Who would win if it were up to us?

[Less Than jake]

Yes it is now officially Bush's second term. Being a Democrat yesterday was sort of a day to mourn. BUt who would've won here?

[Robot Jesus]

I think nadir would have been the best choice. He could help the US catch up with the rest of the world socaly.

[Lucerin Red]

I voted W, I was no way in hell gonna vote for kerry, he would run our economy into the ground just as bush has started to fix all the problems with it. Plus Kerry voted against the law that banned partial birth abortions. And even though Kerry was just a puppet of the democratic party to try and get bush out of the office, puppets still have power

[Dynamite220]

I voted Bush. I'm not realy into the whole social conservative thing, but I know when a man is serious. He is doing what he thinks is best for his country. Others may not agree with him, but his motivations are pure. Also, while I may not be anti-gay or anti-abortion, I am a political conservative who is all for small government, lower taxes, and trickle-down economics, all of which are Bush positions.

[Sock_Munkey]

he would run our economy into the ground just as bush has started to fix all the problems with it.
Hvae you noticed the 37 trillion dollar deficit bush has created? Hes a total dumbass.

[Lucerin Red]

War = expensive, but I was talking more along the lines of our economic polices and the recession we hit and the rise of unemployement.

Also yeah, I am definitely for smaller government, I hate loosing literally close to half my pay to taxes

[Vicious]

Not Bush. He refuses to admit when he's wrong. For some reason, I know a few people that somehow see this as a positive quality.

Anybody but Bush '05, baby.

[AerodynamicHair]

My support would have to go to Nader. I just generally love the guy, and he's the only "politician" I really feel isn't trying to screw me over so he could get his own. It's about time the US had a consumer advocate for a president, instead of rich-boy ceo.

About Bush, I disagree with him, but I understand that other people really beleive in what he's doing. It's not that I think that Bush is evil, or that he's stupid, its just that I don't believe in his positions, and I don't like what he's doing and what he's done. Neither do I like Kerry. I wish the democrats would get back on the ball and stop this whole "we may not have the best guy for the job, but he sure isn't Bush!" crap. The democrats don't even try anymore, in my opinion.

[Dragonsbane]

Personally, I hated all three of them; Bush, Kerry, AND Nader. If it was up to me, and be grateful it isn't, I would put all three of them into an arena with weapons, and force them to fight to the death for my amusement.

The winner would then have the privelege of leading the charge in the next attack in Iraq.

[Dynamite220]

Not Bush. He refuses to admit when he's wrong. For some reason, I know a few people that somehow see this as a positive quality.

Anybody but Bush '05, baby.
He doesn't admit that he's wrong because he doesn't believe that he's wrong. If you stated an oppinion of yours and someone said that you were obviously wrong and demanded you apologise, would you, even though your oppinion is just as lagitamate as his?

[Vicious]

He doesn't admit that he's wrong because he doesn't believe that he's wrong. If you stated an oppinion of yours and someone said that you were obviously wrong and demanded you apologise, would you, even though your oppinion is just as lagitamate as his?

If my obviously wrong opinion directly led to the invasion of a country and over one thousand lost American lives, not to mention several thousand Iraqi civilian deaths, then, yes, I would apologize.

[Dynamite220]

1. No oppinion is wrong. It goes against the meaning of the word and the nature of the consept for an oppinion to be wrong. That doesn't mean that all oppinions must be the same. It just means that from different points of view, something different applies.

2. When you are a leader, sometimes you must decide who dies so that others might live. Playing god in this way is not fun, nobody likes doing it, and nobody likes the people who do it. It must be done by someone, however, as is the nature of man and government and that he was willing to make those choices promptly, based on his own principles, and despite the impopularity of his decision shows a depth of character which you or I have not lived long enough to be able to show.

In shorter terms, if you would not repeat the invasion, it means that you have a different oppinion; not that your oppinion is inherently better because less and/or different people die from it. (It is my personal oppinion that, based on evidence found in Iraq, there would be two Iraq citizens dead just from Husain's special treatment for every war death so far. There is no way to proove it, that is just what I choose to believe.)

[neyo the king]

Black Mage for President! Seriously, I think it would have been best for the US is anyone but Bush was president.

