The main problem I see with GuN_Solar's argument is that Bush led us into, and probably won't be leading us out of, some/most of those hard times. Ever heard him say, "It started on my watch, but it's going to end on your watch?"

The main problem I see with GuN_Solar's argument is that Bush led us into, and probably won't be leading us out of, some/most of those hard times. Ever heard him say, "It started on my watch, but it's going to end on your watch?"

[Quote=Felagund]MA, at least Clinton vetoed some spending and raised taxes for a balanced budget. You deal with what you have, and George Bush is spending money worse than a Democrat, but he's spending it on very Republican things (defense, etc.) which help fuel the military industrial complex and keep money in the pockets of the rich. Add to that his tax cuts and you've got a recipe for disaster. Let's deal with your line of reasoning though. If the economy was doing well with Clinton in office, then he had a right to go up to that budget in spending (and we even had a surplus to pay back our debt and increase international trust in our economy). So when the economy start to perform less robustly, why did George W. Bush suddenly increase spending? If the economy were doing better, the spending wouldn't hurt as much. However, we're pulling in less money but spending more. Did you know that the United States pours more money into its defense budget than all other countries combined? At least, that's since 9/11. A mostly symbolic attack has "forced" us to severely harm too many aspects of this nation, at least that's what Bush says. It's a funny thing how the vast majority of people really hate the job he's doing as "president."[/Quote] I wont deny that what Clinton has done is good for our economy, and is FAR better than what Bush has been doing. I'm just saying that Clinton is not spectacular; he's just better than some other presidents like Bush in the sense that he makes wiser decisions with what's going on with the economy. Just not someone worthy of worshiping

Quote from Felagund

MA, at least Clinton vetoed some spending and raised taxes for a balanced budget. You deal with what you have, and George Bush is spending money worse than a Democrat, but he's spending it on very Republican things (defense, etc.) which help fuel the military industrial complex and keep money in the pockets of the rich. Add to that his tax cuts and you've got a recipe for disaster.

Let's deal with your line of reasoning though. If the economy was doing well with Clinton in office, then he had a right to go up to that budget in spending (and we even had a surplus to pay back our debt and increase international trust in our economy). So when the economy start to perform less robustly, why did George W. Bush suddenly increase spending? If the economy were doing better, the spending wouldn't hurt as much. However, we're pulling in less money but spending more. Did you know that the United States pours more money into its defense budget than all other countries combined? At least, that's since 9/11. A mostly symbolic attack has "forced" us to severely harm too many aspects of this nation, at least that's what Bush says. It's a funny thing how the vast majority of people really hate the job he's doing as "president."

I wont deny that what Clinton has done is good for our economy, and is FAR better than what Bush has been doing. I'm just saying that Clinton is not spectacular; he's just better than some other presidents like Bush in the sense that he makes wiser decisions with what's going on with the economy. Just not someone worthy of worshiping

[Quote=Falkoner]Do you really think that if we had not retaliated to getting bombed then then terrorists would just stay happy with their one bombing? Bush is a great president, and he did fine after one of the worst presidents, Bill Clinton, who was one of the most intelligent presidents, but one of the worst.[/Quote]How is he a great president? He has sent the United States dollar to hell in comparison to almost all first world currencies. The national debt is a joke. Bush has successfully managed to invade a desert country half way across the world in the hope of creating a democracy amongst three primary religious groups whose representative have no inclination of legal or religious cooperation. How is attacking foreign nations going to discourage people from committing acts of terrorism? Al Qaida is now in no position to make an attack which is great except that many more groups in the Middle East are now working to exact vengeance on the country that invaded them. [Quote=Falkoner]WMD's were discovered in Iraq, and plants to make them, so I don't know where you are coming from.[/Quote]Source please. They also found a Clefairy on the moon.-____-;; Iraq doesn't even have the ability to send a missile to the Atlantic or Pacific. Iraq is not a threat. Iran which would have the capabilities to develop a nuclear weapon program and distribute such weapons to countries that are in a potential position to launch an attack is a bigger concern, and the fact that North Korea has done missile and nuclear weapon tests can just of go under the radar as unimportant well. [Quote=Falkoner]He didn't cause any wounds, he just came into office at a bad time, everyone would've been complaining about Bill Clinton if it had happened during his time too. And you cannot say that the bombing of the trade towers was his fault, as it happened about a month after his election, meaning Bill Clinton was the person leading up to it.[/Quote]You are not a credible person as you don't know anything about United States history. Bush was inaugurated as president nine months before 9/11. People would be complaining about the attacks had Bill Clinton been in office, any person of such a political position in office would feel uneasy with such an even taking place. But to suggest a hypothetical situation where any president could do no better or worse than Bush and elicit the exact some response from the nation's people without any sort of historical basis while completely ignoring the economic condition the country is currently finding itself in is ludicrous. ~Ayra

