2004 Presidential Election

**JOEBIALEK** · 10-22-2004, 06:24 PM

I received an email the other day entitled "He's done more damage than we thought" (author unknown) which is a list of failures attributed to President George W. Bush. After careful research and analysis to verify authenticity, I have come to the conclusion that the American people will fire George W. Bush on November 2, 2004 and hire John Kerry by a landslide of votes. I will summarize this list and comment where appropriate.

A. Foreign Policy

1. "Bush is the first president in US history to order a US attack AND military occupation of a sovereign nation, and did so against the will of the United Nations and the vast majority of the international community." While it is true that Congress authorized the President to invade Iraq, the fact that U.S. intelligence was so conflicting brings into question the judgment of Bush. I too was wrong in pushing for the removal of Hussein rather than staying focused on Bin Laden and the other terrorist organizations. Further, it is doubtful that Hussein could have developed WMD under the watchful eye of U.N.weapons inspectors and regular sorties flown by U.S. fighters throughout the no-fly zones (not to mention satellite surveillance). Kerry will need to initiate reconciliation through an international summit of European and Middle Eastern nations to begin the process of cleaning up this mess in Iraq (and worldwide). After the summit, the world will witness the slow withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq and the quick advancement of U.N. troops into Iraq.

2. "Bush recklessly put U.S. soldiers in harms way by invading Iraq in search of weapons of mass destruction which still have not been found." In doing so, he has compromised the war on terrorism by directing 200 billion dollars for an overt combat operation as opposed to a covert operation. The United States has lost over 1,000 soldiers and thousands more are severely maimed prompting some to ask: hey hey GWB, how many kids will it be? The wiser choice would have been to invest 50 billion dollars in covert operations and 50 billion in homeland security. Besides, using conventional troops to fight terrorists is similar to the British army using regulars to fight French guerrillas during the Revolutionary War. Consequently, volunteerism for U.S. military service has sharply declined for all branches prompting rumors of a draft. Kerry will need to redirect resources to enhance homeland security while getting many more nations to share in troop and money commitments overseas especially in Iraq. He will also need to push Saudi Arabia and China to administer sanctions against Iran and North Korea to prevent further nuclear proliferation. Most importantly, however, he will need to fight terrorists overseas through covert operations.

B. Domestic Policy

1. "Bush spent the U.S. surplus and shattered the record for the biggest annual deficit in history." Bush's tax cuts to the wealthy along with irresponsible subsidizing of the war in Iraq has taken the U.S. budget from dark black to bright red all in the span of four years. Another four years of this squandering will bankrupt the United States. The remaining 100 billion dollars (from above) could have been invested in domestic programs like health care, education and the infrastructure. Kerry will need to revoke the tax cuts for the rich and reduce the United State's financial/military commitment in Iraq. These two changes (along with others) should result in a balanced budget in four years with the possibility of a return to a budget surplus in eight years.

2. "Bush entered office with the strongest economy in US history and in less than two years turned every single economic category heading straight down. His first two years in office resulted in 2 million Americans losing their jobs AND he cut unemployment benefits for more out-of-work Americans than any other president in US History." His presidency has been the most "in-your-face" support of the wealthy whether it be tax cuts, the lack of an energy and environmental policy, failure to crack down hard on corporate corruption etc. Kerry will need to bring back former Clinton advisor Robert Ruben to turn the economy around just as was done after the failed administration of Bush Sr. Kerry will need to fast-track the operationalizing of alternative energy sources in order to reduce U.S. dependence on Middle Eastern oil specifically and world oil in general. As a former prosecutor, he will need to push for long-term prison sentences for those committing white-collar crimes and reduce the difficulty of prosecuting the likes of Ken Ley.

Conclusion

The failures by George W. Bush, the viable alternative of John Kerry, the massive number of newly registered voters, the amount of attention being given by the American people on this election and the mass media trying to spin this race as being close are all clear signs of a Kerry landslide. On the November 2, 2004 the people will speak loud and clear.

