Neverside

Quote:

Originally posted by BigToach
im still voting for bush for sure.
Kerry is waaaay to liberal to be a president.
and it's really easy to be a good president when everything is perfect. yet he still had to mess up with lewinski.......

Clinton was a fantastic president - he managed many foreign conflicts (desert storm anyone?) and gave us a very strong economy. He had one mistake, and it was publicised - guess what, he's a real person. He screwed up in a way that didn't hurt our national security and eventually told the truth. If he was to run, he would EASILY be re-elected - there wouldn't be any contest.

___________________

http://www.philbrodeur.com - Expert PHP Development and Tutorials

yes rich, your the one that seems short sighted, Clinton was a much better president than bush. Just because I'm canadian? LMAO with remarks like that you really lose credibility I migrated here from Florida and even if I didn't what difference does it make? The whole country is becoming more polarized and people are becoming more concerned about the welfare of our future, I seriously don't know why people would vote for bush now, Why did he ban abortion ? for one hes the one raping the enviornment.

___________________

Mace Windu thrown outta a window... I guess he shouldn't have given Padme that foot massage. P.S. If you haven't seen Star Wars Episode III do NOT read the previous sentence.

Quote:

Originally posted by jadedchron
Is that directed at me? I wasn't referring to you, at least not to your last post.

But I will say, having "no right to an opinion" make no sense.

it was a mistype, heh. i fixed it.

He (bush) banned abortion because its wrong. And because he prays to God, and the bible is quite clear that abortion is wrong. And yes, I do want a leader who prays to God for advice. I would be very scared of one who doesnt. Where does he get his wisdom from then?

If a man cant be faithful to his wife, why should we trust him with our country? He cant take care of his family but we give him a country.....

Rich, you have strong opinions to say the least. I am a very stong opinionated person myself. But you have to work on your presentation. We all get frustrated by everyone else's seeming ignorance and blindess at times. But you cant let your emotions fly like you do, just breathe and think it through and then CALMLY respond. NO ONE LISTENS WHEN YOU RANT AND RAVE AND ARE INCREDIBLY INCONSIDERATE. Just some thoughts. I normally agree with you all the way, just work on that a bit ok?

O ya thats another thing, The attacks could've been preventable, During the Rice Testimony she claimed that the bush administration was adamant that all the intelligence it recieved in the PDB's centered on Al qida attacks outside the united states. She said "It did not warn about attacks inside the united states" Then then she was asked to recall the title of the PDB which was "Bin Laden determined to attack inside the united states" :grumpy that just shocked me, HOW LONG DOES THAT ******* SENTENCE HAVE TO BE!? Come one DevilDOg your statement right there sums it up, because its in the bible?? I'm sure your aware of seperation of church and state in the constitution?

___________________

Mace Windu thrown outta a window... I guess he shouldn't have given Padme that foot massage. P.S. If you haven't seen Star Wars Episode III do NOT read the previous sentence.

Last edited by paolo1234567891, May 7th, 2004 09:01 AM (Edited 1 times)

you've never heard of "Separation of Church and State", have you.

Here's my problem with that idea my friend. ITS NOT POSSIBLE. Here's why...

Every living person has a view on religion, whether they believe in one or not. Either you believe God doesnt exist, there are many gods, or whatever God you believe in, it is from this mindset you base your thinking from. For instance, three years ago I believed that God existed and that as long as you were a good person, you would get into heaven. Because of this thinking, things like sex before marriage werent a problem, because it wasnt wrong to me. I also believed abortion was a womans choice, because it wasnt wrong to my thinking. This is because I have go care at all to the bible. My religion, or lack there of if you will, completely influenced my decision making process. Because it was MY belief that there were no consequences for these actions, I supported them. However, I accepted Christ, and then I began to see things in a different light. Now I try to see them from God's perspective ( I would emphasize the word try) through His word, the bible. My belief now is that it is indeed the word of God and it must be adhered to as there are eternal consequences to all of our actions, including the aforementioned ones. But as you can see, both versions of me if you will thought based on what I believed. It is the basis we view things from, and what we base our decision making process on. It is impossible to separate anyone from this, being that it is the very core of who we are, and thus, the whole idea of church and state separation is a complete fallacy. The only thing it does, is separate christianity from state, as we see the 10 commandments arent allowed, people raise all sorts of chaos when the word prayer is mentioned, heaven forbid we look for wisdom from someone smarter than us!!!

Quote:

Originally posted by SmellyVognito
soo...paparazzi, you are basing your whole dislike for kerry on the fact that he may or may not own a van?

No im saying we dont need Liars aas Presidents.