Quote from Falkoner

Do you really think that if we had not retaliated to getting bombed then then terrorists would just stay happy with their one bombing? Bush is a great president, and he did fine after one of the worst presidents, Bill Clinton, who was one of the most intelligent presidents, but one of the worst.

How is he a great president? He has sent the United States dollar to hell in comparison to almost all first world currencies. The national debt is a joke. Bush has successfully managed to invade a desert country half way across the world in the hope of creating a democracy amongst three primary religious groups whose representative have no inclination of legal or religious cooperation. How is attacking foreign nations going to discourage people from committing acts of terrorism? Al Qaida is now in no position to make an attack which is great except that many more groups in the Middle East are now working to exact vengeance on the country that invaded them.

Quote from Falkoner

WMD's were discovered in Iraq, and plants to make them, so I don't know where you are coming from.

Source please. They also found a Clefairy on the moon.-____-;; Iraq doesn't even have the ability to send a missile to the Atlantic or Pacific. Iraq is not a threat. Iran which would have the capabilities to develop a nuclear weapon program and distribute such weapons to countries that are in a potential position to launch an attack is a bigger concern, and the fact that North Korea has done missile and nuclear weapon tests can just of go under the radar as unimportant well.

Quote from Falkoner

He didn't cause any wounds, he just came into office at a bad time, everyone would've been complaining about Bill Clinton if it had happened during his time too.

And you cannot say that the bombing of the trade towers was his fault, as it happened about a month after his election, meaning Bill Clinton was the person leading up to it.

You are not a credible person as you don't know anything about United States history. Bush was inaugurated as president nine months before 9/11. People would be complaining about the attacks had Bill Clinton been in office, any person of such a political position in office would feel uneasy with such an even taking place. But to suggest a hypothetical situation where any president could do no better or worse than Bush and elicit the exact some response from the nation's people without any sort of historical basis while completely ignoring the economic condition the country is currently finding itself in is ludicrous.

~Ayra

A plan to bomb the trade towers would take more than 9 months to create.

A plan to bomb the trade towers would take more than 9 months to create.

[Quote=Falkoner]A plan to bomb the trade towers would take more than 9 months to create.[/Quote]How does this have any relevance in contrast with your lack of factual basis or historical support for your previous claims? ~Ayra

Quote from Falkoner

A plan to bomb the trade towers would take more than 9 months to create.

How does this have any relevance in contrast with your lack of factual basis or historical support for your previous claims?

~Ayra

Did you read your own post? Also, factories capable of creating weapons of mass destruction [i]were[/i] found in Iraq when revisited, just no actual weapons. And I woudn't want to leave terrorists that bombed us sitting around, what Bush did was the intelligent thing to do.

Did you read your own post?