**Republikin** · 10-22-2004, 10:39 PM

First question, why is that thread locked with no replies?

Now on to the truth...

Quote:

Bush is the first president in US history to order a US attack AND military occupation of a sovereign nation

1.) The U.S./Mexican War -- 1846-1848
2.) World War 1 -- 1914-1918
3.) World War 2 -- 1939-1945
4.) Korean War -- 1950-1953
5.) Vietnam -- 1960-1975]
6.) The Bay of Pigs -- 1961
7.) Grenada -- 1983
8.) US Invasion of Panama -- 1989
9.) Persian Gulf War -- 1990-1991
10.) Intervention in Bosnia and Herzegovina -- 1995-1996

I thought you said you did your homework? George Bush did not go to war without the approval of the UN, infact the US had previously gotten approval via UN Resolution 1441 which also states that the rest of the world thought Saddam was harboring WMD's and long range missiles. How can one man be to blame for the world wide intelligence communities mistake? The reason people believe that we had no such authorization is because once countries like France realized that we wanted to make good on our promises they did not want to get caught with their pants down (The Oil for Food Scandal) so they used their Veto power, which only a few countries in the security council including the US holds. They did this so that they would not lose all the promised oil that Saddam would give them if the sanctions were lifted so that he could again start his weapons programs.

Quote:

After the summit, the world will witness the slow withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq and the quick advancement of U.N. troops into Iraq.

Who do you think UN troops are? The majority, just as right now, are US troops, only instead of being able to fight under their own nations flag they get to fight and die under the UN flag and stupid blue cap. Also, how is Kerry going to reconcile with all these nations if he is disenfranchising our current allies?

Also, were do you get the idea that Iraq had no ties to terror? I really can't understand the fuzzy logic of the left in this country which makes the loose biased connection like this...Saddam did not order the 9/11 attacks, therefore Saddam had no ties to terrorism. Bush stated clearly after 9/11 that we would go after the terror networks and those states who sponsor them would pay. Here is a good article for ya Link. Saddam payed the families of those suicide bombers who would kill Jews or Americans $25000. He openly admitted it and in a sense advertised it to get the word out.

Quote:

the British army using regulars to fight French guerrillas during the Revolutionary War.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, so the French faught the British in the revolutionary war?

Anyways, back on subject. How many troops dead will be enough? As many as it takes to get the job done. Although we could always sacrifice civilian lives by not putting our soldiers, paid proffesional killers, in the way first. I know, how about all you lefties that feel so horribly for these soldiers just occupy one building and we will go ahead and tell the terrorists that they can attack that one building all they want, blow it all to hell. I don't think that the rational America will mind your sacrifice much.

Quote:

He will also need to push Saudi Arabia and China to administer sanctions against Iran and North Korea to prevent further nuclear proliferation.

Uhm...Man did you really research or did you just spout off from the mouth. If you did research I hate to tell you but your information is very wrong, biased to say the least. Kerry, although in favor of multi-lateral action in Iraq, said himself in the first debate that he would take China and the other 5 nations out of talks with N. Korea and only talk with the murderous Kim Jong Il himself. Is this a....wait a minute, I hear the phrase coming on again....I just can't keep myself from spewing it......FLIP FLOP...There I said it, phew. Kerry will say whatever he can to win your vote. If the place you live in was for sheep raping and Kerry came there, I gaurantee he would make some kind of allowance for that behavior, just to get your vote.

Now on to domestic policy. (Better grab your popcorn and sodas now kids)

Quote:

Bush spent the U.S. surplus and shattered the record for the biggest annual deficit in history.

Does 9/11 ring a bell? Did this have no negative impact on the economy? Does having to fight a global war on terror cost money? Every war we have been engaged in has cost money and put the country into debt. Don't sweat your pretty little head off thinking about paying that back. If Republicans stay in office for a while the economy will grow and we will surely pay back any debts incurred by this war.