[C-dog]

Just because Bush believes he's right doesn't mean he is. There are no WMDs in Iraq. They've given up searching. Bush was wrong about that one, no matter what he believes. There was no legitimate reason to start the war in Iraq! And have you seen the US economy? It's in shambles! The deficit is higher than ever and the dollar falls every day. And yet he was voted in again... Kinda makes me wish I lived in Canada. Oh wait.

Actually, although I think if Bush had lost, it would have been better for the world in general, Bush has been not too bad for Canada. With the American dollar falling, the Canadian dollar is worth a lot more in the US, which has been great for our economy.

Anyway, if I were American I would have voted for Kerry. There should really be a poll to go along with this thread.

[C-dog]

Just because Bush believes he's right doesn't mean he is. There are no WMDs in Iraq. They've given up searching. Bush was wrong about that one, no matter what he believes. There was no legitimate reason to start the war in Iraq! And have you seen the US economy? It's in shambles! The deficit is higher than ever and the dollar falls every day. And yet he was voted in again... Kinda makes me wish I lived in Canada. Oh wait.

[Vicious]

1. It wasn't just an opinion. He acted on it, and he was wrong. Having an opinion isn't the wrong part. The wrong part is the subject matter of that opinion. If someone says it's alright to grill a baby for lunch, they have a right to think that, but within the moral constrictions we as humans have set forth, it is obviously wrong.

2. George W. Bush does not have the authority to decide who lives and dies. Period. You say it has to be done, but I don't see any set rules that states mass genocide is absolutely necessary. Just because something has been done in the past doesn’t make it any less immoral. Especially when such acts are prompted by "rumors."

You have to consider it. George Bush himself solely directed an attack upon a country... They did not attack us first. It was a single-sided act of aggression on the part of the US. We invaded their country and overthrew their government. Yes, Saddam Hussein killed his citizens, but George W. Bush killing them doesn’t make it any better.


Aaaand, on top of that, he dosen't even bother to acknowledge what he did.

[Dynamite220]

Jesus people. He's a person, not a god. Seriously, even if I wasn't cutting him so much slack, I wouldn't touch Kerry with a two mile pole, much less vote him for president. I would have voted for him anyway because of his stand on taxes and on small government (we're lucky we don't get as much government as we pay for and yet we still have too much) but I did vote for him because Kerry's oppinions look suspiciously like the current public oppinion polls in the New York Times and Nadir's are rather extreeme (if you've never read the Green party's goals, then you should. Nadir didn't run for them this year, but he's run for them before so he must hold similar views). If you insist on a "lesser of two evils" race then Bush is definitely the lesser of two evils.

[Thanatos]

Personally, it would have been ME. Yes Thanatos future president of the world. Here are a list of just a few of my policies:

Military: We are all tired of seeing our citizens going dying in foreign wars, but war is an inevitability. So, how do we solve this problem. Well, I've been giving this a lot of thought, and have figured out a way to kill two birds with one stone. We have another major problem, prison overcrowding. So here's what we do. We take our death row inmates and drop them on the frontlines with guns and explosives. They have already proven they have no qualms about killing people, so we put this to good use by letting them do the brunt of the fighting. If they die, oh well we wer going to kill them anyway. If they survive their sentence will be commuted to life without parole. The second wave of fighters will be the lifers. I can create military positions for every criminal out there, and if they prove themselves, their sentences can be reduced.

Economy: The problem with the economy is simple, we keep buying stuff that we don't have the money to pay for. Money is based on nothing, except faith that the government will back whatever is the value on the paper. But when our government keeps getting further and further in debt, people have less and less faith, meaning the value of the dollar drops. How do we solve this? Get rid of money. Switch our economy back to a barter trade system.

Education: With the aforementioned change in the economy, teachers will finally be paid what they deserve. In exchange for educating your child, you give the teacher whatever your skills allow (cooking, cleaning, build a house, grow food.) Teachers will live just as well as doctors, because people from every industry will use their services. Goods and services used to trade for education, will be collected by the government a divided among the educators, so that each teacher recieves the same goods and services as others of his/her ability. The better the quality of a teachers instruction the better the quality and quanity of goods and services.

[Orkaxe]

Bush.....

