Jump to content


Bush Is A Good President


  • Please log in to reply
175 replies to this topic

#41 Balloon guy

Balloon guy

    Deplorable Lives Matter

  • Members
  • 24,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:So Cal
  • Interests:Cigars, Flying, Golf, Bible
  • Favorite Poker Game:Golf

Posted 16 March 2006 - 11:19 AM

I was thinking of taking a side bet that eventually someone would make the point that Rush is fat. Always happens when liberals go on thier rants. They really are so predictable.When Bush 'lied' about the WMDs, he had good company:Clinton, Kennedy, Gore, Daschel, Kerry, Israel, Germany, Saudi, Turkey, Pakistan, Russia, Great Britain, Mossad, French, CIA, United Nations, Peru, the guy on Subway commercials...so basically everyone. Read Tommy Franks book and you'll have a different take on this.The UN inspectors weren't there because everybody knew Saddam got rid of his weapons..you know the ones he had already killed people with. They were there because he was UNTRUSTWORTHY, had huge sums of money, and activily sought the means to make biological weapons. When the number two guy from Al Queada needed medical treatment he didn't go to Canada for the free stuff...he went to Iraq where his buddy Saddam was.Don't believe everyone who is promoting a book.As far as the economy the budget etc. Last time I read the constitution..okay I never actually read the whole thing, but you didn't either so lets pretend, Congress controls the purse strings. So Clinton didn't balance any budget, the Republican house and senate did. And Bush didn't outspend every president before him, the Republican house and senate did. I'll sign the petition to shoot them all. They are two steps beneath car salesmen and pit bosses.World opinion doesn't matter to me. We are the greatest country ever. We are the only country in history that has destroyed an enemy on multiple occasions and then helped them back on their feet. We give more than any country, and we get the shaft from most countries today. No big deal, we're not bitter, we still buy their cheap garbage.Besidses the world thinks that soccer is a great game....soccer..what a bunch of dweebs. Everyone knows Golf is the greatest sport in the world.BTW. Democrats hate too much..they hate Bush, Rush, tax cuts, Christians, the military, Fox news, truth. Their party is the party of; "vote for us..we hate___" Republicans are screwed up, but at least they say what they believe in and follow through. (Except for the government spending thing in the last 6 years) You can keep Cindy SHeehan and Michael Moore and Dean as your spokespeople, we'll stick with Rush.And get off the Halliburton bought the presidency. There is a very short list of companies that are capable of doing the rebuilding in Iraq, it's not a conspiracy that the biggest one got the contract. Man you guys are reaching for anything that will get you an impeachment like your buddy Clinton got. Second one in the history of the country, but you know when you lie to a federal judge while under oath about anything, you get punished.If Bush gets impeached for actively spying on Al Queada then we deserve to get hit again. Bunch of head in the sand losers who think you can reason with terrorist. Worked well with the french, bad mouthed us for years about the war, then they got riots. Ungrateful terrorist. You bone heads who think that this is even remotely going to transform into the government recording how often you use the internet to look at porn are crazy. Give me a bust some heads guy like Jack Bauer over the ACLU lawyers who defend the rights of child molestors to own child pornagraphy if it is only in their private homes.Kick butt for a couple years, then we can all get back to worring about the rights of the rapist getting his Miranda rights properly read in his native language. You guys are pathetic if you think we can fight a war while giving enemy combatants lawyers to defend thier rights to shoot at our troops from hospitals and mosques. And if putting a guys underwear on his head and taking pictures is torture, then lets arrest every fottball team in this country for hazing week.Supreme Court....2 down one to go.....
I use my cigar smoke as idiot repellent

The government was set to protect man from criminals - and the Constitution was written to protect man from the government. - Ayn Rand

#42 econ1

econ1

    Poker Forum Newbie

  • Members
  • 12 posts
  • Location:Washington DC
  • Interests:Poker, Politics and Politics

Posted 16 March 2006 - 11:23 AM

View PostFarnan, on Thursday, March 16th, 2006, 11:07 AM, said:

I agree he never said those words. But what he did do is say that Iraq had "links" to Al Qaeda, which in many peoples minds implicates Iraq in 9/11 (though that is a STUPID, illogical conclusion). He also constantly talked about Iraq and 9/11 in the same breath, again, causing the casual observer and the not-to-quick john-q-public to think there is a link. I presonally think this administration saw this reaction and sought to exploit it. He was hardly running free. We were watching him like a hawk, bombing him on a daily basis and had significant sanctions imposed. He was well contained. And our findings after the war proved this to be true. If only the rest of the country also understood that.Read the 9-11 Commission report. Bullshit. Prove it. He didn't have ****. He may have tricked his generals into thinking they had some, but they didn't have anything that even remotely resembled a program that could be re-activated, let alone a program that could be considered as "furiously pursing WMD".Prove that the intelligence services of virtually every other nation in the world believed that Saddam either was or had the ability to produces WMDs? Out of all the things I wrote I surely thought that this would have been the least contentious. It doesn't mean that they were correct - current information indicates they were all wrong. My point was that at the time that Bush was having to make this decision there wasn't an intelligence service in the world who didn't believe this.[i][i]You alluded to our "daily bombings" of Iraq - there is a huge difference between the runs we made for years on the "no fly zone" and the entirity of Iraq. As for the sanctions - how well did those work? Saddam and his sons simply exploited the loopholes inthe oil for food program to make themselves rich while thousands upon thousands of their own people suffered and died. Would you have preferred that we continued working under a clearly broken and ineffective sanctions/resolutions regime?


#43 lucky_charmz

lucky_charmz

    Poker Forum Nut

  • Members
  • 357 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto
  • Interests:Poker/Soccer

Posted 16 March 2006 - 11:30 AM

I reccommend this to anyone who doesn't like Bush....http://www.addictinggames.com/presidentialknockout.html

#44 Balloon guy

Balloon guy

    Deplorable Lives Matter

  • Members
  • 24,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:So Cal
  • Interests:Cigars, Flying, Golf, Bible
  • Favorite Poker Game:Golf

Posted 16 March 2006 - 11:48 AM

View PostDanielNegreanu, on Wednesday, March 15th, 2006, 5:46 PM, said:

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, obviously, but mine is clear: this is the worst president the country has ever had in my lifetime. The damage he is doing to this country's world view will take decades to repair, if ever. If the election happened anywhere but in the U.S. Bush would not have won 30% of the vote. It boggles my mind, that he made one of the worst and most crucial mistakes to attack an innocent country and yet, he was re-elected. I don't really want to get into a big political debate here, but let's just agree to disagree. There are so many areas outside of the war that I feel like the president is oblivious too.
Even though my long winded posts don't support it, I can agree to disagree. Surprised how cordial the over all feel of this thread has gone. There are some smart people on this site. Most of them agree with me..but there's a few that would probably leave me scratching my head if got into much of a debate. So I'll avoid them and concentrate on the weak fish. :club:
I use my cigar smoke as idiot repellent

The government was set to protect man from criminals - and the Constitution was written to protect man from the government. - Ayn Rand

#45 Trail Boss Mitch

Trail Boss Mitch

    Poker Forum Newbie

  • Members
  • 49 posts
  • Location:Deep in the Heart of Texas

Posted 16 March 2006 - 11:49 AM

View PostDanielNegreanu, on Wednesday, March 15th, 2006, 7:46 PM, said:

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, obviously, but mine is clear: this is the worst president the country has ever had in my lifetime. The damage he is doing to this country's world view will take decades to repair, if ever. If the election happened anywhere but in the U.S. Bush would not have won 30% of the vote. It boggles my mind, that he made one of the worst and most crucial mistakes to attack an innocent country and yet, he was re-elected. I don't really want to get into a big political debate here, but let's just agree to disagree. There are so many areas outside of the war that I feel like the president is oblivious too.
Come on Daniel. An "innocent country?" Give me a break. How many people should die before we give a damn? I'm glad when we were fighting for our independence from British tyranny we had the French and others willing to help us. What would have happened had we been ignored by the world during our struggle? Freedom...it's all about freedom. And freedom doesn't come cheaply nor without controversy.
Visit Trail Boss Mitch at:
Texas Poker Trails.com
A Texas writer discovers poker.

