on the press, and receives almost no more coverage

12) More similar stuff happens.

13) Sometime around this time, Bush rejects the Kyoto treaty. Despite the fact that this treaty is absurd, will hardly help the environment in any discernable way and would cause great damage to our economy, the liberals and news media proclaim Bush as anti-environmentalist. Of course, only one (maybe two) nations end up signing it, every other single one rejected it , but Bush was the only leader who stood up and said "This is wrong and stupid."

14) Sometime during this time, Hillary Clinton makes the aburd proclamation that the bad economy is all Bush's fault, and "when the numbers were high when he took office, and now they aren't, it proves it's his fault" (that's not an exact quote, but that's basically what she said), despite the fact that the numbers were headed way down when Bush took office. Before he's even sworn into office, the media accuses Bush of making the economy worse by "talking about how bad it's going to get." Note, that several years later, even as the economy improves, the democrats constantly talk about how bad the economy is and receive no such absurd coverage in the press.

14) Sept. 11th. We got hit. And when it hit home, the liberals turned around for awhile. They were hurt with the rest of us. However, after the bombing is finished, the liberals revert to their old ways, both accusing Bush of not spending enough time to help rebuild Afghanastan and spending too much time.

15) ... Iraq and so forth. The liberals proclaim the war to be a disaster even as it's just barely become, the media constantly covers the mistakes and things that aren't going well, calling it another quagmire. Of course, it's one of the most succesful wars America has ever waged (not counting the current situation trying to stabalize the region), costing far less than any previous war, taking less time to defeat Saddam than it took Janet Reno to kill off the Branch Davidians in Waco. The whole time the liberals declare it will result in more terrorism in America. Thus far, we've seen nothing.

And so on, to the latest bullshit claims the liberals are making. Tomorrow they'll find something new, leaving lingering doubts about the previous issues they pushed, which are never validated but never quite rejected by the media.

Quote:Originally posted by RageCage

What went on durring the election was crazy and badly done. Although you seem to have missed why florida shoulda been in favor of gore. The african american population who would have turned the vote towards gore were not allowed to vote, even though they should have been. And because they could not get a senator to support them, they couldent do anything about it.


That's garbage. If there was actually any systematic attempt to prevent black people from voting, and it was provable, people would have been held accountable. They don't need a senator to support it, anyone can do it, and there's plenty of organizations out there that would do it if it was actually proveable.

Regardless, if you go all over the US, there's going to be some cases of people not being allowed to vote when they should be. Noone knew Florida was going to be the deciding ground for the election, and what is proveable, is that the democrats tried very hard to get a number of completely valid republican votes thrown out, as well as attempted to block (and succeeded with some) overseas military votes.


Interesting, I didnt know that. But I dont think the fact they stopped covering it means that they're somehow liberal in their agenda. If the democrats are the ones behind it, no one really cares. Democrats dont matter much when you have a republican president. If Bush was democrat, then they woulda kept covering it.


I don't get what you're saying. The scandals relating to Enron were pretty big, and the media left the impression in everyone's mind that Bush and his administration were heavily connected with them, which was untrue. Okay, maybe it wasn't on purpose, these are the kinds of things that happen all the time. There is so many things like this that the general population just thinks certain things are blatantly untrue.


Well now thats not the same information I have. The treaty would reduce emmisions of carbon dioxide by fossil fuels which is what people blame for global warming. When Bush rejected the treaty, he proposed a plan that the euopean union reported would actually allow the US to increase emissions by 33%. It's true that the kyoto protocol would increase electrical prices and probably wasnt the best idea but bush's proposed alternative was outragous.


I did some research on this since our last discussion, and it turns out carbon dioxides emitted by cars (which is what the treaty targetted) account for something like .005% of the emissions in the world. The Kyoto Treaty would have little to no effect on the environment. The biggest problem with the greenhouse effect is that the vast majority of the gasses that are supposedly causing it are naturally created. And when I say "vast majority", I mean 99% or more.

I know you know a lot about this stuff, so perhaps you can debunk this article for me and explain what it's missing. Yeah, I know it's Fox News, I'm not the biggest fan either, but can you point out what's wrong with it?

click

Here's a good paragraph:

If the carbon dioxide-emissions reductions called for by the Kyoto global warming treaty were implemented, human greenhouse contributions would be reduced by about 0.03 percent. Atmospheric physicist Fred Singer says this would have an "imperceptible effect on future temperatures — one-twentieth of a degree by 2050."


It seems like every president gets pinned for making the national debt increase. All I have to say is our national debt is huge =p


The national debt isn't what I was talking about, and unless it's REALLY REALLY bad, the national debt has nothing to do with the state of the economy. My point was the double standard the media played. When Bush said it was going to get bad before he became elected, he was accused by various commentators of making the situation worse. Now, even as the economy improves and the democrats claim it's bad and going to stay bad, you hear no such rebuttals from anyone in the press.


Well when afghanistan was the primary target and we didnt do a whole lot with it, compared to iraq, it seems pretty odd. And I dont see much solid justification for shifting targets.


I know you don't, and I think you know why I do, so I won't get into it.


When you say spending too much time, your refering to the time spent rebuilding afghanistan? I was under the impression that was a conservative view, not a liberal view.


Honestly, I don't know if we spent too much or little or just the right amount of time there. I don't know that much about it. I'm just saying that he was attacked for supposedly doing both by major democrat politicians.


In my opinion, war is wrong and this one was unjustified.


I know, and I don't think any fact or amount of rational reasoning would change your mind unless it was a democrat who did it.