Also, tax cuts for the rich....Is it wrong to be rich? Does someone who is rich have more responsibility to those who are poor? Can the government institute this responsibility without infringing on our right to choose and make up our own minds? Did you know that the top 1% of American income earners pay about 37.5% of all income tax? They are already paying for your precious, give everyone an excuse to do nothing, social programs, do they not deserve a tax break first? If you were rich, would you rather pay for my welfare or pay to get me into a job? Would you rather choose how you went about that and whether or not you even gave that money up? As the great Winston Churchill said, "You don't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer".

Bush entered office with the strongest economy heading into a recession, which is very natural for the economy to do, and 9/11 which was very unnatural for our economy. His in your face attitude has been one of personal responsibility instead of government hand-outs. What is more encouraging to get back to work than having less money if you don't? Now don't get me wrong, I know I come off as a cold callus individual but I am all for welfare, I am just not for supporting someone in their idleness. If they don't want to work for what they have they can live without.

How was Bush supposed to "crack down" on corporate scandal? Is he supposed to stand up one day and say, "you guys suck now stop it or I'll throw you the presidential bird"? The president does not make law, he can try to pass legislation but not everything gets through. He is one step in hundred of individuals who decide what laws and policies will be enacted in this country.

Want to reduce our dependance on foreign oil? He has given the only viable solution, only to be shut down by the left wing wack jobs in this country. Use our own oil fields, as simple as that... Our economy is based on oil without it our economy would deflate like the mickey mouse float at the macies thanksgiving day parade. Not only that, you name one "Alternative" energy source that is ready for the kind of public consumption that oil currently satisfies? Thats right you can't because most of the clean fuel technology that would be awesome simply isn't ready for our countries demands yet. They will be in the not so distant future though. At least I think and hope so.

Conclusion

A bunch of lies and half truth's does not constitute the people really wanting Kerry. Most of Kerry's base doesn't even like him, they just don't like Bush (This makes me laugh). The media is highly slanted to the left and has tried to give Kerry every leg up they can, yet he still lags behind Bush in the polls. They are not calling it close anymore, if the liberal mass media has no other choice but to show that Bush is leading in the polls then you know it must be more in Bush's favor than those polls are showing. The liberal loving media does not want Bush to win at all, so, in my opinion, they would obviously do some fudging of numbers to at least make it look close.

The truth is that I am confident Bush will win the election. America can not afford Kerry right now or ever for that matter. Oh and please, as a side note, do some better research, don't just believe what someone in some distributed mass email campaign tells you. They are going to fill your head with lies, remember the liberals will do anything to get into power, just look at how far they have gone and are willing to go. As far as taking the choice away from the people, if Bush is elected Kerry is already planning to sue, if they can't get their way by the peoples voice, they will try and get it in the courts. If they can't get it in the courts, the next four years will be filled with even more lies and hate filled rhetoric. This party of tolerance and understanding sure does a good job of dividing this country.

**Christopher** · 10-22-2004, 10:51 PM

Quote:

First question, why is that thread locked with no replies?

The thread was discussed amongst the staff before the thread starter re-posted it. These things get ugly really fast, I think it's worth keeping it open but please keep it clean guys or this thread will end up like the rest (closed).

**monkey** · 10:54 PM

i wonder why that thread was locked. i can't really agree with you. although i would say im a socialist and i hardly believe in any of capitalistic values you represent. i dont know how you come to the conclusion that if the republicans stay in office we will recover from the debt. you assume the will end the war in the next four years and restore the economy. riiight. Sure a war on terror costs money. So what? Does that mean you can let the country you live in fall to pieces? Anyway I don't like arguing about this tsuff. But for the sake of economics i suggest you visit this link http://www.joeuser.com/Forums.asp?c=...&AID=31149&u=0 even your right winged econ folks think bush did a crappy job.

