|
Post by bub on May 21, 2004 19:33:56 GMT -5
who here wants four more years of bush?
|
|
|
Post by not me on May 22, 2004 10:09:54 GMT -5
please, no more Bush
|
|
|
Post by k on May 22, 2004 11:39:56 GMT -5
Kerry is a clone of liberal ass Ted Kennedy. Anyway, whoever we elect is going to have problems. Life will continue on for all of us. We will still have to eat, die (eventually), go to the bathroom and work regardless of who we elect. I don't know that it really matters.
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on May 22, 2004 13:33:03 GMT -5
who here wants four more years of bush? The remainder of his term will seem like 4 years. Now wait - was that bush rather than Bush for a reason? Are you getting a little randy in your posts?!?
|
|
|
Post by Bertine Louise on May 22, 2004 13:56:50 GMT -5
"Like father, like son: One term, and you're done!!" hee hee hee i couldnt resist lol;D 4 more years of Bush, heaven forbid...! I rather have a man with no principles than a man with the wrong principles lol! Too bad I can't vote!
|
|
|
Post by bryan2 on May 22, 2004 16:06:11 GMT -5
I'm a Bush man....
He has done a great job and four more years of him would be a blessing from God.
|
|
|
Post by To Bushies boy on May 23, 2004 17:56:33 GMT -5
I'm a Bush man.... He has done a great job and four more years of him would be a blessing from God. What a shame for America
|
|
|
Post by no name on May 23, 2004 18:20:34 GMT -5
Than you would have loved Clinton, I’m sure . . . . Have you ever stopped to seriously ponder whether Bush’s principles are actually right?? Rather – thank the Lord! . . . ;D If it weren’t for Bush, Saddam would still be brutalizing and murdering his own people by the droves. But I suppose even that would be preferable to some people than to have a person like Bush as President of the U.S. Go figure. Misplaced anger – a common thing, it seems. Give me a break . . . I’m with ya, Bryan. His tax cuts have helped the economy recover from a recession that began late in Clinton's last term. And he’s got a huge weight on his shoulders trying to protect his country after the most devastating attack on our soil. He’s also trying to take on one of the most dangerous threats of our time – Militant Islamic terrorism. The world would be wise to open up their eyes to this very real and very potent danger. There are about 1 billion Muslims in the world. Estimates are that only about 10% of Muslims subscribe to the beliefs espoused by Militant Islam – but when you stop and think about it, that translates into a number of about 100 million! And their beef is about more than land issues (that’s a convenient cover for them) – go do some research. The threat is very real, people! Wake up!
|
|
|
Post by bryan2 on May 23, 2004 21:28:11 GMT -5
How is it a shame? Please back up your statment.
|
|
|
Post by KERRY SUKS BALLS on May 23, 2004 22:45:32 GMT -5
screw you liberal hippies me and bush gonna bomb the #@!$ out of you peace niggas
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on May 23, 2004 22:53:52 GMT -5
I'm with Bryan on this one.
Robb
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on May 25, 2004 9:05:25 GMT -5
Maybe it is a special blessing from God.
Like the 'blessing' Job got when everything he owned, wives, children, cattle, buildings, friends, etc. was destroyed.
Or, given the slope of his approval ratings, maybe God's blessing is being bestowed on the rest of the world.
|
|
|
Post by inatent on May 25, 2004 9:44:15 GMT -5
Maybe it is a special blessing from God. Like the 'blessing' Job got when everything he owned, wives, children, cattle, buildings, friends, etc. was destroyed. Or, given the slope of his approval ratings, maybe God's blessing is being bestowed on the rest of the world. You bring up a valid point. God is interested in saving souls, not nations. It may well be that the destruction of the United States could be more instrumental in saving souls than its preservation! God would not have allowed Satan to do what he did if it were not good for Job. Faith is not trusting God when you get what you want, but trusting God when you get what you don't want! inatent
|
|
|
Post by botany on May 25, 2004 17:02:35 GMT -5
I'm a Bush man.... He has done a great job and four more years of him would be a blessing from God. What has Bush done besides send our nation to war? How would Bush's re-election be a blessing from god? What was Job blessed with? andy
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on May 25, 2004 22:59:24 GMT -5
What was Job blessed with? andy Things that were good for him. Covered with boils from head to toe. All of his family killed. All of his property destroyed. A blessing in disguise. An undercover blessing.
