Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Ill agree that is very harsh! and woo my topic went above 30! i guess alot of people do think bush effects them personalyl!

At 8/11/04 03:42 PM, CHAOSKILLER wrote: bush has regained the economy and the jobs and everything not all of them of course

Only Herbert Hoover has presided over a greater job loss the century. Plus the Bush administration refused to count people who are unemployed for longer than 26 weeks as unemployed. Combine the job losses with the number of new people entering the economy for the first time looking for work and the problem becomes bleaker. Finally the jobs being created are on average poorer quality jobs, paying less, with lower or no benefits, or are part time (record numbers of people are holdign 2 jobs to get enough hours). If the measure of the economy is employment, not stock market gains (which the dot-com bubble should show is not a realistic measure) its still in bad shape.

but think about it he is not the reason 4 the economy doin so bad it was the terroist attacks and everything

The terrorist attacks are not the only reason for the problems... A lot of the economic crunch started in California because of manipulations of electric power prices by Enron and similar energy companies. Then the fallout of corporate scandles, without very agressive actions by Bush to try and resore confidence (we got martha on a 40k violation but where's Ken Lay???). Combine this with trade agreements and policies that do not acknowledge the competative disadvantages the US has in the global market because of its labor and environmental laws and make them part of our concern.

and dont blam im for the wars in iraq and afganistan

oof... Afghanistan happened a couple of months late, giving the Taliban a chance to entrench itself. Then we send an inadequate number of troops to help stablaize the country and get it back on track to a free government. This war needed to be done, as long as Al Q. had a base there, it was the right thing to do. Now the country is only partially under control of the provisional government, and the upcoming elections are in jeopardy.
Iraq well lets go over this below...

everyone supported him going into afganistan

Support doesn't mean its right, but going into Afg. wasn't a bad move, even is the Bush admin gave the Taliban millions just a few months before/

and he propably had some leads that iraq had weapons of mass destruction that he cant tell us about because it may indanger the lives or compromise classified opperations going on right now

If he did it was from the same CIA that dropped the ball on preventing 9/11 and finding Bin Laden. The intelligence community was directed by the Bush Admin. to find information that coudl indicate a WMD stockpile or program. This politicized the information process and information was skewed to produce a WMD result. Colin Powell presented the UN (and Bush in the state of the union) with satalite information and intelligence information about specific sites and contents. With that certain of intelligence, where did it all go? Even if leads are classiffied or protected (like the Bush admin protects that type of infomation, ie Joe Wilson's wife) they've produced nothing and actually showing the world the WMD's existed woudl FAR outweigh losing a source we'd probably have ot give shelter in the USA.

and think about it if soddam didnt have weapons of mass destruction then why did he not let weapons inspectors in?

Saddam stopped letting the inspectors in because he repeatedly stated that he had complied with the orders to get rid of them and abandon all programs. Had proven to the inspectors that the weapons are gone repeatedly, and as a sovereign state was entitlted to put his foot down at a certain point. Further, his reason for kicking inspectors out was because, despite complying with orders to destory and abandon, the US would not expand the oil for food/medicine program. Why keep complying if you and your people get no benefit from complying. Just imagine the intrusion if the UN wanted inspectors in the US. (This was one of Bush's main reasons for rejecting the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty).

huh tell me why ?

I think I did.

oh yea thats rite u cant!

No Really, I did.

and besides he probably got rid of them b4 we went to war so it would makeus look bad those weapons are either in iran

IRAN, as in the country Saddam hated MORE than the US?!? He wouldn't get rid of them just to make the US look bad, In fact in the lead up to war when the UN/US asked him to destroy scud missles he willingly did so to try and prevent a war. The quantities the US claimed it had certain evidence to prove existed, were huge. To destroy or hide them in a very short period of time, without being detected by US survalience, would have been neigh impossibile.

or north korea!

Maybe a bit more of a chance here, but, NK wouldn't have needed help for anythign nuclear (they got that covered), and any shipments of quantities of chem/bio weapons would have been very noticeable given how we track shipments to and from NK like crazy. Besides, NK has nukes, why waste time with the small stuff.

and anyway we freed a lot of misirable people from an oppresive leader that should be enough 4 u!!!!

