I need to understand Bush...

[fli]

Hello,

First off, let me say that I'm not a political person. But I'm a person who likes to study and try to make wise choices.

Right now I've decided to to vote for Bush, although I'm not too sure whom I'm going to vote, although I'm leaning towards one person whom I won't reveal.

Before I say, end game, I need to know just a little bit about Bush's decisions.

1.) I thought we were looking for Osama bin Ladin in Afghanistan. How in the world did we end up in Iraq? (My friend over there would like to know too) I know people are going to say, "to look for the weapons of mass destruction!" But I need to know more clear cut. Why didn't we go after Korea when they're more of a threat? Invading Iraq when Afghanistan was the country that perpetuated the 911 events is like invading Mexico... Doesn't make sense. Anyone able to sum up the arguments?

2.) Why are there so many scrupulous events in Bush's history? First it was, did he actually win, or didn't he win. Then it was: why Florida, his brother's state... And latter on it was, did he serve, or did he not serve... and then there's this thing: Did Bush know 911 before hand, or did he not? I think that's way too many discretions in his political history, which makes me very suspicious. Did Bush really pass Harvard by himself the hard way by doing work, or did daddy's friends pass him because he was president's son?

3.) Does Bush have a Christian agenda? I feel so, but I don't have any evidence. But I trust my feelings enough.

4.) How was Bush connected with Enron? I keep hearing this, although I don't see the connection.

Okay, that's my questions for now.

[BeFell]

At 4/3/04 04:05 AM, spanishfli wrote: 1.) I thought we were looking for Osama bin Ladin in Afghanistan. How in the world did we end up in Iraq? (My friend over there would like to know too) I know people are going to say, "to look for the weapons of mass destruction!" But I need to know more clear cut. Why didn't we go after Korea when they're more of a threat? Invading Iraq when Afghanistan was the country that perpetuated the 911 events is like invading Mexico... Doesn't make sense. Anyone able to sum up the arguments?

What the robotic deity said.

2.) Why are there so many scrupulous events in Bush's history? First it was, did he actually win, or didn't he win. Then it was: why Florida, his brother's state... And latter on it was, did he serve, or did he not serve... and then there's this thing: Did Bush know 911 before hand, or did he not? I think that's way too many discretions in his political history, which makes me very suspicious. Did Bush really pass Harvard by himself the hard way by doing work, or did daddy's friends pass him because he was president's son?

Most of that stuff are just things that liberals made up to attack Bush because he doesn't do easy to attack stuff like screwing interns or flip flopping on issues.

3.) Does Bush have a Christian agenda? I feel so, but I don't have any evidence. But I trust my feelings enough.

Bush is a Christian and he may turn to his faith for answers but for the most part he does what he feels is best for the American people.

4.) How was Bush connected with Enron? I keep hearing this, although I don't see the connection.

I thought it was Cheney they were saying had the connections, oh well either way it is once again liberals grasping for something in Bush's clean record.

Okay, that's my questions for now.

All fair and relevent, I am very impressed.

[shitt0r]

OK, all fair and well, you just made a lot of points and, even if only one or two were true, he wouldn't be worth of the title 'President of the United States of America' yet you said you're still probably going to vote for him.

Sorry my friend but that would just be ignorance, at least your asking questions.

[darkphantom]

At 4/3/04 04:16 AM, JesusCyborg wrote:
I'll answer one. Saddam is an evil dictator who killed millions.

Millions? Damn where did you learn to count? it was tens of thousands tops... If that excuse is so then why aren't you invading Zimbabwe China and North Koria? Oh becasue you have good tradeing relations with them? I mean Life... Pfft whats a persons life in place of profit

I swear americas reasoning for going in was becasue iraq had WMDs that they where gonna use agienst america within a couple of months. but that seems to be a lie due to "inaccurate intellegece" and everyones blameing each other.

Many pepole I'v seen seem to think saddam was training terrorists, But why would Saddam allow rebles to run about his country undermineing his tyrannical rule... Oh well we will have to wait for soild evidense of this activity to surface until then we will have to give ol' trustworthy bush the benifit of the doubt... ¬_¬

[FatherVenom]

Is it true that at one point the only christian group to back Bush were the Southern Baptists? I heard that somewhere and haven't had the time to check up on it. If it's true I will try to chuckle on today of all days.