George Bush.....

How can anyone be proud of a president such as him? His name is like ash in my mouth.

[My Lead Airbag]

First off, just wanted to say I voted Libertarian. I could never stand the extremists on both sides, and every election makes me realize thats all the two parties are made of.

Secondly, to all the Bush haters going on about the war, just stop. Yes, there have been a lot of American lives lost and there have been civilian casualties, but we also managed to get rid of a despotic mass murdering psycho. Now, the main arguments I see against the war are:

Where are the WMDs now huh? - True, the whole WMD thing turned into one long running Daily Show Joke, but you can't just say "Well Saddam had no WMDs at that point, he'd never get them." Thats looking at the tree as you miss the forest. Bush thought that Saddam, whether now or in the future, would have access to weapons that would pose a danger.

He did it to avenge his daddy. - Possible I guess. Not likely, but possible.

Soldiers lives and Civilians lost - Yes, we've lost a thousand or more to the war. But everyone is acting like Bush picked out the ones who would die. No one picked those guys and gals fates. There is no draft, we live in a country where you have to volunteer to fight, they knew what they were getting into. And judging from the fact that a good 90+% of the Armed Forces vote Republican might be construed as an indicator that maybe they agree with the war.
Civilian wise, I can't defend Bush beyond "War is hell."

All that isn't to say I agree with Bush fully though. I might agree the war was an ok idea, but his domestic issues are just heaping piles of shit. I'm Catholic and I'm still offended that we're close to banning gay marriage and even they're right to a civil union. He and his cronies just beef up every little thing (WMDs, Social Security, gays, etc) to the point where the message is "Believe this or you hate America".

All the Democrats really need to do is find a guy with some charisma, or at least a personality. You guys can't rest on Clinton's laurels.

[Dragonsbane]

Military: We are all tired of seeing our citizens going dying in foreign wars, but war is an inevitability. So, how do we solve this problem. Well, I've been giving this a lot of thought, and have figured out a way to kill two birds with one stone. We have another major problem, prison overcrowding. So here's what we do. We take our death row inmates and drop them on the frontlines with guns and explosives. They have already proven they have no qualms about killing people, so we put this to good use by letting them do the brunt of the fighting. If they die, oh well we wer going to kill them anyway. If they survive their sentence will be commuted to life without parole. The second wave of fighters will be the lifers. I can create military positions for every criminal out there, and if they prove themselves, their sentences can be reduced.

Fascinating...not only is this idea quite interesting, but it also reminds me of the Sardaukar troops in Frank Herbert's Dune series, elite warriors created by recruiting the toughest inhabitants of an extremely harsh prison planet. With some training, you could make a lethal batch of stormtroopers from your idea.

Bush.....

George Bush.....

How can anyone be proud of a president such as him? His name is like ash in my mouth.

If you have an opinion beyond just bashing Bush in an attempt to appear liberal, please state it. If not, try expanding your mental capacity enough to form an intelligent opinion...whether or not it agrees with mine, I'd rather not "duel an unarmed foe" in a debate such as this. Simply stating "Bush BAAAD" without supplying reasons, supporting arguments, or evidence is an extreme sign of ignorance.

Secondly, to all the Bush haters going on about the war, just stop. Yes, there have been a lot of American lives lost and there have been civilian casualties, but we also managed to get rid of a despotic mass murdering psycho.

This is one of the things most people seem to miss. Ask someone why war is bad, and they'll most likely tell you that it's because of the deaths involved. Saddam Hussein mass-murdered thousands of innocent men, women, and children. His sons raped 12 and 15 year old girls. We hunted Osama Bin Laden for killing thousands of our people, should Saddam be spared simply because the people he killed weren't Americans?

It seems that we have a tendency to believe that events that don't effect us, don't concern us. Are people not still people just because they dwell in another nation? Is murder not still murder when the victims aren't our citizens?

Some have said that America can't be the "world's policeman", that is it not our job to protect the lives of innocents in other countries. The answer to this is simple: If we don't, then who will? The U.N. has repeatedly shown itself to be incapable or unwilling to stop genocide, and the French government seems to have forgotten the persecution it suffered under the hands of a brutal Dictator. Would they have wished us to mind our own business back then, and leave them under the rule of Germany? If not, why would they want us to leave the Iraqis to suffer under Saddam?