That is a good thing, but was not the reason why a majority supported the war, it was the fear of WMDs and a non-existent link to Al Q. Plus we have put the Kurds, the historically most opressed minority, under the control of what will be a largely arab government (which coudl cause a northern civil war as soon as we leave) when the old No Fly Zone had left them in control of their own affairs for a dozen years. The Christian minority is now being attacked and left out of the government all together (Saddam's government was agressively secular). We've engaged in torture and rape in Saddam's own torture and rape prisons. We've killed tens of thousands of Iraqi's to give them their freedom. We've set up a government which immediately started limiting freedoms of speech and the press with a prime minister who has picked up a gun and extra-judically exectued prisoners.

Despite all that in the name of giving the Iraqi people freedom, there are other dictators around the world committing atrocities and genocide RIGHT NOW (Sudan) as opposed to acts committed more than a decade prior to war and we're doing next to nothing to address that. If freeing people is enough justification, why aren't people rallying behind saving the Sudanese?

*Sneaks an assault rifle into NG and starts dismembering solusek with it*

DIE FUCKER DIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Seriously solusek, go here.

Read through the thread, all four pages, and come back when you understand THAT THE VIEWS OF ANY GIVEN CHURCH HAVE NO PLACE IN DECIDING WHAT OUGHT AND WHAT OUGHT NOT TO BE SOCIAL POLICY.

He personally had my whole family murdered. And for what. AND FOR WHAT!

Okay, now that I've got that out of the way, basically everything that people have said here against the man, is my reason.

At 8/10/04 02:17 PM, PretzelLogic88 wrote:
WTF are you talking about? How in the hell can morals ever not be involved in government? What do you think our laws are based on?

Our laws are not based on morality. They are based on rights and protection of those rights.

...... the president doesn't control the economy ...... it's as simple as that ............ if you don't want a capitalist economy that always has natural ups and downs, then you can move to somewhere like China

No, of course the president doesn't control the economy, what a foolish assumption. The president does affect the economy, however, with what he screws up or with what he does right. Bush had obviously done more screwing up than right, as the economy has suffered huge blows since he got into office.

What has he done for me?
He got my dad fired, and now my mom comes home at 6-7 PM, and we can barely afford my house.
Now my dad can't get his job back and is depressed.

That's what he's done for me.
While we struggled, our life was still JUST FINE before Bush became president.

The problem is we basically took over a country with an insane amount of oil and stuff, we didnt use these reasources and gas prices have just shot up...

But im still with you, i dont really think Bush has done a bad job...

You WHAT????????

You honestly think Bush has done a good job as President?

At 8/12/04 12:25 AM, SomeRandomLiberal wrote: You WHAT????????

You honestly think Bush has done a good job as President?

Hey, at least there is no extramarrital scandal yet. You are forgetting a major part of politics. Politicians try to attract moderates, not liberals or conservatives. Kerry is just Bush in a different skin.

At 8/12/04 12:35 AM, CrackaPlease wrote:

At 8/12/04 12:25 AM, SomeRandomLiberal wrote: You WHAT????????

You honestly think Bush has done a good job as President?

Hey, at least there is no extramarrital scandal yet. You are forgetting a major part of politics. Politicians try to attract moderates, not liberals or conservatives. Kerry is just Bush in a different skin.

At least Clinton didn't get us into a pointless war in Iraq that has resulted in thousands of deaths. I mean come on man, what is worse, an affair or a huge war? You're bitching about the WRONG thing buddy.

Laws are made to protect the American people and the liberties granted to them, gay marrige doesn't hurt anyone and doesn't impose on any of your rights. We can't repeat the mistake of prohibition.

How The Hell does that dumbass law protect us?
Youre right.

Just because bush is a homophobic it doesnt mean we have to be one too.

At 8/12/04 12:35 AM, CrackaPlease wrote: Hey, at least there is no extramarrital scandal yet.

Word. He's still better than Clinton because of that.

At 8/12/04 01:19 PM, Skvnk wrote:

At 8/12/04 12:35 AM, CrackaPlease wrote: Hey, at least there is no extramarrital scandal yet.

Word. He's still better than Clinton because of that.

Indeed, where did that guy find the guts to do what around 50% of all male Americans does, including Republicans?

