I don't hate Bush as a person, I admire him because it shows he chose the right people to surrond him to be where he is now i.e. president. However i do not agee with a number of his decisions 1) Capital Punishment: I believe that life is sacred, so no one has a right to kill someone else whatever the reasons. Plus i cannot imagine how he can be a Christian since the main rule of a Christian is "do not kill" 2) Global warming: Ok there might not be any conclusive proof of global warming and there will never be since we do not have the data of thousands of years, but why risk. I am sure that emissions by industrialized countries are causing a negative effect in this world. 3) Cowboy attitude: He must respect other countries more. E.g. the space plan. You cannot expect other countries to follow the advice the President of the USA gives, if he does not practice what he preaches. 4) Economy: Bush's policies resulted in a huge deficit and trade balance. The next generations will pay dearly for the current deficit. 5) I do not follow American politics much but it is obvious that he is lobbied heavily by corporations. Giving a tax cut to the rich. I am still trying to figure out the benefits to the USA. If someone knows please tell me. 6) Use of fear: As soon as someone voices opposition, he uses terrorism and the most citizens of America react in fear. 7) Torture: He violates Geneva conventions by torturing people in a country which does not abide by the Geneva conventions. He might as well not abide by the convention if he does not agree with it. That's all i can think of for now.
No buddy, it's Mark Riley from the fantastic "Mark and Lard" show that used to be on Radio 1 here in the UK a couple of years ago. http://www.bbc.co.uk/6music/shows/brain_surgery/index.shtml
No it's "do not murder" murder being to kill without justification. The NIV which is made in 1966 in zip code 60606 changed it to "kill". In the same chapter God tells the jews to stone murderers. Research before you tell as an authority. And read King James instead of NIV. God says to stone murderers in the same chapter, so don't be ignorant and miscite the bible. Even the devil can cite scripture for his purpose. Another ignorant statement. Cars only emit CO2 the same thing you do when you breathe. The 500 million cars in the world emit LESS CO2 than the 6 billion humans. The 6 billion humans release 12 billion tons I believe and the cars only 10 billion. So if you're an idiot scientist who actually thinks CO2 causes it, then you should advocate population control for humans. The reality is it's the energy charge to those CO2 from cars that is DIFFERENT from humans (read: negative energy, bad energy, you get it...) when we breathe. That in turn is released into the atmosphere and when the CO2 is converted to O3 and causes the "heat" that we are supposedly experiencing. However the hippies don't think it's cuz of a spiritual nature. I never heard Al Gore say "there is a hidden spiritual cost". e=mc2 all mass is a state of energy, aka we're all energy (ain't that spiritual), it can just only shift from good or evil... err I mean positive or negative. They don't understand equivolency. What, like Ronald Reagan? The cowboy attitude works AS LONG AS THE PEOPLE GO ALONG WITH IT. We can only lose these wars if the american people lose resolve. Bush sucks at public speaking and has no confidence, so it's a tough one. Reagan atleast could convince the frenchy democrats to go along with half of his plans or atleast to respect him. Like Reagan, again. Reagan cut taxes but couldn't cut spending because he was in the Cold War, and needed money to fight the war so he can't veto the bills where they tack on earmarks. Bush is in a greater war against Islamic fundamentalism, which is far tougher than the soviets. It's like Nazism except instead of a man telling them to kill, muslims believe it is god. Far worse mind you. Wow, do you even pay taxes? I mean seriously. Child income tax credit went to EVERYBODY, even my struggling $30k a year cousin got about $1,000 in relief cuz of that. Democrats will raise taxes for EVERYONE. They did it in the past. They used to raise taxes for anyone above $20k a year. You're either too young to know, or too forgetful to remember.
I've been around for a while and have voted in many elections Its astonishing but following 9 11 when Bush had a united America to lead plus the backing of countries around the world, including countries who one wouldn't normally consider our friends he has squandered most of that. This may sound like Acea....but it is not the same type of comment: He is the most devisive president in the US since Nixon. He does it purposefully, connecting Democrats withf increases in terrorism. His comments lead his followers to voice the same type of ignorant divisiveness. here is a fact to chew on; 48% of the voters in the Democratic primary for the Senate in Connecticut voted for Lieberman. 48%. That is significant. How funny. Lieberman is now more supportive of the President's policies on Iraq than a growing number of Republicans. Yet the cr@p out of the President's mouth and out of his followers labels and ties Democrats to terrrorism. That is the definition of divisiveness. It is misleading and leads to major national problems. Even some of the senior neo-cons that were behind the war against Iraq have separated from Bush and his administration. They see it as incompetent. Even as they initially pushed the strategy they now see its implementation from the top down as horrendous. Beyond mislabeling opponents of his persepective as terrorist lovers, he has probably lied to his own supporters. He keeps repeating we are there to win and finsih the job. Bush and Rumsfeld went into the war with a small number of troops. Military leaders have had continuous problems with this from day one. They are mostly stifled in their responses. Yet it will be difficult or nearly impossible to "win" or "finish the job" with insufficient forces. We would be lucky to get there with Bushes so called plan. And all this from a guy that doesn't hate him. Imagine if I hated Bush.