[Madspeed]

At 4/3/04 04:05 AM, spanishfli wrote: Before I say, end game, I need to know just a little bit about Bush's decisions.

http://www.georgewbush.com/

Actually not that bad of a site for information. I commend you for making the sensible choice for President.

[Slizor]

I'll answer one. Saddam is an evil dictator who killed millions. He was weak, after all his troops surrendered to a cnn news crew once. Taking him out sends a powerful message to people like Kim.

I like this reply, just because it demonstrates the ideological framework which this person has been confined to. Y'see the use of the word "evil" - it shows that he thinks that the USA is on the side of good. And then the word "dictator" - shows that he thinks that the USA is on the side of democracy. It's very interesting, there is no proof that the US is on the side of "good" or "democracy", in fact there is overwhelming evidence that the US is actually on the side of "evil" and against real "democracy" (although this person wouldn't think of democracy as rule of the people, he would think of it as Capitalism.)

Just look at the Vietnam War. The war basically started because the South Vietnamese wanted to become Communist (they were denied the democratic choice due to the USA's fear.) The USA caused the deaths of millions (surely an evil act) and supported the South Vietnamese dictatorships and actually fought against the South Vietnamese people!

Clear evidence of "evil" (if it exists) and support for "dictatorships" - this can not be denied, why anyone (outside of the ideological constraints imposed by a subservient media) would believe that the US is on the side of "good" and for "democracy" is just beyond comprehension.

[peedee]

At 4/3/04 07:09 AM, darkphantom wrote:

Millions? Damn where did you learn to count? it was tens of thousands tops... If that excuse is so then why aren't you invading Zimbabwe China and North Koria? Oh becasue you have good tradeing relations with them? I mean Life... Pfft whats a persons life in place of profit

acctually it was millons..... and what would we trade with zimbabwe? theres nothing there...

I swear americas reasoning for going in was becasue iraq had WMDs that they where gonna use agienst america within a couple of months. but that seems to be a lie due to "inaccurate intellegece" and everyones blameing each other.

where teh WMD's then?

Many pepole I'v seen seem to think saddam was training terrorists, But why would Saddam allow rebles to run about his country undermineing his tyrannical rule... Oh well we will have to wait for soild evidense of this activity to surface until then we will have to give ol' trustworthy bush the benifit of the doubt... ¬_¬

he didnt run a terrorist camp....the states does tho.... but seriously. he killed millions. he was in power for a long time....and he was killing people when he wasnt. so to say tens of thousands, is wrong. i think you are confusing that with how many have died since the war on terror began. since then, over 10 000 iraqi's have died. so thats how it really is.

[peedee]

At 4/3/04 10:26 AM, Slizor wrote:

why anyone (outside of the ideological constraints imposed by a subservient media) would believe that the US is on the side of "good" and for "democracy" is just beyond comprehension.

well, bush has done some good. not alot, but some. so i can see why people would see him as good, and the states as a democracy. yet, i do understand what you mean, and it makes sense.
the way i see it is that by now the states are so corrupt, its almost useless to try and fix it. it would take a long time, but it could be done.
i say it is corrupt because no matter where you go, someone took extra money, or did something to get something in return.
hell, i live in Canada and we have a big budget thing goin on up here. shit man, were as fucked up as the next country!

[fli]

At 4/3/04 04:16 AM, JesusCyborg wrote:

At 4/3/04 04:05 AM, spanishfli wrote: 1.) I thought we were looking for Osama bin Ladin in Afghanistan. How in the world did we end up in Iraq? (My friend over there would like to know too) I know people are going to say, "to look for the weapons of mass destruction!" But I need to know more clear cut. Why didn't we go after Korea when they're more of a threat? Invading Iraq when Afghanistan was the country that perpetuated the 911 events is like invading Mexico... Doesn't make sense. Anyone able to sum up the arguments?

I'll answer one. Saddam is an evil dictator who killed millions. He was weak, after all his troops surrendered to a cnn news crew once. Taking him out sends a powerful message to people like Kim.

MY AMERICAN friend, a soilder in the Marins, is in Iraq. He has no idea why he's fighting over there because he says this war is pointless. He's very upset on the fact that when people where destroying museums with priceless pieces of history, we were protecting oil. This makes me think as well... If we are really out there to get an evil dictator, why haven't we even considered Korea? The threat is more bigger as there is actual evidence.