**Republikin** · 10-22-2004, 11:09 PM

Quote:

you assume the will end the war in the next four years and restore the economy.

You assume that I meant 4 years when I said the next few. I actually meant over the course of the next few elections as this war is going to be long and I fully understand and accept this reality. Just like was noted in the thread you linked to, you can decrease taxes and still increase revenue, see in a capitolist society when a recession hits the best thing to do is encourage growth, what better way to encourage growth than to lessen the economic impact on those who create the most jobs? When they have more money in thier pockets they are more apt to spend it. How do they spend it? Growing thier companies, creating more jobs and in turn, recovering the economy from a downturn, which Bush has done. We are no longer in recession.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winston Churchill

Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winston Churchill

Some regard private enterprise as if it were a predatory tiger to be shot. Others look upon it as a cow that they can milk. Only a handful see it for what it really is - the strong horse that pulls the whole cart.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winston Churchill

The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent vice of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.

Man I could write a book on nothing more than his philosophies.

**Republikin** · 10-22-2004, 11:12 PM

Oh yeah, and our country is falling to pieces because of liberalitis A lack of moral values and a fear of God will innevitably destroy this country.

**Phaedrus** · 10-23-2004, 12:21 AM

Okay, I know there's Bush supporters here, I'm just going to put in my two cents and be done with it...

George Bush can barely put a sentence together. I am a registered republican and have always considered myself conservative. But this man is embarrassingly inept. The rest of the world knows it, and according to the latest polls, half of America knows it. Those who don't realize it are those republicans, like my parents, god bless 'em, who don't realize their Grand Old Party is NOT Reagan's party, it's not the party it used to be. It has shifted dangerously to the far right.

I don't really blame Bush, as much as I hate the atmosphere he has created in my country. I really think he's in over his head, that's all. I can sense his frustration when he's confronted with things that require level-headed reasoning and careful analysis (as opposed to those famous 'instincts' he likes to use). He can't face unscripted questions from reporters because he freezes like a deer in headlights. He doesn't like to read. OMG, the president of my country doesn't like to read (!), and almost seems proud of it.

John Kerry seems sincere to me. He's an intellectual and his opinions seem well thought-out. He seems like the kind of guy who, if you presented him with a solid opposing argument, and showed he was wrong, he would admit it and change his mind. That's the thing that bothers me most about Bush, he is so stubborn (often misrepresented as 'decisiveness'; a decisive person doesn't sit still for five minutes after an aide whispers into his ear "The country is under attack"). But again, I basically feel sorry for the guy. He's not mentally equipped to deal with complexity, and being the POTUS has got to be one of the most complex jobs in the world.

My opinion...

**Republikin** · 10-23-2004, 10:09 AM

I am horrible at math, does that mean I am stupid? My wife is the same way as W with words. She has a hard time articulating her exact thoughts yet she has an iq of 140 (this is well over genious level). We don't need a good talker in the whitehouse we need a good doer. President Bush is just that, he gets the job done when everyone else just wants to talk about their feelings.

John Kerry has been shown he was wrong yet he ignored that and stuck by his story. For instance, his own religion, Catholisicm, does not accept his views on abortion. They told him that he could not participate in the sacrament. So what did he do, instead of listen to his chosen leadership (as in he chose to accept that they know whats best for him by the will of God) he defied their will and went around the country until he found a priest that would be as disobedient as he is. Then on national television said that he understand's where they are coming from but he and several others just think they are wrong. Does this sound like someone who changes their mind? On defense he has been on the wrong side of history in almost every vote he has cast, yet he still, after 20 years, fails to see the error of his ways and correct his mistakes. Well wait, he say's now that he is different and that his record has nothing to do with how he will lead the armed forces into battle, but thats just because he wants to be in office, not because he changed.