___________________

Clinton was weak against terrorism rich? 3000 American's died because of bush's bad leadership. The truth is Clinton elevated anti-terror to cabinet level. Bush lowered it to staff level. Clarke, former anti-terrorism czar in 4 administrations has the highest authority and credibility. Clarke and others are laying bare the Bush Administration failures which led up to 9/11. Former National Security Advisor Samuel Beger's sworn testimony explodes hypocritical Republican claims that President Clinton "did nothing" against bin Laden. The Clinton Administration might have caught or killed bin Laden if the GOP hadn't helped al Qaeda. Top GOP leaders such as Sen. Phil Gramm, then-Senate Leader Trent Lott and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay blocked all of Clinton's anti-terror efforts.

When Clinton ordered the attacks against al quada(sp), Republicans attacked Clinton. They screamed "wag the dog" and whined that terrorism wasn't a real issue. Clinton ordered CIA to kill or capture bin Laden. Clinton's people caught the WTC93 bombers and Khobar Towers bombers. They attacked Osama Bin Laden and al quada in Afghanistan after their attack on African embassies, but Republicans blocked further anti-terror actions when they accused President Clinton of "wagging the dog."

By contrast, Bush provided no leadership against al Quada. Even worse, he ordered the FBI and CIA to "back off" the bin Laden terrorists and withdrew the 2 attack subs Clinton deployed against al Quada. Because of that 3000 Americans died. Bush should have left the attack subs in place and kept pressure on the Taliban and al Queda.

Instead Bush pulled back his forces, called off the intelligence officers, and cozied up to the Taliban. The enemies saw this weakness and attacked. Bush also helpd terror suspects Abdulah and Omar bin Laden escape from the US after 9/11 and his orders helped Osama bin Laden escape in Tora Bora.
Bush gave terrorists a free hand before 9/11. Clarke designed a detailed battle plan to attack al Qada, but Bush went on vacation for monthson his ranch rather than follow it. Bush didn't sedn troops into Afganistan to attack Osama Bin Laden even after he knew bin Laden was behind the attack against the USS Cole.

Bush Administration apologists claim Richard Clarke said Bush radically changed anti-terror policy from "rolling back" al Qaeda to direct attack, however Bush never did anything against terrorism before 9/11. Bush lost sight of the anti-terror efforts, and distracted by other issues, left u.s. open to attack. Then, by attacking Iraq rather than finishing off al Qeda in Afghanistan, Bush let Osama bin Laden escape and otherwise promoted al Quada's interests.

Bush keeps doing exactly what Osama Bin Laden wants him to do. His rush to invade Iraq split the anti-terrorist coalition and fueled radical Islamicist propaganda efforts. It also opened Iraq to al Qaeda terrorists Saddam Hussein had suppressed.
Bush keeps undermining national security and serving Saudi interests rather than American interests. The record shows Bush and almost his entire national security team essentially ignored warnings about impending terrorist attacks. Then, they lied to the American people about Iraq. As a result 3000+ Americans died on 9/11, and 700+ Americans died in Iraq.

Rather than face and fix their mistakes, Bush, Cheiney, Rumsfeld and Rice first tried to block then stone-walled all attempts to investigate what went wrong. Rather than catching or killing bin Laden, the Bush Administration focused on its political enemies rather than national enemies. If the Bush Administration spent 1/10 of the effort attacking Osama and al Queda as they're devoting to attack Clarke, O'Neil, and Ambassador Wilson, Osama might be dead now.

Bush already failed worse than any other President in US history at his most important job , keeping the u.s. safe from foreign attack. He also failed after 9/11 when the American People almost unanimously gave him a second chance, then he abused that by pushing a radical right wing agenda and rushing to attack Iraq rather than leading as he'd promised.

___________________

Mace Windu thrown outta a window... I guess he shouldn't have given Padme that foot massage. P.S. If you haven't seen Star Wars Episode III do NOT read the previous sentence.

I find it very funny how people will point fingers at President Bush for not doing anything when in theory he knew 9/11 was coming. First off, we dont know that he knew it was going to happen. You make it seem as though he was told, "on 9/11 planes will crash into the wtc." I doubt that happened. And if he had attacked, and 9/11 didnt happen, then you would have attacked him for attacking without a reason. Where is my proof? Because now you sit back and say we went into iraq for no good reason because we cant find any wmd. So when he is told of something and he makes a decision one way something bad happens. Maybe, and Im just spitballing here, maybe he heard the threats that iraq had wmd and thought " i can stop this one, im not making the same mistake i made before." But either way, you cant call him a bad president for not acting on intel and then blame him when he did, and it turned out the intel was wrong. Cant have it both ways, sorry.