Your Iraqian friend isn't happy with the fact that Saddam is out of power? What a goofball.

[RedSkunk]

At 4/3/04 04:16 AM, JesusCyborg wrote: I'll answer one. Saddam is an evil dictator who killed millions.

He didn't kill millions.

He was weak ...Taking him out sends a powerful message to people like Kim.

If he was weak, then what kind of message are we sending again? "We can beat up little shitty nations!"?

At 4/3/04 04:05 AM, spanishfli wrote: 1.) I thought we were looking for Osama bin Ladin in Afghanistan. How in the world did we end up in Iraq?

It's been a long-time pet project of all of the neoconservatives in this current administratio. Cheny, RUmsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc., are all part of Project for the New American Century, a group who's sole reason for existence exerting US dominance worldwide, and making sure that no other superpowers rise up to threaten our global hegemony.

Now - where does the oil in Iraq go to? Where does most of the oil in the Middle East go to? Europe, and asian powers like China. Anyone see why having another US base in the Middle East is beneficial?

- note, I did have two seperate pages on the PNAC, but somehow over the past year they have both shut down. I don't know what's going on with this... Amazingly, the 'official' page is still up:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/

2.) Why are there so many scrupulous events in Bush's history? First it was, did he actually win, or didn't he win.

He 'won' because all of the ballots were not counted, and many other ballots were thrown out. If a fair and honest election had been held in Florida, he would have lost.

did he serve, or did he not serve...

No, he didn't serve. But apparently he got paid for not showing up!

Did Bush really pass Harvard by himself the hard way by doing work, or did daddy's friends pass him because he was president's son?

He got by with a 'gentlemans C', which probably means - yes, he was busy doing coke and drinking while they let him graduate.

3.) Does Bush have a Christian agenda?

Of course. Much of his entire platform is in line with the religious right - within days of entering the White House, he banned government funding to any organizations which even remotely support abortions - even if it was just lipservice.

4.) How was Bush connected with Enron?

He had no direct links as far as I know, but I do know that he pulled almost the same exact thing in Texas with his oil company ventures - none of his businesses succeeded, but he made out with millions of dollars. Strange - no?

At 4/3/04 08:56 AM, Madspeed wrote: http://www.georgewbush.com

Don't waste your time on propaganda, unless you want to remain ignorant.

At 4/3/04 11:17 AM, peedee wrote: But seriously. he killed millions. he was in power for a long time....and he was killing people when he wasnt.

"He was killing people when he wasn't"? Hussein did not kill millions of people. Unless you can provide some credible proof to the contrary - he didn't. I've never heard such numbers except from rabid imbeciles like mechanicaljesus.

[Stan]

At 4/3/04 04:16 AM, JesusCyborg wrote:

At 4/3/04 04:05 AM, spanishfli wrote: 1.) I thought we were looking for Osama bin Ladin in Afghanistan. How in the world did we end up in Iraq?

thats because saddam tried to kill his dad. George decided to connect 9/11 to saddam so that he could work in capturing him he dosent give two shits about Osama because NY didnt vote for him.
(Thats my opinion)

[BeFell]

At 4/3/04 06:02 AM, ghostmint wrote: This is complete conservative brainwashed horse shit, bush is very pleased that people like you are still willing to blindly follow him in all his criminal endevours. Pretending to be a devout christian, or a devout anything for that matter is the biggest case of fraudulent preeching i have ever heard. The only thing he is devoted to is capitalism, and once in a while he will throw in a religious refference for good measure, since christianity is the most populous religion in America, and in the world but thats because of americas overwhelming per portion. Its really easy to kill innocents over seas when when you cant put a face to them, but one day his negligent war mongering will come back and bite him in the ass. How ignorant of you to support such a crook, your the same type of delusional conservative that says Michael Moore spliced sound bites of bush speeches to make him look bad, well he didnt have to and thats simply not true, he makes himself look bad quite fine all on his own.

I would have to say that you are just spouting complete liberal brainwashed bullshit. Everything I said can be backed up by facts. Well except supporting the guy above me that was just lack of attenion on my part. Hundreds of thousands not millions. You call me ignorant for supporting a crook like bush then in the very next sentence you voice your support for Micael Moore, interesting.