Should Bush have gotten up and tore open his shirt to reveal his superman pajamas? Flown to NY like a speeding bullet and single handedly rescue all 3000 victims? What could he have done other than take a moment to compose his thoughts and develop a plan of action? If he had gotten up in a panic he certainly would have scared those children and with all the press there he most certainly would have portrayed panic, which would definatly spill over into our society. I suggest you watch Farenhype 9/11. They speak with the actual people who were there in that room with him. They all say the same thing, he did very well in mantaining his composure and they wouldn't have expected any other reaction.

Many leaders of our country have taken days, even weeks to decide what to do when faced with a threat. None of them were scoffed at by anyone in this country for taking the time to make an informed and difficult decision.

He is obviously mentally equipped to be in office. The guy is not stupid no matter what anyone say's. He scored a 1206 on his SAT's and graduated from two ivy league schools. Schools that are very difficult to attend and complete. He sat in about the middle of the pack when it came to academics but at Yale and Harvard the middle of the pack is much better than the top at UMASS or some university like that. Not only that, but Kerry and Bush were about even in their academics. Kerry showed only a slightly higher aptitude than Bush.

**Phaedrus** · 10-23-2004, 02:14 PM

I have yet to meet an intelligent person who sounds like a retard when he/she talks. Telling me George W. Bush is intelligent is like tinkling on me and telling me it's raining. I can see with my own eyes that he's not.

That's not to say the indicators you brought up (SATs, colleges attended, etc.) aren't relevant. They're extremely relevant. Some people have gone over videos of his past debate performances and have seen a much more eloquent Bush, with facts and information at his command. He is deteriorating. He may have developed some kind of neurological impairment. The evidence you brought up actually points to something being extremely the matter with him. Perhaps the decades of substance abuse are beginning to take their toll.

Bush does not "Get the job done." He's done a horrible job, but that's like a whole 'nother thing we could debate, so I won't go into it here.

Quote:

John Kerry has been shown he was wrong yet he ignored that and stuck by his story. For instance, his own religion, Catholisicm, does not accept his views on abortion.

I like that. He went with what he felt to be right and didn't just join the consensus like a sheep. Free-thinking is a good quality. And I'm glad he changes his mind, it shows an ability to deal with changing circumstances and that his ego does not get in the way of his reasoning. Inflexibility is a bad quality.

Quote:

Flown to NY like a speeding bullet and single handedly rescue all 3000 victims?

Well he should have calmly excused himself from the classroom and begun to deal with the situation. What made him think there was even a moment to lose? Contrast his reaction with your own. Whenyou learned what happened, did you just sit calmly? Of course not. What human being could?

(p.s. this is fun so far... I like sparring with ideas... actually, just for fun, if you want, we could switch sides... I could defend Bush and you could defend Kerry... If we keep it clean this could be a good thread)

**Republikin** · 10-24-2004, 01:08 PM

Quote:

I like that. He went with what he felt to be right and didn't just join the consensus like a sheep. Free-thinking is a good quality. And I'm glad he changes his mind, it shows an ability to deal with changing circumstances and that his ego does not get in the way of his reasoning. Inflexibility is a bad quality.

Is that not exactly what Bush has done? I feel that Bush has done the right thing despite what is popular in the polls. He is protecting this country in the way it needs to be done not just standing by and waiting for us to get attacked then bombing a few terrorist camps in retaliation then coming home. He said before this all started that it was going to be a long hard road. It would be swamped with difficult decisions that need definate and decisive answers, answers that will last throughout our history not just until election time.

Quote:

Well he should have calmly excused himself from the classroom and begun to deal with the situation. What made him think there was even a moment to lose? Contrast his reaction with your own. Whenyou learned what happened, did you just sit calmly? Of course not. What human being could?

You tell me just one thing that he could have really done in that 5 minutes that would have made any difference whatsoever and I will concede. Also, I did sit still, I was shocked. I then sat infront of the TV the rest of the day just trying to come to grip with the gravity of the situation. What would losing my head have done in a time like that?