#46 econ1

econ1

    Poker Forum Newbie

  • Members
  • 12 posts
  • Location:Washington DC
  • Interests:Poker, Politics and Politics

Posted 16 March 2006 - 11:51 AM

View PostBalloon guy, on Thursday, March 16th, 2006, 11:48 AM, said:

Surprised how cordial the over all feel of this thread has gone. There are some smart people on this site. Most of them agree with me..but there's a few that would probably leave me scratching my head if got into much of a debate. So I'll avoid them and concentrate on the weak fish. :club:
Completely agree on the tone - its great to see that we can air diverging opinions without resorting to name calling.lol on the last line of your post...

#47 Farnan

Farnan

    Poker Forum Nut

  • Members
  • 285 posts
  • Interests:Golf, Poker, Music

Posted 16 March 2006 - 12:30 PM

As far as bombings were concerned---they started almost immediately after bush took office:http://www.workers.o...01/iraq0201.phpThe continued to "soften" up targets for a long time running up to the war. I thought this was pretty common knowledge. I'm not even against it, for the most part. I think Iraq was a country we should have kept in check. And by the way things worked out, it looks like we were pretty successful. Econ, as far as the "furiously pursing WMD"--you said it was ABSOLUTELY true--but no evidence has been found that says that is true. Of course there were lots of people who THOUGHT he was doing this. But we didn't have the proof. And you don't attack a country and spend a trillion dollars to remove a threat you cannot prove with reasonable certainty.And Balloon Guy--that was one of the more amusing right wing rants i've read in a while. Full of partisian rhetoric, half truths, misconstrued democratic arguments, ethnocentrism, myopic views and hypocrisy. I love this:

Quote

Read Tommy Franks book and you'll have a different take on this.
and then you say:

Quote

Don't believe everyone who is promoting a book.
Classic.And i love it when they point to all of the other people who thought SH had WMD and thought they were a threat. Hmmm--how many of those countries/people thougth they had enough evidence to justify an attack? NONE. Even if when we get past the mistake of going in there (not only the evidence, but the pie-in-the-sky idea that it would be a cakewalk)---the prosecution of the post-war plan (if there was one) was absolutely HORRIBLE.And as far as budgets are concerned--the best situation, historically speaking, for the least amount of spending--is to have a house/senate with as a different party as the president. See, checks and balances works. One-sided ideological controlling party with supreme power isn't very good for the country. I don't profess to think that all democratic ideas are correct and i don't think all republican ideas are all correct. Which is why i despise this spiteful pissing contest politics has become. And whenever you think, believe and spread the BS you just did---you're just making the problem worse.EDIT--i hope that i didn't cross the line of the "friendly tone"--being a sarcastic person, i can sometimes unintentionally sound like a prick when argue politics.

#48 econ1

econ1

    Poker Forum Newbie

  • Members
  • 12 posts
  • Location:Washington DC
  • Interests:Poker, Politics and Politics

Posted 16 March 2006 - 12:45 PM

View PostFarnan, on Thursday, March 16th, 2006, 12:30 PM, said:

Econ, as far as the "furiously pursing WMD"--you said it was ABSOLUTELY true--but no evidence has been found that says that is true. Of course there were lots of people who THOUGHT he was doing this. But we didn't have the proof. And you don't attack a country and spend a trillion dollars to remove a threat you cannot prove with reasonable certainty.
I see where we got off track - I didn't mean that as proof that Iraq was "furiously pursuing" the production of WMDs but rather that the intelligence services fo the world virtually unanimously thought they were. It was part of a larger point I was trying to make about Bush's motives. If I was responsilble for millions fo lives and terrorists had just upped the ante by hitting us within our own borders I beleive I would have made the exact same decision. Especially when you consider the history many the rest of the world's democratic nations had in either being unwilling or unable to take a stand in situations like these. (The EU didn't last long before they had to call us in to clean up their mess in Bosnia).I'm not a 'gun's blazing screw the rest of the world' kind of guy but I strongly believe that countries like France (yes them again) have the benefit of knowing that when push comes to shove the US will always do what it thinks is right depite the costs. Do we always get it right? Of course not but lets not forget that the final pages still have not been written on Iraq.If we had been having this conversation months or even a couple of years after WW2 detractors would have pointed to violence and unrest in Germany as proof positive that our decision was wrong. Several decades later history has proven them to be right. Doesn't mean that Iraq will turn out the same way but I do believe that President Bush makes decisions in a larger scope than just "what will drive up my approval rating right now."