A vote for bush is a vote for murder. fucker

Unlike the people we are fighting we only target enemy combatants. I will admit that there is and always will be unfortunate civilian deaths but we strive hard to avoid them. If you want proof of this I point to the fact that Falusha is still standing.

[bombkangaroo]

At 4/3/04 11:56 AM, spanishfli wrote:

This makes me think as well... If we are really out there to get an evil dictator, why haven't we even considered Korea? The threat is bigger as there is actual evidence.

if he ever fired a shot the UN would come down all over his ass. the worst he could do is sell his enriched fissile materials to someone else, that would provide sufficient motivation for the UN, or other western powers, to make him a better offer for it without engaging in hostilities. if he ever intended to launch a nuke then he wouldn't be advertising the fact that he has fissile material.

[RedSkunk]

At 4/3/04 05:52 PM, BeFell wrote: Everything I said can be backed up by facts.

Fine.

At 4/3/04 04:26 AM, BeFell wrote: Most of that stuff are just things that liberals made up to attack Bush because he doesn't do easy to attack stuff like screwing interns or flip flopping on issues.

The guy mentioned Bush winning in Florida
• Gore would of won if there hadn't been all of the hysteria / corruption / whatever you want to call it ("[I]f the recount had been started from scratch in each of Florida's 67 counties, Gore would be in the White House today." Published in the Miami Herald, Sunday, April 8, 2001)

The guy asked whether Bush served or not.
• He didn't - but he got paid for it

The guy asked if Bush did pass Harvard all by himself
• Bush was too busy doing coke and drinking - he got by with a 'gentleman's C', which means - yes, the Bush name got him in and it got him through, Harvard.

The guy mentioned 9/11 conspiracy theorists
• There are plenty of people on both sides of the spectrum with conspiracies about 9/11. It's not a 'liberal' thing

Bush is a Christian and he may turn to his faith for answers but for the most part he does what he feels is best for the American people.

Are you kidding? His policies are straight out of the religious right's pocket.

"The Republican Party of Texas affirms that the United States is a Christian nation."
Texas Republican Party Platform, 2002

"We want to fund programs that save Americans one soul at a time."
President George W. Bush, January, 2004, in a speech in New Orleans

Slouching toward theocracy
Theocracy Watch

I thought it was Cheney they were saying had the connections, oh well either way it is once again liberals grasping for something in Bush's clean record.

"Invoking executive privilege, Vice President Dick Cheney refuses to disclose details of meetings he held last year with Enron officials" (an article in Time - not exactly leftist propaganda)
etc:
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=12525
http://www.madison.com/captimes/opinion/column/nichols/23771.php
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/23/politics/main509942.shtml
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0131-02.htm

I find it interesting they had to shred documents related to Cheney's meetings with Enron officials. After all, it was just a friendly visit between friends, wasn't it?

[IllustriousPotentate]

Pretending to be a devout christian[proper nouns should be capitalized], or a devout anything [insert comma] for that matter [insert comma] is the biggest case of fraudulent preeching [misspelled, should be "preaching"] i ["i" should be capitalized] have ever heard. The only thing he is devoted to is capitalism, and once in a while he will throw in a religious refference[misspelled, should be "reference"] for good measure, since christianity [proper nouns should be capitalized] is the most populous [poor usage; should be "common" or synonym thereof, not a word related to the number of people living in an area] religion in America, and in the world [insert comma] but thats [requires apostrophe between the "t" and "s"] because of americas [capitalize proper nouns; add an apostrophe between "a" and "s"] overwhelming per portion[the word is proportion, not "per portion"; America comprises approx. 4.5% of the world's population, not an "overwhelming" proprtion] .

How dare you consider yourself to be an authority on what a person's innermost beliefs are. You don't even know the person, you've never met him, but you think you're possibly gifted enough to determine one's religious relationships with their God using only what other people have said and what you seen on TV.