I don't think I could even pretend to support anything that Kerry stands for. He is in the simplest terms, not a good man. You watch, he will put his own interests above those of the people he represents every time. He did it here, in his own back yard (I'm in MA). You know how many fire hydrons he has had moved at the expense of the taxpayers just so he could have front row parking at his many houses throughout Boston?

**beta** · 01:35 PM

The GW website is bloated and still uses tables, even .gif spacers.

Plus when i copied the code and pasted it into a full screen viewer with word-wrap off, the ASCII image was a detailed landscape of flowers.

The kerry one aint much better, exept his hidden image is in magic-eye format and i havnt quite figured it out yet. But i think its pretty.

**Republikin** · 10-24-2004, 04:59 PM

please stay on subject

**Phaedrus** · 10-25-2004, 01:10 PM

Quote:

You tell me just one thing that he could have really done in that 5 minutes that would have made any difference whatsoever and I will concede.

Well one thing that's not going to help is just sitting there. He should have excused himself, left and started taking care of business. How would that have made any difference? I'll give you a reason, even though that wasn't really my original point. I was referring to his reaction (or lack thereof) when told the country is under attack, not whether in hindsight it made any difference or not. The reaction itself is the point. But to answer the question, he definitely should have left ASAP for security reasons. His whereabouts were publicly known, and if terrorists are hitting the WTC and pentagon, they could have easily targeted his location as well. Yet he remained there for 25 minutes. (There was a 20-minute photo-op after the reading.)

I don't want to go too deep into this one moment in time, I just brought it up to make a point earlier.

Quote:

He is protecting this country in the way it needs to be done not just standing by and waiting for us to get attacked then bombing a few terrorist camps in retaliation then coming home.

I don't agree that he is protecting this country the way it needs to be done. And I also never said "bombing a few terrorist camps in retaliation and then coming home" was the right response.

Shoot... I'm in the middle of typing this and I've got to go... I'll finish this train of thought later, in my next post

**jdrogersjim** · 10-25-2004, 03:59 PM

Does anyone have any thoughts on Bush's ties with the Saudi's and the Bin Laden family? And how the pipeline that was supposed to be built through Afgahnistan was halted and then a few days later the US was attacked? And then Bush appointed a former member of Unocal as the leader of Afgahnistan so the pipeline could be built? Michael Moore has all of his information well documented and has sources listed for all his facts. Anyone who has seen Fahrenheit 9/11 just has to wonder who is running our whitehouse. And for those who just refuse to watch it...you should be a little more open-minded and quite putting the blinders on. The war = money in the bush family pocket. And the war on Iraq...last time I remember Sadam was not the one who attacked us on 9/11, and they found no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

**Republikin** · 10-25-2004, 04:47 PM

Farenheit 9/11 was a big falacious lie. Watch Farenhype 9/11 and every point Moore tries to make is countered and proven wrong with fact, actual facts not wishful thinking.

Phaedrus I will wait for you to finish your thought before my rebuttle.

**monkey** · 10-25-2004, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cptnwinky

Farenheit 9/11 was a big falacious lie. Watch Farenhype 9/11 and every point Moore tries to make is countered and proven wrong with fact, actual facts not wishful thinking.

so you are saying we didn't really fly members of the bin laden family out of the country after the attacks when no other planes were flying? there are plenty of facts in that films that hold true. i don't really want to argue the facts of the movie because most people will admit it is purey propoghanda, but you also cannot simply write off what are known facts simply because they happen to appear in the movie.

**brokenthumb** · 10-25-2004, 09:40 PM

Can we really afford another 4 years of a cocaine addict?

**jdrogersjim** · 10-25-2004, 10:37 PM

Everything that Michael Moore said in farenhyte 9/11 is backed up with a source...credible soures too, like the bbc.

Also, dont you think that Michael Moore would have been sued for putting lies in his movie? I think that if the Bush administration would do something like this they would just be putting themselves out in the open about what they are doing.