#49 76clubs

76clubs

    Retired

  • Members
  • 4,666 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Not Boston

Posted 16 March 2006 - 12:55 PM

View PostBalloon guy, on Wednesday, March 15th, 2006, 3:21 PM, said:

Daniel, W has done incredible things for this country, he's just a terrible public speaker. In contrast Clinton was an awesome speaker, lousy president and Reagen was the whole package.Don't buy into the liberal hype. Take the wire tapping, with democrats talking about impeachments for W having our guys listen when someone from Al Queda calls someone in the US. And what is the story? not hey someone just tipped the bad guys that we've been listening to them and now they need to change their communication methods. No the story is Bush is trying to become big brother, he's out of control.The war..Read Tommy Franks book and you'll understand the 'not enough troops' argument, and the no plan lie. General Franks quit a year early from ComCincPac because he wanted his replacement to be hands on from the ground floor on what would be a multiple years involvement in Iraq. The economy is doing very well, even though he inherited a recession from Clinton ( not Clinton's fault per se) and then had 9-11 devistate our travel industry, and not only did he arrest the downward spiral, he turned it around, while fighting a war.Education, he teams up with Ted Kennedy to author an education bill, trying to get the Democrats to put aside partician politics and help our schools, and after total democratic involvement, they claim he's devisteated the schools, which the teacher's unions have done more damage than anything Bush has done. Gosh accountability for our teachers, what a horrible thing.Left tries to say Bush is a step above idiot, hey man, I don't care who your daddy is, you don't have brains, you don't fly fighter plans in the military. They don't have a set of keys for whoever comes along. Then he gets early deros because the flood of active pilots coming back from Vietnam and everyone cries special treatment.I can understand not thinking everything Bush does is golden, but I feel very comfortable saying that Bush is an honorable man doing what he feels is right for everybody, without a care for how he is percieved. I will always support and feel proud that he is our president.The french can continue to take bribes and sells weapons to dictators which we will later defeat in a couple hours and snipe at our heels.The germans can pretend they are peace loving people.The Russians can try to control the middle east through political games.But England, Australia and the USA will continue to protect the world, allowing the social experiments to continue while we spend the money needed to protect their prescious borders from the bad guys that will kill thier children to get on the front page of a newspaper.Canada used to be in our group, but they wimped out this time around.Those of you foaming at the mouth now, remember one important thing. W will probably get one more Supreme Court appointtee making his legacy last probably for the next 40-50 years. And the Florida recounts all had Bush win.
34%, thats all you need to know.

#50 rog

rog

    Little Lebowski Urban Achiever

  • Members
  • 1,870 posts

Posted 16 March 2006 - 01:01 PM

View Postecon1, on Thursday, March 16th, 2006, 3:45 PM, said:

If we had been having this conversation months or even a couple of years after WW2 detractors would have pointed to violence and unrest in Germany as proof positive that our decision was wrong.
What decision? The US decided not to be involved in WWII. In 1939, The Nazis started invading eatsern european countries. Canada and Britain (among others) went to war. The US declared it's neutrality. They didn't get involved until 1941, and only then because of Japan. If the US was so concerned about making the right decisions, why did they wait 2 years to do the right thing? The fact is, the US gets involved out of self interest. There's nothing wrong with that, but let's call it what it is. The US didn't care about Sadam's weapons when they were aimed at Iran. Even attacks against the Kurds were no big deal. The US administration doesn't care about genocides that have happened or are happening in all sorts of places where they have no self interest. Rwanda comes to mind. Ever hear of it?The US is an empire in the process of empire building. Let's not mistake that for altruism.
Rog

"I got it, I got it. Last words: I dig music! . . . I'M ON DRUGS!"