Its [contraction, needs an apostrophe between "t" and "s"]really easy to kill innocents over seas["overseas" is one word] when when [delete double word] you cant [contraction, insert apostrophe between "n" and "t"]put a face to them, but one day his negligent war mongering will come back and bite him in the ass. How ignorant of you to support such a crook, your[incorrect; should be "you're", the contraction of "you are", rather than the possessive form of the word "you"] the same type of delusional conservative that says Michael Moore spliced sound bites of bush[proper nouns are capitalized; should be in the possessive form] speeches to make him look bad, well he didnt[insert apostrophe between "n" and "t"] have to and thats [insert apostrophe between "t" and "s"]simply not true, he makes himself look bad quite fine all on his own[run-on sentence].

Oh, Bush is stupid because he uses poor grammar and pronunciation in his speeches, eh? You definitely have the high ground on the matter of grammar, huh?
Oh, how dare we support anyone with facts when we can just take what Michael Moore says as the all mighty truth with out any fact checking?

A vote for bush [proper nouns are capitalized]is a vote for murder. fucker[sentence fragment]

Oh, but it's okay to be associated with a murderer whothe North Vietnamese general in the Vietnam War has credited the U.S. loss in that war?
Oh, it's okay to be associated with someone in cahoots with Jane Fonda, who produced propaganda for the North Vietnamese, and allowed AMERICAN soldiers to be killed when they wouldn't appear in that propaganda???

If that's the case, I'd rather vote for someone who murders other murderers rather than AMERICANS.

[Locke666]

Well I see this post is gonna be a scream fest from both sides I'm gonna try and lay out some stats between our last democratic president and our good friend bushy for the benefit of the original topic starter and company. Admitedly I am liberal so feel free to discredit me but I wont put anything that cant be proven.

Bush Clinton

# of wars 2 0

# of american soldiers killed

thousands 100 or so in regional conflicts
# of sex scandals 0 1

# of military service record scandals
1 0

# of jobs lost millions none

# of deficits created 1 0

# of surpluses created 0 1

# of questionable elections
1 0
# of countries liberated
2 0
# of econimies "liberated"
1 0
# of tax cuts
a lot not many
# of tax cuts to non rich people
not many not many
% of world that hates us
100% 10%

Now I admit that clinton isnt kerry but in a party system you're really voting for a party not a person. No offense to our current president but do you really think he could run the country on his own. The canidates are just figureheads for their parties. All of them are. So if you cant decide who to vote for I would reccomend Kerry. He may not be a great guy but if you want to do stuff like get a job or not get drafted in another war or travel outside the country without getting mugged by pissed off frenchies I'd go with the democrats. However I have heard from fox news that if elected kerry will eat your babies but i think thats a small price to pay. Dont you?

[IllustriousPotentate]

At 4/3/04 07:06 PM, Locke666 wrote:

Bush Clinton

# of wars 2 0:
What about Kosovo? Somalia?

# of american soldiers killed

thousands 100 or so in regional conflicts:
<1000 for Bush, <100 for Clinton

# of sex scandals 0 1:

No argument

# of military service record scandals

1 0:
Bush: not so much a scandal. Accusation made by a group. Evidence to the contrary given. Accusation dropped.
Clinton: Used student exemption to get out of Vietnam, went to Britain. Many others did as well.
My count 0 0

# of jobs lost millions none:

Wrong. There has been a net creation of jobs under the Bush administration.
From the Bureau of Labor Statistics (each number represents the number of job losses or gains in a month, in thousands):
Year
2001 356 75 64 138 -47 254 102 474 94 572 297 271
2002 -165 58 94 300 -181 -13 16 -65 -66 94 202 133
2003 -270 153 -62 280 158 288 -197 -119 37 -169 -144 -255
2004 -101 -127 182
A net creation of approx. 2,711,000 jobs.
Under Clinton's:
1993 232 -142 -127 54 39 -28 -191 -167 -49 36 -208 -65
1994 153 -47 -113 -139 -416 12 19 -13 -199 -102 -257 -145
1995 145 -188 -34 492 -215 -3 100 -43 -6 -150 98 -3
1996 68 -178 5 97 8 -328 242 -455 97 52 205 17
1997 -95 -56 -102 -127 -218 144 -144 -47 48 -202 -146 168
1998 -108 -62 116 -481 106 165 47 -80 121 -20 -180 -68
1999 -56 135 -328 221 -208 155 74 -187 77 -137 -62 -63
2000 45 155 -123 -247 275 -110 101 112 -230 -91 103 -2
A net loss of approx. 3,452,000 jobs.