|
|
|
Post by no name on May 26, 2004 0:28:23 GMT -5
Not backed down in the face of a modern day "Hitler" in the current form of Militant Islamists. Tax cuts which brought the U.S. out of a recession that began late in Clinton’s last term. Restored some dignity to the Oval Office, which was obliterated by Clinton and his “cigar” escapades. There are other things, but if one is already a Bush “opponent” or Bush “hater”, there won’t be much convincing them anyway . . . :-\
|
|
|
Post by bryan2 on May 26, 2004 11:45:07 GMT -5
What has Bush done besides send our nation to war? andy NEWS FLASH FOR ANDY!!! the war came to us... not the other way around...
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on May 26, 2004 16:27:03 GMT -5
NEWS FLASH FOR ANDY!!! the war came to us... not the other way around... News Flash for Bryan - We are at war with Iraq - A country that even our President has said was not connected with the events of 9/11.
|
|
|
Post by bryan2 on May 26, 2004 16:37:59 GMT -5
News Flash for Bryan - We are at war with Iraq - A country that even our President has said was not connected with the events of 9/11. the war... as in the war on terror.... not the battle in Iraq. Iraq is just another part of the war on terror…
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on May 27, 2004 12:31:46 GMT -5
the war... as in the war on terror.... not the battle in Iraq. Iraq is just another part of the war on terror… I see. The war as in Bryan's World. Silly me. I was thinking about the one country that we are actually at war with. This "war on terror" that you speak of. It is an odd concept for me. Exactly who are we at war with? Suspected terrorists? Fundamentalist Muslims? Those radical Christians that bomb Health Clinics? The animal rights people who throw paint on people? They are such a diverse bunch. And until they actually commit a crime they are innocent....wait.... Ahh no. That was one of the rights that people were willing to give up in the name of safety. Guilty by means of suspicion.
|
|
|
Post by bryan2 on May 27, 2004 14:09:02 GMT -5
I see. The war as in Bryan's World. Silly me. I was thinking about the one country that we are actually at war with. This "war on terror" that you speak of. It is an odd concept for me. Exactly who are we at war with? Suspected terrorists? Fundamentalist Muslims? Those radical Christians that bomb Health Clinics? The animal rights people who throw paint on people? They are such a diverse bunch. And until they actually commit a crime they are innocent....wait.... Ahh no. That was one of the rights that people were willing to give up in the name of safety. Guilty by means of suspicion. Oh please... You're not that dumb so don't act like it...
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on May 27, 2004 17:03:46 GMT -5
Oh please... You're not that dumb so don't act like it... You might have misjudged me! But, seriously, how do you decide who is and who is not a terrorist? Which terrorist groups are targeted?
|
|
|
Post by bryan2 on May 27, 2004 17:17:28 GMT -5
No one definition of terrorism has gained universal acceptance. For the purposes of this report, however, we have chosen the definition of terrorism contained in Title 22 of the United States Code, Section 2656f(d). That statute contains the following definitions:
The term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant (1) targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience. The term "international terrorism" means terrorism involving citizens or the territory of more than one country. The term "terrorist group" means any group practicing, or that has significant subgroups that practice, international terrorism. The US Government has employed this definition of terrorism for statistical and analytical purposes since 1983. Domestic terrorism is probably a more widespread phenomenon than international terrorism. Because international terrorism has a direct impact on US interests, it is the primary focus of this report. However, the report also describes, but does not provide statistics on, significant developments in domestic terrorism.