#51 Farnan

Farnan

    Poker Forum Nut

  • Members
  • 285 posts
  • Interests:Golf, Poker, Music

Posted 16 March 2006 - 01:14 PM

View Postecon1, on Thursday, March 16th, 2006, 12:45 PM, said:

It was part of a larger point I was trying to make about Bush's motives.
If you reread my post--you notice that i don't really question bush's motives. He genuinely thought it was in the best interests of the US. What he didn't do is allow us the opportunity to view all of the evidence in a neutral setting to allow us to make our own decision. He marketed it to us. And he took some serious liberties in presenting the evidence in the best possible light so as to support his own conclusions.When you do something like that--you're taking a risk that you're wrong. And when you're wrong--it is YOUR fault--not the people who provided you the bad intelligence.

#52 Trustno1

Trustno1

    Poker Forum Regular

  • Members
  • 124 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Austin

Posted 16 March 2006 - 02:26 PM

Here we go again...WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush clung to his doctrine of using preemptive force against threats of weapons of mass destruction on Thursday despite his experience in Iraq, and said Iran may be America's biggest security challenge.Is this justified as well?If this is more than just political rhetoric then I would expect talk about re-establishing the draft to come next.Discuss.
WL/LM

Are newbies allowed signatures?

#53 econ1

econ1

    Poker Forum Newbie

  • Members
  • 12 posts
  • Location:Washington DC
  • Interests:Poker, Politics and Politics

Posted 16 March 2006 - 02:44 PM

View Postrog, on Thursday, March 16th, 2006, 1:01 PM, said:

What decision? The US decided not to be involved in WWII. In 1939, The Nazis started invading eatsern european countries. Canada and Britain (among others) went to war. The US declared it's neutrality. They didn't get involved until 1941, and only then because of Japan. If the US was so concerned about making the right decisions, why did they wait 2 years to do the right thing? The fact is, the US gets involved out of self interest. There's nothing wrong with that, but let's call it what it is. The US didn't care about Sadam's weapons when they were aimed at Iran. Even attacks against the Kurds were no big deal. The US administration doesn't care about genocides that have happened or are happening in all sorts of places where they have no self interest. Rwanda comes to mind. Ever hear of it?The US is an empire in the process of empire building. Let's not mistake that for altruism.
Agree - so what is the solution then? Do we jump into to every situation that needs attention? WHile I think and hope that we would agree that it would be great if we could I think we also realize that it is not an option so we do what every country does - we take action when we feel like our citizens are in danger. THis has been the exact point I have been trying to make. It is very easy for all of us to sit on the sidelines and snipe at decisions that are made but when you are the one who bears the responsibility of the lives of the millions of citizens you serve the picture look smuch different. If I was in Bush's decision I am fairly certain that - given what was known (or believed to be known) at the time I would have made the same decision despite the lack of 100% certainty.

#54 mrdannyg

mrdannyg

    Cheese Salesman

  • Members
  • 20,246 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 16 March 2006 - 03:08 PM

View Postecon1, on Thursday, March 16th, 2006, 5:44 PM, said:

Agree - so what is the solution then? Do we jump into to every situation that needs attention? WHile I think and hope that we would agree that it would be great if we could I think we also realize that it is not an option so we do what every country does - we take action when we feel like our citizens are in danger. THis has been the exact point I have been trying to make. It is very easy for all of us to sit on the sidelines and snipe at decisions that are made but when you are the one who bears the responsibility of the lives of the millions of citizens you serve the picture look smuch different. If I was in Bush's decision I am fairly certain that - given what was known (or believed to be known) at the time I would have made the same decision despite the lack of 100% certainty.
I think the solution is, as the previous poster said, to simply realize that Bush, on behalf of the US, is doing this out of self-interest. there is no altruism, no higher motives. self-interest.it only bugs people like myself when people defend what the US does as "right," etc. it is not in my opinion, but that is not important. what i hope is that people simply realize that it is being done out of self-interest and not out of some altruistic spirit. well said rog.
Long signatures are really annoying.

