Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

This is pretty crude, but it is somewhat relevant to the theme. :P

please inform me how that is realavant.

never mind it took me a second to put 2 and 2 together.. haha your right...lol

At 12/24/04 11:19 PM, Evil_Alex37 wrote: Just want to know what the Republicans really feel. What if this man whom they Idolize was in another party? Would you still regard him as "one of the best presidents ever." prove you're not bias, come'on PROVE!!!!1

If Bush was a democrat, he would be a disgrace to them, with his high stupidity rating and southern accent.

~blam master

At 12/24/04 11:19 PM, Evil_Alex37 wrote: Just want to know what the Republicans really feel. What if this man whom they Idolize was in another party? Would you still regard him as "one of the best presidents ever." prove you're not bias, come'on PROVE!!!!1

*Does the noobish thing and ignores everything else for now*

Ok... where do you get off stating that Republicans idolize George W. Bush and say that he's the best president ever? Did you just deliberately build up a straw man (false image) of the Republican party and put words in their mouths? I can't even believe this topic was dignified with educated responses, this was a retarded question to begin with because it contained grave errors and assumptions. The first error is, as I said already, putting words in someone else's mouth (the Republicans in this case) and the second is challenging the Republican people in this BBS to post some sort of reply to such a stupid proposal. If George Bush were democrat he wouldn't have Republican views. George Bush has Republican views, therefore he is not a democrat. Furthermre, if George W. Bush had democratic views, he wouldn't have the support of the Republicans. George W. Bush does not have democratic views (he has a Republican political agenda instead) therefore he has the support of th Republicans. Your argument doesn't state that something should follow from your proposition, now please stfu and gtfo with this nonsense.

*Feels somewhat disgusted and ashamed now that he even dignified this thread with a response*.

At 12/25/04 06:36 PM, ReiperX wrote: Genocide wasn't currently happening in Iraq, was in Kosovo. The war crimes in Kosovo happened in the past decade, most of Sadams did not. Kosovo was probally <I might have to do some research on this> more of a threat to its neighbors than Sadam.

Explain something for me then; in the last "democratic election" before we invaded, Saddam got %100 the vote from the eligible voting popluation of Iraq. This number was up from (I believe) 99.5% of the eligible voting population in the previous election. What happened to that small .5%?

UN didn't invade Kosovo for the main reasons of possesion of NBC weapons and we did Iraq in which those vast stockpiles are still unacounted for.

There have been chemical weapons found in Iraq, and the means of manufacturing them as well. But I will give you that much; we haven't found anything close to the "vast stockpiles" we thought were there to begin with.

At 12/25/04 08:21 PM, ohp-kyle wrote: Did you see the movie 'Double Jeopardy'?

Yes, I thought it was a pretty decent film to be quite honest.

Saddam already had his ass pounded for those things... so to speak. Are we going to go back into Kosovo a few years because of what we already bombed them for?

I don't know... will they be acting suspicous when the U.N. representatives come for a visit?

At 12/26/04 02:30 AM, ben_dont_jump wrote: This is pretty crude, but it is somewhat relevant to the theme. :P

that was 100% irrelivant, liberal crap.

At 12/26/04 10:31 AM, drDAK wrote: that was 100% irrelivant, liberal crap.

It's words like those that contribute to keeping liberals and conservatives in such an intense rivalry that can lead to hatred. Thanks. </sarcasm>

Short answer: his views are too different from current democratic party views to win a governorship of a state, let alone the presidency.

Bush isn't the least qualified president in history- I believe that Dwight Eisenhower, Jimmy Carter and Andrew Johnson were probably less well qualified than George W. That said, If Bush made it to the presidency, or even the party nomination of the democrats, the Republicians would probably go left-- Nominate John McCain and another Moderate--Arnold Schwarzenegger?, Rudy Giulliani? This would be a good match up in four years, and see if the left and right could possibly defeat the center. I doubt that this is possible. Bush would have lost 04 if a democrat.

If gore won in 2000, then he would probably not cut taxes and not go into Iraq. inspections might happen, but Gore is not as aggressive as Bush is. Gore would have gone to the UN after 9-11, and the UN would have acted harshly against the attackers, as there is no one in the security council who would block this war. If the USA avoided the war in Iraq, Gore would be handily re-elected, and the USA would have more support and sympathy. Big question is whether Gore would have had more success than Bush. Afghanistan would be invaded, and a nation would be built... perhaps with a different interim leader. Would that be the end, or would the USA invade another nation, perhaps Somalia, to defeat Al-Qaeda? Too many questions for a short answer, and the world might be gravely different today.

At 12/26/04 10:22 AM, Proteas wrote:

At 12/25/04 06:36 PM, ReiperX wrote: Genocide wasn't currently happening in Iraq, was in Kosovo. The war crimes in Kosovo happened in the past decade, most of Sadams did not. Kosovo was probally <I might have to do some research on this> more of a threat to its neighbors than Sadam.

Explain something for me then; in the last "democratic election" before we invaded, Saddam got %100 the vote from the eligible voting popluation of Iraq. This number was up from (I believe) 99.5% of the eligible voting population in the previous election. What happened to that small .5%?

Election numbers could have been rigged, they could have been scared. It was a dictatorship, and the election was a joke. But that is far from genocide.

UN didn't invade Kosovo for the main reasons of possesion of NBC weapons and we did Iraq in which those vast stockpiles are still unacounted for.

There have been chemical weapons found in Iraq, and the means of manufacturing them as well. But I will give you that much; we haven't found anything close to the "vast stockpiles" we thought were there to begin with.

And all of the chemical weapons have been said to probally predate the first invasion. The "mortars with chemical warheads" just dissapeared from the news after they actually went in for real testing to see if they actually had chemical weapons in it because the military even admitted the field tests are often wrong. That and using a chemical weapon besides CS gas or something similar in a mortar isn't very useful or tactical.

At 12/26/04 03:25 AM, Blam_Master wrote: If Bush was a democrat, he would be a disgrace to them, with his high stupidity rating and southern accent.

'Southern accent' LOL. Clinton and Gore didn't have an accent?

At 12/26/04 03:25 AM, Blam_Master wrote: If Bush was a democrat, he would be a disgrace to them, with his high stupidity rating and southern accent.

high stupidity rating? I didn't know there was a scale.

:P

~blam master

~drDAK