I understand where you're coming from. I dislike Bush myself. I don't like the fact that Paul Wolfowitz is secretary of war and president of the world bank. this has happened many times though, John J Mcloy, was sec of war and world bank prez, also sat on Warren Commission, also Robert McNamara, who was sec of war and world bank prez and JFK's sec of defense. I know it all reaks and generally politics suck, because there are right-wing liberals (nazis) and left-wing liberals (commies) and the hippy conservatives and religious conservatives are getting screwed and pitted against each other when they should be best buds. But Democrats PLAY INTO what Bush says about them. I know they have to be opposition party so naturally if Bush is against terrorism, they have to be for it. It's just because that's the role left to fill. If they agree with Bush they can't defeat bush at the elections.
Dude I think you are crazy as shit house rat, You still havn't explained your first bat shit crazy statments on how not executing people is "evil" the vast majority of crimes which occur in the US are victimless drug crimes, which probably shouldn't even be crimes anyway Are you one of those crazy paranoid people who wishes they could live in facist state where everyone who breaks an rule gets put to death or something. Who the hell wants to be like Japan, thats like ant culture over there. child tax credit is one of the biggest vote buying scams ever in my opinion, people who have kids shoudl be taxed more
I'd say Japan doesn't have crime because it's almost only Japanese. And from what I heard, and the people I've met, they're probably some of the most civilized and good people out there. Granted my grandfather probably didn't like them a lot. World war II.
First, for a liberal you're awfully rude and elitist. I was merely mentioning that Japan has the lowest crime rate BECAUSE of their harsh punishments. I was proving the correlation between harsh punishments and less crimes committed. Democrats want less punishment, which will definitely encourage more crime. As for "victimless drug crimes" odd you're against the 3,000 men who voluntarily served and died to free Iraq, yet for illegal drugs which killed over 30,000 US citizens during that same 3 year war period. What great cause did those kids die for? Why won't you unify to help fight the drug war and save those 30,000 kids lives? Right and further perpetuate the declining population rate of whites in the face of rapidly growing muslim populations. Smart, real smart.
or maybe because, there are cultural differences, I don't know if you are aware of this but we have more people per capita locked up in the US then any other industrilized nation. total red herring, or is that strawman arguement, there are so many things wrong with what you said I don't even know where to begin soldiers killed in Iraq don't really have much to do with like drug overdoes over here, at least there is no correlation I can see yeah we should become baby machines for future race/religious wars Sounds great, go knock up some of your neighbors kids for white cause buddy, don't let your mom find your kkk suit when she is cleaning your room
I agree, most of what you have said in other threads is as moonbatty and it gets. You seem to talk out your... In an event, since Bush took us to Afganistan, herion production and exportation is up what, 700 or 900 percent?
Did I ever once say bush was helping us fight the drug war? No, cuz he's not. Bush could shut down the border RIGHT now, real easy, and save those 30,000 kids a years lives. I'm just shocked that the same people that moan over the 3,000 voluntary soldiers who died in Iraq to give their people freedom, don't care at all about the 30,000 meaningless, preventable ILLEGAL drug deaths during the same timespan. That doesn't count the nearly 1 million a year from legal drugs, like alcohol, cigarrettes, and prescription drugs.
My opinion of why America has crime is two fold: 1)Maybe some of our laws are unnessary or done incorrectly. 2)Whether this sounds political correct or not, races are not sterotypes, but some races have higher percentage of crime. It could be how these children are raised by their parent(s), the circumstances of their upbring, the culture that surrounds them...etc, etc. If America was all white, crime as a percentage would be lower. If America was latin, it would be a bit higher. If America was Black, it would be even higher. Now these aren't suggestions that every black or latin is a criminal...that's obviously not true. What is true is that the likelyhood is higher in their respective races. To me, number 2 is much more of an important issue. You can go to states (e.g New Hampshire), and they have absolutely the same sort of laws on drugs and whatnot. The crime is incredibly low...The population is 97% white, thus from my assertion it's less likely to have crime. It exists, but there's some factors/reasons why crime is lower in higher white populations (which I don't throroughly account for). This doesn't always ring true, but it's an honest truth from what I've seen statistically. Not pc, but pc is worthless.
reminds me of something I heard once: We have millions of laws on the books to uphold ten commandments.
And that is because the religious right is important to please for votes. So rather then enforce the laws we have, Bush and the likes make new ones.
yeah, that sounds pretty racist, is really about race or more about income? new hamshire also has a pretty high average income doesn't it?
oh, by Bush and his like do you mean every American thats ever voted since the inception of the country? cause, you do know.. it's Americans that make and vote for these laws right? You mean to imply the religious right want and enforce things like abortion?