Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Ah, I see. I know what unemployment is.
Again, I just clicked on the wrong link. Sorry. I stand corrected.

At least I tried to use actual statistics, though, unlike that 1.5 million "estimate" implodable tried to pass off.

I'm posting from the perspective of someone who became disillusioned with Bush.

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?

Bush had his own agenda when he came into office. He was dead-set on going to war with Iraq before even the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11. Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror. Saddam, though a brutal dictator, was a secular dictator. Sure, he compensated Palestinian suicide bombers' families, but that was the probable extent of his support of fundamentalist Islamic terrorism. Sept. 11 gave him the opportunity to pursue his own agenda with Iraq. In fact, Bush has used Sept. 11 as a blanket excuse to do anything he wants.

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?

I cannot judge on Bush's past, since I do not know him personally. However, he did legally win the 2000 election with the ballots that were counted. The electoral college system is screwed up like that. However, there was a higher percentage of Buchanan votes in Palm Beach County than in the other counties in Florida. I have seen the data myself. Now this may be due to stronger support for the far right in Palm Beach County, but I doubt it. There may be some wrongdoing involved here.

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

Bush's agenda as a whole is not fundamentalist, but the fundies like Bush a whole lot. I know, I used to be one. Christian fundamentalists base a candidate on how "Christian" they are, instead of considering the candidate's competence or stance on the issues that matter. Since Bush is a devout Protestant, he enjoys the support of the Christian right, and coincidentally holds some of their views.

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

Bush was not connected to Enron, to my knowledge. The accusations are that Bush supports the big, corrupt corporate interests and does not stick up for the little guy who gets screwed.

I share my stances on many issues with the Republican party, but Bush is at best incompetent, and at worst, is plotting to take absolute power. I believe that Bush is a liar. Now, I don't like Kerry, but Bush is way worse than what Kerry will ever be.

At 4/3/04 04:05 AM, spanishfli wrote: Hello,

Hi,

1.) I thought we were looking for Osama bin Ladin in Afghanistan. How in the world did we end up in Iraq? Anyone able to sum up the arguments?

Prior to a career in politics Bush was a businessman (after he dodged Vietnam, wait nm, he showed up for a dentist appointment) and ran an oil company. Bush tailors to big business and if they control Iraq or have a pro-US gov't installed it gives them a friendly face for most of the worlds super resivours (there are like 7-11 in the world, all in the middle east. Thery are mostly in Kuwait, Suadi Arabia, Iraq with like 1 in Iran I think. Isnt it funny that the US has bases in all but one of those countries?) Cheap oil, means happy businesses.

2.) 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?

Probally a little of colum A and a hell of alot of colum B. If you didnt already know Bush is a former drug addict and alcoholic.

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

Not at all. People say he is all religious just because her is against homosexuality to the point where he would make a constitutional amendment. That he believes in faith based community programs. Pro-life, drops God's name in every speech atleast once. HE also thinks God wanted him to be president.

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

I think your connected to Enron. Well actually the Enron CEo has been to Camp David several times. And I think he has also been on Air Force 1 and Enron was a big contributor to the Bush campaign.

Okay, that's my questions for now.

Now that people have all yelled at everyone else for messing around with numbers I still think my original score of a lot to not many was best.

Two things I want to say right now about this administration.

One. The whole "war" thing bush has been going off about the war on terrorists and war on evil blah blah blah. Has anyone noticed that we have never declared war at all? There technically hasnt been a "war" since vietnam. Clinton got away with it sort of because he didnt really do anything major. But technically the war in Iraq is just a very long "military strike" Thats Bush's dirty little trick to get past congress. (can anyone say "recess apointments") Is it just me or does giving the executive branch total power over the military sound like a bad idea to anyone else.

Two. Does everybody remember the cdc. Center for disease control. The best institute in the entire world for finding cures and antidotes to deadly diseases and plagues. Pride and joy of the U.S. health system. Do you also remember how Bush spent millions to protect against biological attack. Now this is just my pet peeve but does it strike anyone as odd that the biggest defend against bio attacks guy ever. CUT FUNDING TO THE CDC!!!
WHAT THE FUCK IS UP WITH THAT!! They had to cut half their programs and get a sponsorship from coca cola just to stay in operation!!