# of deficits created 1 0 # of surpluses created 0 1:

There was a deficit in 7 budgets in Clinton's term and 2 of Bush's,
There was a surplus in 1 of each (2000, Clinton, 2001, Bush.)

# of questionable elections:
1 0:

No argument.

# of countries liberated:
2 0:

No argument.

# of econimies "liberated":
1 0:

No argument.

# of tax cuts:
a lot not many:

More like 1 0.

# of tax cuts to non rich people

not many not many:
Bush's was an equal, across the board tax cut; rich people got more money because they pay more money.

% of world that hates us
100% 10%:

More like 30% 40%. America has never really been liked amongst the int'l community.

Now I admit that clinton isnt kerry but in a party system you're really voting for a party not a person.:

Pretty true, with minor exceptions.
:No offense to our current president but do you really think he could run the country on his own. The canidates are just figureheads for their parties. All of them are. :
Not really, they're more like puppets for their parties.

:So if you cant decide who to vote for I would reccomend Kerry. :
No. Anybody, even Al Sharpton. Not Kerry.

:He may not be a great guy:
Truer words have never been spoken.

:but if you want to do stuff like get a job:
Net job increases under Bush...Net job decreases under Clinton...

:or not get drafted in another war:
No one was drafted in these two!

or travel outside the country without getting mugged by pissed off frenchies:
You weren't able to do that before Bush was elected...

:I'd go with the democrats. However I have heard from fox news that if elected kerry will eat your babies but i think thats a small price to pay.:
Fox News usually isn't very reliable. He won't eat your babies. He'll just amputate their legs.

[RedSkunk]

At 4/3/04 08:06 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote:

At 4/3/04 07:06 PM, Locke666 wrote:

Bush Clinton

# of wars 2 0:
What about Kosovo? Somalia?

There have been no wars under either president.

# of jobs lost millions none:

Wrong. There has been a net creation of jobs under the Bush administration.
From the Bureau of Labor Statistics (each number represents the number of job losses or gains in a month, in thousands):
Under Bush
A net creation of approx. 2,711,000 jobs.
Under Clinton
A net loss of approx. 3,452,000 jobs.

I don't know where you got your numbers, but I got different ones, from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, by comparing the gross job losses to the gross job creation numbers. In thousands:
Here's what I got
year -- quarter 1 -- quarter 2 -- quarter 3 -- quarter 4
1993 -- 534 ----------- 636 --------- 709 ---------- 754
1994 -- 643 ----------- 880 ------- 1025 ---------- 614
1995 -- 830 ----------- 307 --------- 673 --------- 570
1996 -- 432 ----------- 594 ---------- 590 -------- 827
1997 -- 823 ----------- 627 ---------- 876 -------- 642
1998 -- 777 ----------- 677 ---------- 759 -------- 619
1999 -- 401 ----------- 587 ---------- 752 -------- 950
2000 -- 719 ----------- 534 ---------- 407 -------- 301
2001 -- (-281) -------- (-782) ------- (-1080) ---- (-801)
2002 -- (-276) -------- (-81) --------- 71 ---------- (-70)
2003 -- (-478) -------- (-180)

I'm not going to bother adding all the numbers up. I think it's safe to say that they are different from yours though. I'm extremely interested in where you got your numbers from, really.

Here's how I got mine -
1) go to bureau of labor statistics, to the business employment dynamics
2) select 'Gross Job Gains (Seasonally Adjusted)' and 'Gross Job Losses (Seasonally Adjusted)'
3) hit the button that says 'retrieve data'
4) compare the numbers.

[RedSkunk]

Wow, am I dumb! After going through ten years of data of net job losses and gains, I find the same, neat table that I made, collaborating exactly what I typed.

Perhaps you're looking at a different country's Bureau of Labor statistics, illustratedpotato?
Private sector gross job gains and job losses, seasonally adjusted

[trigo]

At 4/3/04 05:52 PM, BeFell wrote: I would have to say that you are just spouting complete liberal brainwashed bullshit.

And that would be ignorant

Everything I said can be backed up by facts.

I'm sorry i had to laugh

Well except supporting the guy above me that was just lack of attenion on my part.