I bet you 50 bucks Bush has had his slew of affairs too.

At 8/12/04 12:35 AM, CrackaPlease wrote: Hey, at least there is no extramarrital scandal yet.

Yeah, totally. Any chance of me making it in this world was personally ruined by Bill Clinton when got sucked off by some ugly women in his own time. My life has never recovered. I'll be working in McDonalds the rest of my life being single, childless and lonely, just because Clinton had sex outside of marriage. Damn Him!

At 8/12/04 01:23 PM, Veggiemeal wrote: I bet you 50 bucks Bush has had his slew of affairs too.

Considering that there have been, I think all of 2 or 3 former presidents who didn't, I suspect you're right.

people will always complain about bush, like for example why we went to war. after the trade centers collapsed that put bush in a tight situation. we couldve either sat back and let saddam and bin laden get away with killing thousand, and saddam raping women and having whore houses, or we couldve went to war stopped all of that. or how people complain why the innocents get killed, simple answer its war. and then there are the people who try to find anything to get people to hate bush. they once claimed that he was awol, but it turns out that he wasnt.

At 8/12/04 08:22 PM, southwest_strangla17 wrote: people will always complain about bush, like for example why we went to war. after the trade centers collapsed that put bush in a tight situation. we couldve either sat back and let saddam and bin laden get away with killing thousand, and saddam raping women and having whore houses, or we couldve went to war stopped all of that. or how people complain why the innocents get killed, simple answer its war. and then there are the people who try to find anything to get people to hate bush. they once claimed that he was awol, but it turns out that he wasnt.

Yes, we HAVE caught bin Laden!! And punished him severly because Bush was SO preoccupied with him that he nearly forgot all about Iraq! Oh wait... so bin Laden's still on the loose, Saddam, who never threatened America, is now being held for Threatening America (huh?), and we're all fine and dandy. Well, Saddam is a horrible guy, I'll give you that, but Bush isn't exactly a saint either. Not only has he MAJORLY cut veterans benefits and health care, he doesn't seem to give a DAMN about our soldiers in Iraq that died because of him. He said that, knowing what he knows now, he would've gone to Iraq anyway. In other words, he would have gone for no reason. Thanks for caring about the troops man! Oh yeah, have you read my post on this thread (link below) yet? Bush is a horrible guy too. Just because he's not quite as bad as Saddam doesn't make him a good person.

http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic.php?id=159298

One, Bush did sit back and do nothing. He sat for 7 minutes in a fucking clasroom because he didn't know what the fuck he was supposed to do.

Two, if we're stooping to rating Presidents based whether or not they've had a scandal over an extramarital affair, America is in a very sad state, indeed.

Third, Saddam was only a threat to his own citizens. Our troops and coaltion weapons inspectors have scoured iraq for almost a year now, and have found 1 sarin gas container. If that is all the WMD we find in Iraq, will the loss of life be worth that one WMD?

Fourth, Bush is a bad president, you are just too blinded by Bush's veil of fear to see it yet.

At 8/13/04 01:32 AM, SomeRandomLiberal wrote: Third, Saddam was only a threat to his own citizens. Our troops and coaltion weapons inspectors have scoured iraq for almost a year now, and have found 1 sarin gas container. If that is all the WMD we find in Iraq, will the loss of life be worth that one WMD?

There's a lot or Kuwaitis that would be inclined to disagree with you on that one. Not to mention the fact that Saddam was more of a menace to his citizens than any military campaign ever was. In the long run, we have saved countless Iraqis from torture and slaughter under Saddam's regime. If another dictator rises to power, it will all be for naught, hence the US occupation until things settle down.

At 8/13/04 04:25 AM, Iracundia wrote: There's a lot or Kuwaitis that would be inclined to disagree with you on that one.

We're talking about the second one, the one that your thinking of was the one we admitted was for oil

One, Bush did sit back and do nothing. He sat for 7 minutes in a fucking clasroom because he didn't know what the fuck he was supposed to do.

I can't imagine I'd have a single idea on what to do either.

He has ruled a country. That means that he is for the state. That makes him my enemy.

At 8/10/04 02:40 PM, Skvnk wrote: Clinton balanced the budget.

man, I miss him.