Also, factories capable of creating weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq when revisited, just no actual weapons. And I woudn't want to leave terrorists that bombed us sitting around, what Bush did was the intelligent thing to do.

dude.... falknor show us your resources. Because right now the Iraq war is a huge screw up, we went in with false information, we are trying to put a UN puppet into thier office, we are refusing to pull out (no dirty joke please >_>) when it is basically futile to stay in. There was no backing for invading Iraq other than the economical bonuses that the oil companies would recieve (and that is a HORRORBLE reason in itself)

dude.... falknor show us your resources. Because right now the Iraq war is a huge screw up, we went in with false information, we are trying to put a UN puppet into thier office, we are refusing to pull out (no dirty joke please >_>) when it is basically futile to stay in. There was no backing for invading Iraq other than the economical bonuses that the oil companies would recieve (and that is a HORRORBLE reason in itself)

I was a Bush supporter since day one. He truely did do a good job, otherwise other countries wouldnt be fearing us. Opposing gay marriage and stem cell research is a +1 UP. I hope another president like Bush is elected in 08. Liberals = Terrorists.

I was a Bush supporter since day one. He truely did do a good job, otherwise other countries wouldnt be fearing us. Opposing gay marriage and stem cell research is a +1 UP. I hope another president like Bush is elected in 08. Liberals = Terrorists.

America has lost a lot of support by the nations of the UN. I wouldnt exactly say that they are fearing us, Iran, North Korea, Russia, and others didnt look like they feared us.

America has lost a lot of support by the nations of the UN. I wouldnt exactly say that they are fearing us, Iran, North Korea, Russia, and others didnt look like they feared us.

Russia is a threat to the US?

Russia is a threat to the US?

...yes?

...yes?

Arent they democratic now?

Arent they democratic now?

why would that have anything to do with the decisions of a country.

why would that have anything to do with the decisions of a country.

That is too bad, I thought Russia was now part of the allies.

That is too bad, I thought Russia was now part of the allies.

The terrorists would have bombed us no matter who was President. The terrorists have killed, let's see... maybe about 5,000 Americans since September 11. How many Iraqis have been collateral damage? I'd say that 250,000 casualties is the lower extreme. Besides EcHo, why do you want people to fear us? That's something very indicative of a tyranny, and a tyranny America ain't.

The terrorists would have bombed us no matter who was President. The terrorists have killed, let's see... maybe about 5,000 Americans since September 11. How many Iraqis have been collateral damage? I'd say that 250,000 casualties is the lower extreme. Besides EcHo, why do you want people to fear us? That's something very indicative of a tyranny, and a tyranny America ain't.

There are no Allies now. Russia was pissed because Bush was encouraging for an eastern european defense. This naturally pissed off Russia and they retaliated by threatening to point there guns to europe or something to that effect. Putin is a big criticizer of Bush.

There are no Allies now. Russia was pissed because Bush was encouraging for an eastern european defense. This naturally pissed off Russia and they retaliated by threatening to point there guns to europe or something to that effect. Putin is a big criticizer of Bush.

You know, it's not Bush's fault on the things that are happening in Iraq. I blame the laws we have of the military such as "If the enemy shoots and then puts down their weapon, you cannot shoot back". If we had no such stupid rules we couldve won the war already and Bush would have been victorious.

You know, it's not Bush's fault on the things that are happening in Iraq. I blame the laws we have of the military such as "If the enemy shoots and then puts down their weapon, you cannot shoot back". If we had no such stupid rules we couldve won the war already and Bush would have been victorious.

I can't even begin to grasp the level of stupidity you display if you believe the Patriot Act provisions allowing spying do not affect your life.

I can't even begin to grasp the level of stupidity you display if you believe the Patriot Act provisions allowing spying do not affect your life.

I dont even care. I got nothing to hide. Anyone who has something to hide is the one who complains about the patriot act.

I dont even care. I got nothing to hide. Anyone who has something to hide is the one who complains about the patriot act.

[quote=EcHo]I dont even care. I got nothing to hide. Anyone who has something to hide is the one who complains about the patriot act.[/quote] But what if you're a Indian like me, and a dissenter, like me? I'm not doing anything wrong, but they could still lock me up.

Quote from EcHo

I dont even care. I got nothing to hide. Anyone who has something to hide is the one who complains about the patriot act.

But what if you're a Indian like me, and a dissenter, like me?

I'm not doing anything wrong, but they could still lock me up.