**Phaedrus** · 10-25-2004, 11:28 PM

Okay, let's see...

Quote:

He said before this all started that it was going to be a long hard road. It would be swamped with difficult decisions that need definate and decisive answers, answers that will last throughout our history not just until election time.

That's a cop-out, because it's a blanket excuse for mistakes. And it's yet another example of oversimplification.

I will admit that I'm much more anti-Bush than pro-Kerry. I don't know a lot about Kerry, but the criticisms I've seen of him seem much too obviously partisan.

I may as well give you something to rebut, so here's a list of reasons why Bush is the worst president in the history of the country:

Security
9/11 happened on Bush's watch. There was plenty of warning. Numerous foreign intelligence services told us there was an imminent terrorist attack planned, and even detailed the possible use of planes. On 9/11, the very same day, numerous drills were in progress, using hijacked planes as weapons. Yet the administration said no one could have conceived such a thing. The terrorists were known to be in the country and were being watched by our intelligence services. Yet they got away with a major terrorist attack while under surveillance.
Diplomacy
Or lack of it. The entire world felt America's loss on 9/11. We had all the support we could ask for in our quest for justice. Bush squandered that good will with his ideologically-driven warmongering. 9/11 was used as a shameful opportunity to achieve neoconservative geopolitical aims. The PNAC's "New Pearl Harbor" comment makes it all the more sickening.
Economy
By any objective standard, Bush is a failure. I don't know where to begin. I'll just move to the next one.
Education
No child left behind is a joke. It's completely underfunded. College tuition rates are higher than ever. And our President's disdain for all things academic is a national shame. With his pathetic vocabulary, lack of intellectual interests, and ideological approach to science he may as well have "Ignorance is strength" tattooed on his forehead. Backwards. So he can read it in the mirror. Oh wait, he doesn't read.
Secrecy
The most secretive administration ever. Everything behind closed doors. No-bid contracts. Retroactive classifications. Rampant, blatant cronyism. Opposing a commission to investigate 9/11. Refusal to testify under oath to 9/11 commission. This administration's lack of transparency is dangerous and un-American.
Ideology
Policy is made per ideology, not facts or rational discourse. There is no dissenting opinion allowed inside the inner circle, which leads to a process known as "incestuous amplification," or (I hate orwellian terms) Groupthink. In the absence of an opposing argument, mistakes in judgment are amplified. This explains how such colossal errors in judgment are made by this administration. What's worse, Bush makes decisions according to his "gut" or what he perceives as divine inspiration, taking decision-making outside the realm of rational discourse.
Freedom
Unconscionable suppression of dissent. I'm sure you've read the horror stories of free speech suppression when Bush comes to town. And thanks to the USAPATRIOT act, the government can search your home (they don't have to have a warrant or even tell you about it), get your library records, hold you without charge, the list goes on and on. The legal shenanigans surrounding the "legal-limbo" of Guantanamo are not only morally repugnant, they are criminal. I could put together a whole post about civil liberties under the Bush administration, but I'll just leave at this for now.

**Republikin** · 10-26-2004, 12:37 AM

Come on, those are all nothing more than liberal talking points. Not even a challenge to prove them wrong or in-conclusive.

Quote:

so you are saying we didn't really fly members of the bin laden family out of the country after the attacks when no other planes were flying?

The Bin Ladens were flown out of this country on September 20th. Here is the story of a woman who completed a comercial flight on September 15th. No other planes flying? I think not. Oh, and Bush didn't even order the evacuation of the Bin Ladens. Richard Clarke, who has spoken out against Bush several times about 9/11, admitted that he was solely responsible for the order and that he would do it again. The 9/11 commision itself saw no reason to question the flights to get them out of the country. I really strongly urge you to find real proof of these so called "known facts". If they are so known surely you will have no problem proving their existence.