Soldiers lives and Civilians lost - Yes, we've lost a thousand or more to the war. But everyone is acting like Bush picked out the ones who would die. No one picked those guys and gals fates. There is no draft, we live in a country where you have to volunteer to fight, they knew what they were getting into. And judging from the fact that a good 90+% of the Armed Forces vote Republican might be construed as an indicator that maybe they agree with the war.
Civilian wise, I can't defend Bush beyond "War is hell."

Again, that is true. The people who are fighting in Iraq volunteered to go, and yet many presume to make light of their sacrifices by using them as a weapon, a political tool to wield against Bush. It seems a grave dishonor that such bravery be debased in the hands of power-hungry politicians in order to further their own agendas.

Bush isn't perfect. Far from it. Many of his policies at home I disagree with, and some make me fervently angry at him. However, in this case he did the right thing. Think about it.

[Toastburner B]

Hmmm...if it was up to me, who would of won?

Powell or McCain! Anyone but Bush or Kerry! I wasted my vote on Nader just to spite those two.

I'm hoping that in '08, we get some real choices instead of the choice of two evils that we got this time around.

[Archbio]

This is one of the things most people seem to miss.

Your extremely innovative argument has blown my mind.

Whoa.

German could be France's official language! I've never heard this before, and now my world view is entierely changed! Iraq and Nazi Germany's occupation of France are two situations so similar, I can't believe I didn't equate either earlier. Thank you, Dragonsbane! I can now state that the invasion of Iraq was the right thing to do.

Humanitarian justifications for war are trump-all arguments, even when demonstrably used disinginuously and as a substitute for a few other different pretexts!

[This post brought to you by Heavy Sarcasm, because there's no way to respond to these arguments seriously, and this is the Off-Topic forum, whatever other people seem to think]

[Arlia Janet]

I mentioned that "put prisioners on the front line" comment to my boyfriend- a US Marine who has been in combat zones. He said, "That is one of the worst ideas I have ever heard. If you don't have people of character out there, everyone suffers."

[Dynamite220]

Your extremely innovative argument has blown my mind.

Whoa.

German could be France's official language! I've never heard this before, and now my world view is entierely changed! Iraq and Nazi Germany's occupation of France are two situations so similar, I can't believe I didn't equate either earlier. Thank you, Dragonsbane! I can now state that the invasion of Iraq was the right thing to do.

Humanitarian justifications for war are trump-all arguments, even when demonstrably used disinginuously and as a substitute for a few other different pretexts!

[This post brought to you by Heavy Sarcasm, because there's no way to respond to these arguments seriously, and this is the Off-Topic forum, whatever other people seem to think]
If there is no good rebuttle to an argument than that usualy makes it a good argument. I don't see where your anger is coming from. Also, we know that it's the off topic forum, but it was good of Less Than Jake to put it here. It could have turned into something very rediculous, but here, that's fine and this is fine to. There is more leniency here.

I don't think that we need a barter system, Thanatos. What we need is a hard money standard instead of this "money is worth what people think it is worth" bull shit that we have been going through since we dropped the gold standard. Since then, the dollar has dropped from $80/ounce of fine gold to over $200/ounce of fine gold. I'm not saying that we need the gold standard back, but we do need some kind of hard money standard.

I was also offended by Bush's push to ammend the constitution to ban homosexual unions, but I don't think that Bush alone can cause that kind of permanent harm to a document that has lasted this long. If it is truly the will of the people, then it will happen, but Bush alone can not put anything permanent in place and if the next president is more lenient on the matter then all is well.

There is no hiding it, there will be a problem with social security when I retire. I'm not saying that Bush's reforms are the way to go, but I am glad that he was willing to bring it up. Now it will be on the table when the next president takes office. (If I had my way, then the whole damn program would be scrapped and rebuilt from scratch. When the government needs to intervene in something at all, then it is done for in my oppinion)

I have already stated what I think of all his other moves in my posts above.

[Archbio]

If there is no good rebuttle to an argument than that usualy makes it a good argument.