Personally, Bush had one of my cousins killed and he was innocent, as they later found.

At 8/13/04 01:32 AM, SomeRandomLiberal wrote: One, Bush did sit back and do nothing. He sat for 7 minutes in a fucking clasroom because he didn't know what the fuck he was supposed to do.

Would you do when one of your staff members comes and tells you America is under attack? Sit and read My Pet Goat? NO. You stand up, say to the class "I'm sorry, but an urgent crisis has come up that needs my attention" and then you leave the classroom, get in your limo and start getting your briefings about the situation from your advisers while you are on your way back to AF1 to get to safer, more secure location.

I've found that, even had Bush wanted to, AF1 could not have landed in D.C. or N. Virginia on Sept 11th, due to the fact that the Secret Service, who at that point and time had authority over the President's body, had ordered the pilot to get away from the East Coast.

At 8/10/04 02:40 PM, Skvnk wrote:

Clinton balanced the budget.

Wrong, during Clinton's presidency, the national debt was still there, and it was still quite large, to be exact. All Clinton managed to do was get a small annual surplus a few times, which hardly accounts for balancing the budget. His economic policy was sound, but you have to realize that he was president during the tech boom, so he didn't really have to do a whole lot, except ride the gravy train.

At 8/13/04 03:37 PM, Iracundia wrote:

At 8/10/04 02:40 PM, Skvnk wrote:

Clinton balanced the budget.

Wrong, during Clinton's presidency, the national debt was still there, and it was still quite large, to be exact. All Clinton managed to do was get a small annual surplus a few times, which hardly accounts for balancing the budget. His economic policy was sound, but you have to realize that he was president during the tech boom, so he didn't really have to do a whole lot, except ride the gravy train.

You dumbass fuckwad. Balancing the budget is a phrase that refers to the federal deficit/surplus situation, not the national debt. Clinton did balance the federal budget, giving the government a surplus. Bush Jr has not balanced the budget, and has blown the federal deficit to humongous proportions.

Check this out and come back when you've learned something.

I hate it when people come onto NG acting like they actually know something when they don't.

"Those of us who think they know everything annoy those of us who do."

At 8/13/04 04:02 PM, SomeRandomLiberal wrote: You dumbass fuckwad. Balancing the budget is a phrase that refers to the federal deficit/surplus situation, not the national debt. Clinton did balance the federal budget, giving the government a surplus. Bush Jr has not balanced the budget, and has blown the federal deficit to humongous proportions.

Check this out and come back when you've learned something.

I hate it when people come onto NG acting like they actually know something when they don't.

"Those of us who think they know everything annoy those of us who do."

Personal attacks get you nowhere. I said the same thing you did except the fact that I mentioned that balancing the budget had to do with the national debt. The only part where I said something in contrast was when I said that Clinton didn't have to do much in a period of such unbridled economic growth which was more from the tech boom than Congressional action. And yes, I was wrong about balancing the budget, I thought you were one of the people who say that Clinton took care of the national debt, because, trust me, I've heard that enough to make me puke. And you're absolutely right about W. His economic policy is subpar, and I have already said that Clinton had a sound economic plan.

Your attack seems to have only been provoked by an error in semantics, which is less than respectable. Arguing semantics will get us nowhere, especially since you pretty much agreed with the majority of what I had to say. You appear to have only read the portion that said he didn't resolve the national debt, because I also said that he had annual surpluses.

Now that you have hopefully calmed down, could you please tell me what you are disagreeing to in my post, other than an error in terms?

The ad hominem attacks are partly because I don't respect you yet. And partly because you seemed like you had no idea what you were talking about. My bad.

At 8/13/04 03:37 PM, Iracundia wrote:

At 8/10/04 02:40 PM, Skvnk wrote:

Clinton balanced the budget.

Wrong, during Clinton's presidency, the national debt was still there, and it was still quite large, to be exact.

Covered.

All Clinton managed to do was get a small annual surplus a few times, which hardly accounts for balancing the budget.

You call a 10 year projection of a 5.6 trillion dollar surplus small? And again, I point out that Clinton did balance the budget, due to a strict governmental policy of fiscal discipline and, sadly, a raping of the military. Either way you look at it though, Clinton did balance the budget.

