Is GW the worse President in the last 70 years?

The "wake up" movement is the new hippy movement, nothing new, just different era.

Drugs play a huge part of the "waking up" to "reality"

Drugs are for those who can't handle reality...

 

I don't miss these debates at all. They are circular.

It's not about Bush or the war. He's not the first or last incompetent, corrupt, self-serving President we will have, and Iraq will not be the last war. Regardless of who gets elected, it will be more of the same.

The people will be impoverished, the wars will continue to claim innocent lives, and the laws will increasingly become more tyrannical. Republican, Democrat, they all vote the same. For more power and more corruption. During election season they play opposites, when the election is over, they collaborate to steal and lie to the American people.

We need honest people running for local government. We need GRIM, Gtech, and Mia all holding local office. We need fathers, husbands and small businessmen guiding their communities, not fatcat bureaucrats in DC telling citizens how to live, while robbing those same citizens and their children blind.

 

Oh really, yet I have been saying to 'wake up' since the beginning when all those pro Iraq people claimed all those nice fictional stories over and over again. Most have 'woken up' most who have woken up are not 'druggies' nor 'hippies'

Waking up to facts and dismissing the fear and lies the administration used is not a 'hippy' movement.

 

Which "pro-iraq" people? The alex jones ones or the ones who really do care about the people?

Which dream did you wake up from? The one about the inside 9-11 job? Did the dream actually stop or is the road-runner physics still applied to 9-11?

alex jones is a great marketer, I should hire him. Except, I wonder how well he could market if he only used the truth?? I hate salesmen/marketers who lie....

 

Do you mean like your preacher with his stories about the guy who made water to wine, raised the dead from the grave to life and suppose to be the son of God?

 

Are you sure about that mate? Not too sure about GTech and Mia.

 

I agree almost completely, well at least with the part about mismanagement. Most of the mismanagement was Rumsfeld's fault and in turn Bush's fault for staying with Rumsfeld for so long.
As far as the Iraqis who are receiving money, even if it's true that they are not fighting because of money, then these are not the types I'm worried about. (And why shouldn't we give aid to those who can't feed their family and turn to fighting instead? Remember Colin Powell's "you break it, you own it" statement?)
Once Iraq's economy gets going those types will be satisfied, what I'm worried about are the ones that can't be "paid off", those driven by an idealogical hatred of anything western, and it seems that those types have been defeated in Iraq.

 

I don't think they are corrupt.

 

They're just c*nTz.

 

LOL Bush the worst? Well it could of been even worse with Kerry. Why else did Bush get 2 terms? Could it be poor choices. Ah oh well, he's going to be gone soon and his pops is done so who cares, we need to vote someone who isn't in the Skull and Crossbones clan.

 

No comment!

 

Oh nice attempt at a twist, of course Pro Iraq WAR.

I never woke up as I was never asleep living in fiction, I've been debating you and others on here against the Iraq war from the beginning, you know the thing I was right on and you were wrong

You know more about him than I do, I never listen to him, the only time I see his name is from you and a few others bashing him 'that I can remember off hand'

 

#1 you are totally missing the point, not only is it draining money we DO NOT have, what happens when we can no longer pay them?
#2 they have not been totally defeated as they continue to attack. You are also failing to realize the ones who have set down their arms waiting for the correct opportunity.

 

What happens if the sky falls!? Will we still need airplanes!!???

Yes Sir, General Clairvoyant.

 

Oh nice, so your method is stick your head in the sand and not care to even speculate as to what might happen. Isn't that how we got into this mess in the first place?

Yet we continue to lose soldiers, sure appears those we are fighting still exist, if they exist they are not 'defeated'

At least one big militia put down their arms during this time, but you know those pesky facts, I know you don't like them.

 

Facts FTW.





Source: http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2008-07-28-Petraeus_N.htm

 

What does that prove? It does not show anyone being 'defeated' especially when you bring the facts into play of many waiting until the time is right to attack, we are paying people off not to fight, etc, etc. If anything your little graph proves exactly what I have been saying all along.



Death toll is down, great, it's known about, I YET AGAIN hope it continues. That does not take away from facts, us paying people off not to fight and or to 'fight' on our side. Our soldiers will not fight against us once we dissolve their jobs and stop paying them, how about these X insurgents? It does not take away from the fact of Al Sadr ordering a cease fire, it does not take away from the facts of the surge ending, it does not take away from the facts of the ethnic differences that could very well cause a civil war. But yeah lets chant the mind numbingly idiotic 'we are winning' without looking into any actual facts.

From your own article.

Ghee this is exactly the reason I am being cautious, but what does Petraeus know..

Last I heard a 'defeated' force does not retain the capability to continue to attack you. Guess I was wrong and this is a new meaning of 'defeated'

 

But remember GRIM, “they hate us because of our freedom”.

 

Yes sir, General Clairvoyance, whatever you say, sir.

So if they have jobs they won't fight us? That's what I think too. So it's a matter of getting their economy in good shape, no?

To say we are winning is an honest description of the current situation. To say otherwise is complete speculation which is based on hypotheticals which are arrived at through apparent clairvoyance. I'm not saying we're done in Iraq, I'm not saying it couldn't go bad again, I'm saying that the facts and reality on the ground in Iraq is that it is working. The only arguments you have to dispute it is hypotheticals of what could happen.

Read what I said carefully. I said the ones that I'm worried about the most are the ones we could never "pay off". The ones driven by an ideological hatred of anything western. I was speaking of Al Qaeda in Iraq.
http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-GCA-iraq/idUSCOL46197920080524?virtualBrandChannel=10112

And although we can't say they have indeed been defeated, they have at least become a very manageable problem. I know they could be hiding in the shadows waiting to take up arms again, but that would just be speculation. We have to go with the facts on the ground and not what the crystal ball is telling us.

 

Wow what a jump 'from being bribed/paid off' to 'jobs' totally different, but leave it to you to make the jump.

A temporary downward trend in deaths is far from winning, it is in the right direction it is not 'winning' Especially when you bring facts into the equation that have NOTHING to do with 'clairvoyance' that you continue to spout time after time.

Wow you actually did say they were defeated, now you're saying they are not so I guess you admit you had lied originally.

It is not mere speculation, there is more 'speculation' in saying a downward trend in violence is 'winning'

I'm sorry but you honestly are one of the worst debaters I have had the displeasure of arguing anything with. No facts, no common grasp of logic, no knowledge on the history of the people, no real knowledge on the back ground of the war itself.

You do realize there are more that 'can not be paid off' than Al Qaeda do you not? Oh yeah I guess you didn't....