Heres another funny analogy that some of you may get and some may not. You know how everyone thinks macintosh sucks ass and if you poke it it will crash. My friend recently got mac os x and lemmee tell ya It kicks ass! That has the best graphics ever. You can run Half Life 2 (yes the one thats not out yet) on a 500 mhz processor. Think on this when you decide who to vote for!

The United States has only declared war four times.

World War II
World War I
The Spanish-American War
The Mexican War.

At 4/4/04 12:30 AM, Locke666 wrote: Now this is just my pet peeve but does it strike anyone as odd that the biggest defend against bio attacks guy ever. CUT FUNDING TO THE CDC!!!

He's also refusing to give additional terrorism funding to the IRS in their fight against terrorist's 'finances'. What's your point?

Heres another funny analogy that some of you may get and some may not. You know how everyone thinks macintosh sucks ass and if you poke it it will crash.

This part was idiotic and your analogy made no sense at all. No one thinks that Mac's are unstable - it's common knowledge that they're more stable than windows.

And what does that have to do with BUsh, unless he invented the Mac?

The mexican war? You sure you dont mean the spanish american war by that one, or are you refering to when Mexico fought texas (which was an independent country at the time).
Well, I could be wrong, but I was fairly sure we actually declared war at vietnam or at least korea. Oh well, unlike today we were dragged kicking and screaming into all those wars except for the spanish american war but that was sort of the whole isolationist no touchee the western hemisphere thing. These days we seem to be jumping into them. What happened to the good old. Its their problem, let them deal with it?

Here's all you need to know, Bush is a brainless, cowardly puppet that smart, arrogant, greedy swine use as a conduit for their interests. If you vote for Bush, you essentially vote for a hollow lie and principle. End of story.

At 4/4/04 12:45 AM, RugbyMacDaddy wrote: And what does that have to do with BUsh, unless he invented the Mac?

You people have obviously either never heard of a republican controlled media, or never heard of microsoft. And I have trouble believing that first one.

At 4/4/04 12:38 AM, IllustriousPotentate wrote: The United States has only declared war four times.

World War II
World War I
The Spanish-American War
The Mexican War.

Im sure they declared war on Britian/Canada in 1812, prior to invading Canada, having the white House burnt to the ground and being forced to retreat back to the US by a handful of Birtish regulars, Canadian milita and Natives.

No, I really mean the Mexican War. When the U.S. invaded Mexico (unlike the other way around, like it is now :) ). Jefferson Davis and Whitfield Scott were among the participants.

If you don't remember reading about it, don't worry. It's nothing important--kinda like the War of Jenkins Ear or the Hawley-Smoot Tariff.

At 4/4/04 12:49 AM, Cinghiale wrote: Here's all you need to know, Bush is a brainless, cowardly puppet that smart, arrogant, greedy swine use as a conduit for their interests. If you vote for Bush, you essentially vote for a hollow lie and principle. End of story.

Idiotic post, deserving of a ban.

At 4/4/04 12:48 AM, Locke666 wrote: Well, I could be wrong, but I was fairly sure we actually declared war at vietnam or at least korea.

Naw, last war that was declared by the US was WW2.

What happened to the good old. Its their problem, let them deal with it?

WW1 and WW2 perhaps? Isolationist policies are idiotic, and in the age of globalization, impossible.

At 4/4/04 12:52 AM, RugbyMacDaddy wrote:

Im sure they declared war on Britian/Canada in 1812

You're right. Upon further review, it was the War of 1812, not the Mexican War as I had thought.

I wonder what relevance the otherwise unnotable Mexican War had that it lurks around in my subconsciousness? Hmm...

At 4/4/04 12:48 AM, Locke666 wrote: The mexican war? You sure you dont mean the spanish american war by that one, or are you refering to when Mexico fought texas (which was an independent country at the time).