(1) For purposes of this definition, the term "noncombatant" is interpreted to include, in addition to civilians, military personnel who at the time of the incident are unarmed and/or not on duty. For example, in past reports we have listed as terrorist incidents the murders of the following US military personnel: Col. James Rowe, killed in Manila in April 1989; Capt. William Nordeen, US defense attache killed in Athens in June 1988; the two servicemen killed in the La Belle disco bombing in West Berlin in April 1986; and the four off-duty US Embassy Marine guards killed in a cafe in El Salvador in June 1985. We also consider as acts of terrorism attacks on military installations or on armed military personnel when a state of military hostilities does not exist at the site, such as bombings against US bases in Europe, the Philippines, or elsewhere.
Note
Adverse mention in this report of individual members of any political, social, ethnic, religious, or national group is not meant to imply that all members of that group are terrorists. Indeed, terrorists represent a small minority of dedicated, often fanatical, individuals in most such groups. It is those small groups - and their actions - that are the subject of this report.
Furthermore, terrorist acts are part of a larger phenomenon of politically inspired violence, and at times the line between the two can become difficult to draw. To relate terrorist events to the larger context, and to give a feel for the conflicts that spawn violence, this report will discuss terrorist acts as well as other violent incidents that are not necessarily international terrorism.
|
|
|
Post by botany on May 31, 2004 0:29:45 GMT -5
Would Bush have done anything about the "modern day 'hitler'" had the World Trade Center not been trashed? What if there was no terrorist attacks? What about Iraq? Would Bush have still invaded? Of course, these are speculative questions with no real way of knowing. But one wonders if Bush just had an itchy trigger finger for Iraq? Going after the terrorists responsible for 9/11... that I have no problem with. All the more power to that. I question the motives for attacking Iraq. Did the tax cut really help people? How much money did people really see of that tax cut? I saw my $300+/- cut, and that went directly to paying for bills, not for "helping the economy". With these tax cuts, are we really "out" of the recession? I have yet to see evidence of such. People can wave numbers around, but what I actually see and hear from people tells me otherwise. I'm not blaming Bush in any way for not being out of the recession. Was the recession Clinton's fault? No. Ask any economist and they will tell you that presidents have very little to no effect on the economy as a whole. Alan Greenspan is the man you want to talk to for that. He is the one with the most control of anybody on the economy. The rest is up to the whims of the markets. Quite a scary thought, really. Restored dignity perhaps in the sense that Bush isn't having sex romps with interns. But his "I'm-going-in-shooting-like-a-[stereotypical]-old-western-cowboy" attitude throws shadows on the dignity. Bush seemed hellbent on attacking Iraq. Bush is a "Shoot first -- hell, this is fun, let's shoot again!" type of guy. I wasn't always a Bush opponent. I started out neutral, not caring either way about Bush, Gore, or any other candidate. I tried to stay out of the political world, but as I get older and see more things and the events over the last 4 years, I have taken more of an interest as a voter in what happens politically. But please, elaborate on the "other things." andy
|
|
|
Post by botany on May 31, 2004 0:31:24 GMT -5
NEWS FLASH FOR ANDY!!! the war came to us... not the other way around... Iraq brought the war to the U.S.? Wow, Bush would love to have you working for him! Initially the war was against Al-Qaida. That was all fine and dandy. No problem there, and quite justifiable. However, Bush then decided to throw Iraq in there for good measure, and to tie up loose ends from 10 years before. Justifiable? andy
|
|
|
Post by bryan2 on May 31, 2004 15:20:11 GMT -5
I never said this...
Please do not put words in my mouth...
Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on May 31, 2004 18:43:07 GMT -5
I never said this... Please do not put words in my mouth... Thank you. Did any one say you said that? It is a question. You did say the war came to us. There is a single war on the table. Iraq is the target. I think the question was who did bring the war? Unless I am mistaken the poster was asking if Iraq was the deliverer of the war. What war came to us?
|
|
|
Post by no name on May 31, 2004 19:08:32 GMT -5
I believe Bryan already referenced that when he said: "the war... as in the war on terror.... not the battle in Iraq.
Iraq is just another part of the war on terror…"
|
|