Dean Dropped Out!

[Jakey]

Originally posted by Conquests are better+Feb 18 2004, 11:21 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Conquests are better @ Feb 18 2004, 11:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-EclipseTurbo@Feb 18 2004, 10:01 PM
the spiral of doom that was 1992-2000.

what? you pulled that straight out of your ass. our foreign relations were the best they've ever been, there was national surplus instead of national debt.

you are bass ackwards. you better recognize. [/b][/quote]
Ok Mr. Political Expert, since you're a die hard Democrat, how do you feel that NAFTA (Clinton's baby) has benefited the country, specifically the Midwest? :stick:

[JET]

Yeah, no doubt. NAFTA is the main thing that killed our economy. I lost my job to it being shipped overseas (ireland). Although I got my schooling paid for from it for a while because of it. That hurt the economy even more (not my personal economy though :P) I am even a little more right wing than a republican for the most part.

Clinton

Bush

Can anyone tell me why in the hell we were going to impeach Clinton for getting a bj, but we will sit here like little bitches and let Bush tell us lie after lie. First off, there are no WMD's yet and even if there are,we are the ones that gave them to Iraq anyway. And do you honestly feel safer with Suddam out of power? I can tell you that as Americans we are worse off now then when he was in power. And if your one of the people saying that we did it to liberate the people of Iraq, where are you when it comes to the people in Africa and Uzbekistan that are being tortured and killed by their crazy governments. Uzbekistan

Let's go to Mar's, or is he just saying that to give money to Boeing and Lockheed Martin?

[SlimStyleDSM]

What the economy is like when a president is in office isn't typically that way because of the current president, it's typically that way because the way the president before them set it up. So the record surplus blah blah article was due to daddy Bush setting it up for him. Which in turn makes the current shitty economy due to the last president in office, role model clinton. You can't create a surplus overnight just like you can't create a massive low in the economy overnight...

And I'm sorry, but for our nations leader to betray his family and lie to the country about it...you're absolutely right I'd want him gone.

[AJ]

I hate politics.

cost of war

[SlimStyleDSM]

Me too, Politics/Government :stick:

http://www.economicsuk.com/blog/000007.html

[SlimStyleDSM]

Does it have a lot of words, I already had to read 6 chapters of a Business Law textbook tonight :razz2: Along with politics, Law sucks too haha

[Enes]

I hate politics, that is what destroyed my country.

I don't want to get involved again!

-E

[npaulseth]

Bush's state of the Union address from last year was perhaps one of the biggest fuck ups in American History. Atleast when Clinton lied about getting a BJ, something completely personal, no one got killed from it.

[A//// Guy]

Im at school now so i wont say much till later

Ok seriously yea we havnt found any WMD but thats due to bad evidence. Sure a lot of people were wrong. I thought there would be WMD but I was wrong. You think that the CIA and Bush and all his people thought " ok lets all lie about this stuff so we can get hit after we learn that there really are no WMD tehehe." NO, Because Im sure that would really help his team win the election of 2004.

[npaulseth]

Good intentions or bad, it doesn't matter. Bush wanted to go to war before he was even elected, or 9/11, one of the two. It's documented.

Sure as hell it's do to bad evidence, the same bad evidence they used to support the war. And no Bush did it for the fucking oil, and he was "sure" they had WMD's, so what better way to justify it than them. But oops that back fired didn't it.

[LightningGSX]

First of all, there were WMDs in Iraq at some point, they must of went somewhere, either unfound still in Iraq or even worse they made it to the hands of terrorists.Regardless of Bush's motives for invading Iraq, the end result is best for the world.One more tyrant out of power and one more step towards a free world.I don't think most people realize how dangerous,in this day and age, a tyranical regime is to the US and the world in general or how much a free world benefits the US economically and every other aspect.It sucks soldiers had to die, but what better way than to die spreading democracy(the underlying backbone of this country) throughout the world.And an added benefit is its sends a strong message to other tyrants, such as Libia, which cut its nuclear program with a quickness after we invaded Iraq.Bottom line, the world is a better place without Saddam, and no doubt my kids(when I make some) will live in a safer world(even if only a little bit safer) because of it.

"Saddam Hussein, and the weapons he didn’t have, did not attack the United States and no amount of obfuscation, distortion or baiting and switching can change that. The Sept. 11 attack was the work of al-Qaida, and those terrorists responsible were from Saudi Arabia and Egypt, our supposed allies, but included not a single Iraqi.

There were many reasons George W. Bush wanted the war in Iraq, but responding to an actual threat to our security was least among them, as we now know even from David Kay. By substituting Iraq as the threat, Bush gave himself a “winnable” war against terrorism. However, as a result of this war, hundreds of Americans and thousands of Iraqis have died and Bush has diverted scores of billions of dollars away from fighting the real threat of terrorism. For example, our first responders are still not properly equipped, we don’t have the resources to search shipping containers coming into this country, and we still have no cohesive strategy to deal with terrorism other than goofy color alerts.

Knorn’s other contention that Reagan was justified for supporting Saddam in the ’80s because of the brutality of the Iranian ayatollahs is just as absurd. The United States was secretly selling weapons to Iran and supplied Iraq with the chemical weapons Saddam notoriously used against thousands Iranians and Kurds.

This was done then out of a misguided sense of what was in this country’s best interest, and it is being done now for the same reason — not out of humanitarian concern or a wish to bring democracy to Iraq.

It was bad policy then, and it is bad policy now. This is just one more reason Bush needs to be voted out in November."

Colin Schwensohn

[BuildADSM]

Originally posted by SlimStyleDSM@Feb 18 2004, 11:53 PM
What the economy is like when a president is in office isn't typically that way because of the current president, it's typically that way because the way the president before them set it up. So the record surplus blah blah article was due to daddy Bush setting it up for him. Which in turn makes the current shitty economy due to the last president in office, role model clinton. You can't create a surplus overnight just like you can't create a massive low in the economy overnight...

And I'm sorry, but for our nations leader to betray his family and lie to the country about it...you're absolutely right I'd want him gone.

I agree. Most of the time what ever is happining in the econamy is the actions of the presedent before the curent one.


also jake it will be 2008 before I can vote for pres and 2years 2 months and 16 days till I turn 18.

Not that I am counting down til my 16th or anything. :3gears:

I really wouldn't want to be the next President then. I hope you all like having a trillion dollar deficit. Bush is in no way helping things get better. He has caused countless programs and services to be shut down all across the nation. Programs that real American people depend on, for little things like childcare and money for schooling. The poor are not recieving help and the rich are getting tax breaks. Sure thats suppose to work, in theory. But in a global market like today those companies are taking the money they are saving here and investing it in other countries, only to bring the products back to sell here.

[tsiawdspeed]

I honestly dont see why everyone is blaming Bush for "lying" about the WMD's. He is not the one who goes out ther and does the recon. His advisors said that there were WMD's and he believed them, which is a normal thing to do. He made his decision based on the information he was given by his advisors. If anyone should be blamed for going into Iraq, it should be his military advisors because they were the ones who told him that the WMD's existed. Also, who really cares if there are no WMD's? We got Saddam and that should be a good enough reason to justify the war. This whole subject really makes me mad because the majority of people believe that Bush is doing a bad job. He is doing a exceptional job, given the circumstances. I'm pretty sure that any other president would have made the same choice about Iraq.

Republicans>Democrats

[npaulseth]

A lot of his advisors, Blix the big one, urged him that there was no evidence of WMD's, and ws completely against the war.