#55 Balloon guy

Balloon guy

    Deplorable Lives Matter

  • Members
  • 24,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:So Cal
  • Interests:Cigars, Flying, Golf, Bible
  • Favorite Poker Game:Golf

Posted 16 March 2006 - 05:10 PM

And Balloon Guy--that was one of the more amusing right wing rants i've read in a while. Full of partisian rhetoric, half truths, misconstrued democratic arguments, ethnocentrism, myopic views and hypocrisy. I love this:and then you say:Classic.And i love it when they point to all of the other people who thought SH had WMD and thought they were a threat. Hmmm--how many of those countries/people thougth they had enough evidence to justify an attack? NONE. Even if when we get past the mistake of going in there (not only the evidence, but the pie-in-the-sky idea that it would be a cakewalk)---the prosecution of the post-war plan (if there was one) was absolutely HORRIBLE.And as far as budgets are concerned--the best situation, historically speaking, for the least amount of spending--is to have a house/senate with as a different party as the president. See, checks and balances works. One-sided ideological controlling party with supreme power isn't very good for the country. I don't profess to think that all democratic ideas are correct and i don't think all republican ideas are all correct. Which is why i despise this spiteful pissing contest politics has become. And whenever you think, believe and spread the BS you just did---you're just making the problem worse.EDIT--i hope that i didn't cross the line of the "friendly tone"--being a sarcastic person, i can sometimes unintentionally sound like a prick when argue politics.[/quote]No..I understand getting into the aguement, as long as you are funny, I can take a hit or two. Just don't correct my spelling..touchy on this.None of the countries agreed to go to war? What about th 40+ countries that sent troops/supplies. I guess they don't count because they don't surrender when the first shot is fired. Other than Canada, they are all a bunch of hypocritical losers anyway. How's that for ethnocentrism?Tommy Franks wasn't promoting a book, he wrote it and gave the facts from his insider prospective. The guy writing books is the UN inspector loser that is now the darling of the liberal media, he knew all along and no body listened to him. BS..Barbara Steisand. I can tell you didn't read it because like most liberals, you attack the person, not the facts.Politics is a dirty business, always has been. I agree that the republicans are dropping the ball with their out of control spending, followed with voting to increase our debt today..they should all get canned. You start the paperwork to get them all shipped to Iraq for road cleaning duty and I'll sign it, along with most of the people I know..But between the two, democrats are by far more evil in my eyes. I know I am baised when I watch the news, listen to radio etc. I don't pretend to be a middle of the road weeny. I listen to Rush, Dennis Miller, Alan Colmbes and O'Reilly, Rush is the best thing on the air, because even when I disagree he's entertaining. Alan Colmbes is the best liberal out there, honest and makes decent points. Most liberal talk radio is a pathetic joke. Fox news is boring, as is CNN etc. 24 hours of news is too much, so I don't watch much. Don't read the paper, not really all that poitically interested anymore. But I remember 9-11, and I know what happens when liberals run wars..Vietnam. You want to spend all your efforts saying Bush is a bad guy, well he's too busy defending this country to give you guys a sound bite that will make you all love him.How's that for partisian rhetoric?And who in the world ever said you are a traitor if you dissent? The ONLY people I've heard say that is liberals trying to say conservatives think that way. I will agree to disagree, unless you can be funny. Otherwise we both know we've said all these things before, and I ain't changing you, and you ain't changing me. But I'll play you heads up for $50,000 if you got the guts.
I use my cigar smoke as idiot repellent

The government was set to protect man from criminals - and the Constitution was written to protect man from the government. - Ayn Rand

#56 playingtowin

playingtowin

    Poker Forum Nut

  • Members
  • 338 posts

Posted 16 March 2006 - 07:24 PM

View PostBalloon guy, on Thursday, March 16th, 2006, 11:19 AM, said:

And if putting a guys underwear on his head and taking pictures is torture, then lets arrest every fottball team in this country for hazing week.
Now this was bad...r u saying that the soldiers that tortured prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison should not be punished and were not wrong? Torture is wrong period!