Your point about security and your point about freedom kind of go hand in hand. First, the Patriot Act was passed not by one man but by congress. Second, the Patriot Act was passed to put an end to this pointless secrecy between agencies. The free flow of information was a big part as to why it was not avoided. Terrorists were allowed to be here and get away with so much because they had too much liberties and the FBI had too little freedom to act on the little information they were able to gather on these terrorists. Yes they knew they existed, could they act without a warrant? Could they get a warrant without proof of some kind? Could they get proof without the tools the Patriot Act now gives them? Obviously not. Just ask any member of the FBI what they think of the Patriot Act and how it has helped them do their job more effectively.

Quote:

The entire world felt America's loss on 9/11. We had all the support we could ask for in our quest for justice. Bush squandered that good will with his ideologically-driven warmongering. 9/11 was used as a shameful opportunity to achieve neoconservative geopolitical aims.

Yes the entire world did feel our pain. Only the entire world did not take action when it was needed. Why? because the UN oil for food program. Really look into this and it explains perfectly why countries like France, Germany and Russia did not want to act on too much. They felt buying their security was more appropriate. Bush did not squander our support, he stood up for what is right. He did not turn his back on his country when the UN turned up to be a bunch of crooked beurocrats.

Quote:

By any objective standard, Bush is a failure. I don't know where to begin. I'll just move to the next one.

You don't know where to begin because all the lie's you hear about the economy being bad are just that, lies. Back any of it up with facts? I dare you. Considering what our economy has gone through the economy is doing fantastic. America is growing, period.

Ok, the no child left behind act...Were to begin. How about with the fact that its working. The full effect of it is meant to be seen in about 10 years. The NCLBA is meant to force schools who recieve federal funding be accountable for that money (which, by the way Washington only supports about 7% of all school funding, the rest is done by the state). They are accountable by having to show results or lose that funding. Now, how long has the school system been dominated by the Democratic party? Look at the end result, it is in poor shape and needs reformation in order to ensure that, no child is left behind. I personaly am a product of this failed school system. From 7th grade to 9th I did not pass a single grade, but I did get passed along. In 9th grade after being sent to a new school and lost in the shuffle (being given classes that I did not have the first half of and then placed in the spec. ed. classes when they couldn't find out why I was failing so misserably, even though I told my counselor and principal several times). To finally being fed up with being smarter than my spec. ed. english teacher, I literally corrected the class D.O.L every day, I finally gave up and dropped out. I was sick of having teachers who put their own paycheck over my education. Who could care less whether I passed or failed, they just wanted to get through the day. I really wish that the administrators I had to deal with would have been held accountable for their actions or non-actions.

So, when you say it's seriously underfunded I think you are mistaking the law with the individual school districts ability to measure up, and not just in student academics but in teacher quality and various other qualifications.

Quote:

Policy is made per ideology, not facts or rational discourse. There is no dissenting opinion allowed inside the inner circle, which leads to a process known as "incestuous amplification," or (I hate orwellian terms) Groupthink. In the absence of an opposing argument, mistakes in judgment are amplified. This explains how such colossal errors in judgment are made by this administration. What's worse, Bush makes decisions according to his "gut" or what he perceives as divine inspiration, taking decision-making outside the realm of rational discourse.

No dissenting opinion allowed huh? Remember Mr. Clarke I spoke of earlier? Did you know that he served as Bush's chief of counterterrorism? Yes, this dissenter was chosen by Bush to serve under him.

Now, on to the other smaller posts...

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdrogersjim

Everything that Michael Moore said in farenhyte 9/11 is backed up with a source...credible soures too, like the bbc.

Uhm...Read above.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdrogersjim

Also, dont you think that Michael Moore would have been sued for putting lies in his movie? I think that if the Bush administration would do something like this they would just be putting themselves out in the open about what they are doing.

Sued for what? You can't sue someone for slandering your character unless your a private figure. Public figures just have to take all the non-sense.