His economic policy was sound, but you have to realize that he was president during the tech boom, so he didn't really have to do a whole lot, except ride the gravy train.

When it comes to balancing the budget, the economy has a negligible(sp?) impact on the federal budget. Government spending and the state of the economy are relatively separate, except for when the government spends money in certain areas trying to give the economy a boost when it is lagging. But you certainly aren't going to say that Bush spent 10.8 trillion dollars on the economy?

At 8/13/04 04:23 PM, SomeRandomLiberal wrote: The ad hominem attacks are partly because I don't respect you yet. And partly because you seemed like you had no idea what you were talking about. My bad.

Completely understood, and it is comforting to know that there is no grudge, that's the important thing.

You call a 10 year projection of a 5.6 trillion dollar surplus small? And again, I point out that Clinton did balance the budget, due to a strict governmental policy of fiscal discipline and, sadly, a raping of the military. Either way you look at it though, Clinton did balance the budget.

There's a large difference between theoretical projections and actual implementation. The actual surplus was small potatoes compared to the national debt. The projection is quite impressive, but that would cover the span of 2 and a half Administrations, and given the general economic policies of most other presidents, that wouldn't last no matter who was president.

When it comes to balancing the budget, the economy has a negligible(sp?) impact on the federal budget. Government spending and the state of the economy are relatively separate, except for when the government spends money in certain areas trying to give the economy a boost when it is lagging. But you certainly aren't going to say that Bush spent 10.8 trillion dollars on the economy?

I'm not defending Bush's economic policy, far from it, I don't want to be associated with that train wreck.

As far as the economy not having much of an effect on balancing the budget as policy, you are right to an extent, but the economy certainly does help a lot. When times are good, you don't need to spend much money on government programs such as welfare, seeing as how unemployment is down during prosperity. I think Clinton did a good job with economic policy and he made some good decisions on that, but I also believe that it was no coincidence that the surplus followed the exact trend of the tech boom.

At 8/10/04 12:37 PM, CI-Lain wrote: Well i have to go fly shortly but i feel like responding so i appologize if this respone seems shortwinded and like an outline.

1. Budget Deficit.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-02-27-budget_x.htm this shows his next years propossed budget will make nice large deficits plus last i check his previous years have caused a large couple trillion dollar deficit. Couple this with his odd tax cuts that in no way benefit me, and suddenly money is dissappearign fast. It affects me because in the future if my taxes are higher or the economy is the shits etc.etc. it will be the fault of this deficit. his previous years otal is like 5.4 trillion last i heard...that sucks.

2. marriage ammendment.Im not gay but i have friends who are. ALs it is my adament belief that morals aught to stay out and way the hell away from government. Im not christian and i have very open ideas of morals. So morals interfering with government do affect me. And this ammendment infringes rights of everyone. Everyone augth to have the right to marry the sam sex. I know Kerry is not as adament about this as I am but its better.

3.job loss. Now i know he gotten some jobs back but not enough to compensate for the loss. Im not in the job pool yet so i have to worry about where ill be after college. Hopefully there will still be a need for lawyers.

(im going in a reverse order to you)
Economy... That was shit right when he stepped in office. Most of the profits: bullshit. e.g. Enron. BSed us all. It wasn't Bush's fault. The economy was shit when Clinton left.

For #2. Same sex marriage. Me personally, I don't like homosexuals. I will never have a homosexual friend. I really don't give a fuck about same sex marriage. To hell with it.

For #1. that is a purposed deficit. Not a 100% positive 5.7 trillion in the shit hole. Note your use of wording. Purposed. I can say, tomorrow everyone will turn gay. But will it happen? Most likely, not.

At 8/11/04 07:46 PM, TimScheff wrote:

The intelligence community was directed by the Bush Admin.

The only president to ever, ever, ever, ever direct the intelligence communtiy was..... Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Read up on history. And.. Don't say anything if you DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FUCK YOUR TALKING ABOUT and are only talking to flame bush. Be more creative. Come up with facts. Don't look at USA Today or NY Times. Look at non media sources. Media is just fucked up stories exaggerated to get peoples attention to buy the newspaper. Most of everything is inflated stories and made a bigger deal than it really is.