#57 Loismustdie

Loismustdie

    What year is this?

  • Members
  • 7,236 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Phoenix

Posted 16 March 2006 - 07:42 PM

View PostNaked_Cowboy, on Wednesday, March 15th, 2006, 4:11 PM, said:

Speaking as an accountant...The most ridiculous spin item from the last 6-7 years is that Bush's tax changes gave the shaft to lower middle class families. The extra deductions for child tax credits, etc. give more tax savings as a % of gross income to lower income families by virtue of them being FIXED deductions. Of course, noone slamming Bush is going to tell you that the tax bill they're villifying increased tax deductions for some lower class families by 20% or more. No, they're going to focus on the reduction of taxes on dividends and point out how much money a super rich CEO saved as a bi-product of the change. Again, they're going to conveniently forget that this was simply a reduction in the double taxation of earnings by corporations who pay dividends, and is intended to help people save for retirement on their own instead of bleeding out social security. Every time I hear "tax cut for the rich" I want to scream. Bush's tax reform is a huge reason we didn't suffer a much much worse depression during his first term. The economy doesn't swing over night, it swings over YEARS. The policies put into place over the last 6 years will continue to improve the economic state of the country directly for the next 5+ years, and the nice happy economy the next President inherits - Democrat or Republican - will be attributed to them, not Bush.
Reducing taxes in a time of war is retarded, I don't care who the reductions go to- this **** has to be paid for. We are in debt like we haven't been for 15 years, how do you explain that?
So much for a comeback.

#58 chrozzo

chrozzo

    hi™

  • Members
  • 23,051 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Geico

Posted 16 March 2006 - 08:17 PM

View Postplayingtowin, on Thursday, March 16th, 2006, 10:24 PM, said:

Torture is wrong period!
maybe...but it works :icon_biggrin:i dont give a rats behind what they do to the prisoners at gitmo...if it leads to major arrests and assasinations of top Al Qaeda leaders to prevent further deaths of American, it is worth it...thats cold, but I love my country more than the comfort of the prisoners
FCP CBO: Chief Beer Officer

I'm kind of a big deal.




#59 playingtowin

playingtowin

    Poker Forum Nut

  • Members
  • 338 posts

Posted 16 March 2006 - 09:11 PM

View Postchrozzo, on Thursday, March 16th, 2006, 8:17 PM, said:

maybe...but it works :icon_biggrin:i dont give a rats behind what they do to the prisoners at gitmo...if it leads to major arrests and assasinations of top Al Qaeda leaders to prevent further deaths of American, it is worth it...thats cold, but I love my country more than the comfort of the prisoners
I see what u're saying...but if u think torture can be justified then why r we fighting a war? The U.S. is about freedom. What makes torture justified? Soldiers r fighting everyday to bring freedom and democracy to Iraq and other parts of the world. The use of torture is a disgrace to the U.S. and the honorable men and women fighting for freedom. In the U.S., there r laws in place that punish people severely for animal cruelty, let alone the torture of humans no matter what crimes they have committed.

#60 chrozzo

chrozzo

    hi™

  • Members
  • 23,051 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Geico

Posted 16 March 2006 - 10:15 PM

View Postplayingtowin, on Friday, March 17th, 2006, 12:11 AM, said:

I see what u're saying...but if u think torture can be justified then why r we fighting a war? The U.S. is about freedom. What makes torture justified? Soldiers r fighting everyday to bring freedom and democracy to Iraq and other parts of the world. The use of torture is a disgrace to the U.S. and the honorable men and women fighting for freedom. In the U.S., there r laws in place that punish people severely for animal cruelty, let alone the torture of humans no matter what crimes they have committed.
It is a hard subject to approach, no question. As a human being, it is hard to accept certain methods. As an American whos country has been under attack, I am happy to know there are some men and women who will do what is necessary to preserve out way of life. At least our methods are not even close to those used by saddam and other past dictators and madmen. The most common tactic we use (or that the Army is willing to share with us), is sleep deprivation.
FCP CBO: Chief Beer Officer

I'm kind of a big deal.







0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users