Yes, it was formally call The Mexican American War (I've seen at times just as Mexican War), right after when James Polk declared, more or less, "American blood has been spilled on American soil." But the fact was that American blood was shed on Mexican soil... I'm sure you can find lots of stuff on the net, just make sure to make "Nueces River" right after James Polk's name. This type of info won't be found in public American text books unless you go into Latino history classes at your community college, college, university or private university. You would be lucky enough to find more then 2 paragraphs about this subject in public text books. This is one of America's taboos...

Well, I could be wrong, but I was fairly sure we actually declared war at vietnam or at least korea. Oh well, unlike today we were dragged kicking and screaming into all those wars except for the spanish american war but that was sort of the whole isolationist no touchee the western hemisphere thing. These days we seem to be jumping into them. What happened to the good old. Its their problem, let them deal with it?

Oh yeah, another thing you won't hear in public text books: Right before The Mexican War, Americans soilders stormed in Chapultepec Castle in Mexico City. Why? I don't know...I don't know much about it other then that the only people inside the old castle were young cadets ages 13 - 19 training to be soilders. They are called Los Niños Heroes (Heroic Children). As Americans tried to capture the castle (I can't find a motivation for why other then for greed), the kids wrapped Mexican flags around them, and jumped out of the castle and plunged to their deaths rather then being captured and tortured for just training to be cadets. When Bill Clinton placed a wreath on the statue erected for them, he gained a lot of favor from the Mexicans. That's why a lot of Mexicans tended to harbor less hostile feelings for Clinton then most other American presidents (other then Harry Truman... but I won't explain or else I'll be de-railing from the subject)

At 4/4/04 05:46 AM, spanishfli wrote:

At 4/4/04 12:48 AM, Locke666 wrote: The mexican war? You sure you dont mean the spanish american war by that one, or are you refering to when Mexico fought texas (which was an independent country at the time).

Yes, it was formally call The Mexican American War (I've seen at times just as Mexican War), right after when James Polk declared, more or less, "American blood has been spilled on American soil." But the fact was that American blood was shed on Mexican soil... I'm sure you can find lots of stuff on the net, just make sure to make "Nueces River" right after James Polk's name. This type of info won't be found in public American text books unless you go into Latino history classes at your community college, college, university or private university. You would be lucky enough to find more then 2 paragraphs about this subject in public text books. This is one of America's taboos...

Well, I could be wrong, but I was fairly sure we actually declared war at vietnam or at least korea. Oh well, unlike today we were dragged kicking and screaming into all those wars except for the spanish american war but that was sort of the whole isolationist no touchee the western hemisphere thing. These days we seem to be jumping into them. What happened to the good old. Its their problem, let them deal with it?

At 4/4/04 01:10 AM, IllustriousPotentate wrote: I wonder what relevance the otherwise unnotable Mexican War had that it lurks around in my subconsciousness? Hmm...

Well, we did acquire New Mexico, Arizona, and California. Annexing Texas was also a precursor to the war.

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

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

No more so than what he told me

Everything I said can be backed up by facts.

I'm sorry i had to laugh

Your proof?

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.

I didn't question his intelligance

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

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

In the first days of the war we had live news coverage showing Saddam's buildings and palaces blowing up while the civilian instaltions around them remained unharmed.

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.

1.5 million died in Iraq? I think I am going to have to ask for a source on that. Falusha is a place that could very easily be reduced to rubble but in the interest of protecting the inocent we are going to endanger the lives of our troops by sending them in to pick out the terrorists.

I've finally decided whom to vote. Good arguments (although some were pretty dumb) but at least it's got me the point where I needed to be... Thanks all...

At 4/5/04 12:09 AM, spanishfli wrote: I've finally decided whom to vote. Good arguments (although some were pretty dumb) but at least it's got me the point where I needed to be... Thanks all...

Do you have prince albert in a can?

we are trying to rid the world of bad.Just joking.
Jr.'s finishing poppa's work

At 4/5/04 12:19 AM, RoteStinktier wrote:

At 4/5/04 12:09 AM, spanishfli wrote: I've finally decided whom to vote. Good arguments (although some were pretty dumb) but at least it's got me the point where I needed to be... Thanks all...

Do you have prince albert in a can?

I guess you can say that... I do hope you know what I mean...