Jesus, you bastard

Hundreds of thousands not millions. You call me ignorant for supporting a crook like bush then in the very next sentence you voice your support for Micael Moore, interesting.

Michael Moore is pretty damn smart, i doubt you back your "facts" against him.

Unlike the people we are fighting we only target enemy combatants.

I'm interested to know where you got that from.

I will admit that there is and always will be unfortunate civilian deaths but we strive hard to avoid them. If you want proof of this I point to the fact that Falusha is still standing.

1.5 million deaths, actually majority was civilians. Falusha is more of a idea than an organization, and thus cannot be taken out.

[IllustriousPotentate]

http://www.bls.gov/cps/home.htm

It's the number of unemployed, actually. My mistake. But the records still show a 2+ million net decrease in the unemployment rolls during the Bush presidency. The 182,000 additions to the unemployment rolls explain why the unemployment increased slightly this month from 5.6% to 5.7%.

If no jobs have been created in the Bush administration, however, where have all these people found work?

[trigo]

At 4/3/04 06:38 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote: stuff

You really don't get it. Politics and religion DONT mix, and don't talk about grammar, really, this is poitics.

[RedSkunk]

At 4/3/04 09:09 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote: But the records still show a 2+ million net decrease in the unemployment rolls during the Bush presidency.

No they don't. Check out the historical ten year average of unemployment rates:
http://data.bls.gov/servlet/Su...bers&series_id=LNS14000000

Just look at the graph. The unemployment numbers bottomed out during 2000, at high 3's, and have risen since then.

---

Jesus, I'm not going to let people get away with such bullshit, especially when it comes to numbers that can be easily researched on the government's own damn websites.

All I can do is mirror BeFell's sig: "Would it kill people to at least try to stay up on current events and use credible sources?"

[IllustriousPotentate]

At 4/3/04 09:16 PM, RoteStinktier wrote:

At 4/3/04 09:09 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote: But the records still show a 2+ million net decrease in the unemployment rolls during the Bush presidency.

No they don't. Check out the historical ten year average of unemployment rates:
http://data.bls.gov/servlet/Su...bers&series_id=LNS14000000

Just look at the graph. The unemployment numbers bottomed out during 2000, at high 3's, and have risen since then.

You're right. I upon further review, I found I was clicking on the wrong link. It's actually
2,000,000 net job losses under Bush
3,000,000 net job gains under Clinton.

My mistake.

[IllustriousPotentate]

At 4/3/04 09:13 PM, implodable wrote:

You really don't get it. Politics and religion DONT mix, and don't talk about grammar, really, this is poitics.

If they don't mix why the fuck is ghostmint talking about president Bush's religion? Why is it acceptable for him to make statements on it, but it is totally against the rules to call him out on that. If they don't mix, why is ghostmint able to get out shots about Bush is stupid because he has problems on his speeches, but it is against the rules to call him out on his problems? :

Besides, what do you know?
:Falusha is more of a idea than an organization, and thus cannot be taken out.:
Fallujah is a fucking city, you retard. If you had even the most miniscule of current events knowledge, you would know that.
:1.5 million deaths, actually majority was civilians.:
11,000 at most, you moron.
Until you get some actual knowledge and can actually contribute something, STFU.

[RedSkunk]

At 4/3/04 09:32 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote: You're right. I upon further review, I found I was clicking on the wrong link. It's actually
2,000,000 net job losses under Bush
3,000,000 net job gains under Clinton.

Add up the amount of jobs created each year under Clinton, and tell me that's only three million.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cewbd.t01.htm

[RedSkunk]

You know what? Nevermind - don't bother. I will.
There were 20.9 million new jobs created in the private sector during his two terms in office. There were another two million created in the public sector. Between when Bush got in office, and the 2nd quarter of 2003, Bush has reigned over a ent loss of 4 million jobs.

[IllustriousPotentate]

Ok, then maybe my numbers aren't even unemployment rates. What are they? I don't know! They're on the BLS site though! Here:
http://www.bls.gov/cps/home.ht
Click on the link at the right under "Change in Unemployment Level".
Set data range from 1993-2004.

[RedSkunk]

Those numbers are the change in unemployment.

unemployment: the number of jobless people who are available for work and are actively seeking jobs. The unemployment rate is unemployment as a percentage of the labor force.