Not really. There is also immaterial arguments, and arguments that are so senseless that a logically rebuttal wouldn't be worth the time expended. And the time needed to clarify that sort of statements, I don't care to spend. My objections are contained within my first post, and if one cares to know why I find that throwing the Second World War into this without heed to the specifics of both situations is absurd, then let them try and understand how by checking up on history. I'll assume Dragonsbane knows his history but has taken an abberant point of view based on that.

I don't see where your anger is coming from.

Sarcasm isn't anger.

[Thanatos]

German could be France's official language! I've never heard this before, and now my world view is entierely changed! Iraq and Nazi Germany's occupation of France are two situations so similar, I can't believe I didn't equate either earlier. Thank you, Dragonsbane! I can now state that the invasion of Iraq was the right thing to do.

Ok, how about this then. A few years back we went to war against another small nation. That time our leader happenned to be a democrat. Why were we there? Because the leader of that country was persecuting a minority race in that country. We were told by this president that 100,000 people of this minority were being killed. This was a lie it was only 3,000. We were told that the war would last a week, it lasted 78 days. This was longer than the war in Iraq. Clinton knew there was no mass genocide in Kosovo, but said so anyway to justify the war. Bush did not know there were no WMDs. The CIA said there were WMDs. We know that Saddam had used WMDs on his people in the past. We needed to make sure this didn't happen again.
By the way do you know who we were supporting in Kosovo? The KLA (Kososvo Liberation Army) A group the US classified as a terrorist organization in 98 and that has links to Osama Bin Laden. In Iraq we are losing men every day because we are fighting terrorists, piople who look no different than ordinary citizens. We didn't lose anyone in Kosovo mainly because we were fighting on the side of the terrorists. We helped to ethnically clense Kosovo by driving out over 250,000 Serbs. Our soldiers in Kosovo are safe, mainly because the people in kosovo are afraid the serbs will return. They don't want to harm their liberators.
Lets compare Milosevic and saddam. Milosovic was elected. He had the support of the majority. Saddam however was not elected, and his supporters were a minority. Unlike Saddam, Milosevic NEVER invaded another country, or used Weapons of Mass Destruction. Milosevic never gassed anyone. Milosevic never used missiles on another nation. The only war Milosevic sent troops in was Kosovo: And that was a CIVIL WAR. Imagine Lincoln during the American Civil War. During the Civil War, over 500,000 Americans died, but Lincoln is considered a hero. The war is not viewed in a bad light because by nature a Civil War is natural to most nations.
Today democrats are attacking Bush on skipping the UN, but in 1999 Clinton skipped UN altogther. The reason was because he knew Russia would veto the vote.
They complain that in Iraq people are dying but people in kosovo did not. Actually, in Kosovo people ARE being killed. But they're not American, so no one cares. Those being killed are Serbs and Gypsies. A few weeks ago two Serb children were gunned down. The other crimes in the past week: A fisherman killed. A farmer killed. A bus blown up killing eleven. A gypsy girl raped and stabbed. A nun pelted with rocks. Children beat up by gangs. Over 1,200 Serbs are still missing. Most of them abducted or killed after Wesley Clark marched into Kosovo. Over 150 Christian churches have been blown up and destroyed. Some of them as old as 600 years old. Today Serbian children can barely go to school. Women are raped in the street. Even those Albanians who are friendly to Serbs are gunned down and killed.
If you're against the invasion of Iraq then you should naturally be disgusted and angered by the Kosovo conflict. If you're disgusted by the fact that no WMD were found in Iraq, then you should be shocked that no genocide was found in Kosovo. If you are angered that America bypassed the UN to bomb a soverign nation, then you should be pissed that Clinton avoided the UN vote to bomb Kosovo. If the deaths of innocent lives in Iraq disturbs you, then you should be upset that thousands of innocent people were killed in Kosovo at Wesley Clark's hand. Unless of course, you are partisan and only interested in the suffering of American lives.

[Archbio]

Unless of course, you are partisan and only interested in the suffering of American lives.

Yes, give me those souls! I want more souls to crush and devour!

[Krylo]

Closed, because this is about five seconds from turning into "I'm right!" "NO! You're a doody head, and also here's an arguement completely unrelated to anything you said!"

...Oh wait, it already did. Damn. I was late.