Print

[SadSammy]

Bush has made absolutely $0 in Iraqi oil.

I think if he was making "millions of dollars," we'd all know about it and not just a select few from this message board.

[brahm2]

I said $50 for a vote...thats a pretty good deal considering you only have to write a checkmark on a ballot. If that takes you 5 seconds, you are technically being paid like $36000 per hour, so...i dunno

plus thats illegal to pay for votes anyways. ah well.

edit- make that 15+ dummies

[Drunken Uncle]

QUOTE (brahm2 @ Aug 30 2003, 06:08 AM)

No politition is going to pay anyone $50,000 for their vote so the 8 or 9 dummies who voted that are either 1) tooo commited to a sheltered political ideology against Mr. Bush, or 2) just plain dumb

thats a pretty bold statement to say someones ideology that is against what Bush stands for is just plain dumb....especially considering you spelled "politician" wrong.  


Seriously though....fuck Bush, hes scum....but then again, fuck all the democrats running in 2004.

[Wong Hung Lo]

QUOTE (Juggerbot @ Aug 29 2003, 07:51 PM)

Bush is a fucking stupid peice of shit bombing the middle east (as I am from there), she should fucking drop dead!

Most of the bombing going on in the middle east is done by muslims. And they always love killing school children on busses and innocent people.

George W. Bush has my vote. He doesn't back down to those bastards. If Gore was president, he would be kissing their asses and asking them to please don't do bad things to us anymore.

Here's a good site for you to visit. I came accross it yesterday. It sure did put a smile on my face.


http://allahsucks.com/index.asp  

[Drunken Uncle]

what an ignorant fucking website.

[SadSammy]

johnnobts:  Were you responding to the comment I just made?  If so, I was only responding to the comment made earlier in this topic by someone else.

...


It seems like people look at Bush as just a money-grubbing oil man.  I don't understand why either because he is the president and he's not going to make more money from killing Saddam.  Yet, people like Tim Robbins can go to the Academy Awards and hold signs that say "No War For Oil".

It makes no sense whatsoever that people accuse Bush for wanting to take over Iraq just for their oil.  Because of President Bush, the Iraqi people are FAR better off now than they were when Saddam was still in power.  Bush may have had to go to war, but the removal of Saddam is a key component if you ever want to have peace in the middle east.

Saddam's a ruthless killer than kills his own people and we got rid of him (or at least his regime).  People had to die for it but Saddam's henchmen, "Chemical Ali", was always testing deadly chemicals on the Iraqi people.  So it is very, very clear that the removal of Saddam Hussein was an excellent choice for the President.

And as for our own men, they were the ones who chose to enlist in the army.  I remember seeing a man on T.V. who's son was killed in Iraq and he held his picture up and accused president Bush of causing his son to die.  I know he had to be emotional but c'mon...his son enlisted!!!

Bottom Line....

I'm only a highschool student and I've never taken any college courses in economics or world politics, but it's common sense that someone as evil as Saddam Hussein can not exist in the world today.  He had to be removed.  He was a threat to the U.S. and a ruthless dictator to his own people.  They didn't want him around but they were forced to act like they supported him.  And since the U.S. is a country that promotes peace, there is no reason why we shouldn't help a country like Iraq the way we did.  I know that both U.S. and Iraqi people died in the effort to remove Saddam but if Saddam wasn't removed from power, there would be an even greater chance of more Iraqi people and U.S. people dying because Saddam has proven himself to be that evil.

-----------------------------------------------

P.S. - Has evil is Saddam?  Well, he had his daughters' husbands murdered.

How much do the Iraqi people fear Saddam?  His own daughters' were on T.V. just a couple months ago talking about how great their dad is.  Even though he had their husbands murdered.

[Juggerbot]

I don't know which of your stupid arguements to quote. He's hasn't gotten a dimes worth of oil? That's the stupidest thing I've heard yet. Iraq has approx. 3 Trillion dollars worth of oil, and who knows how much he'll get, once he's done killing the Iraqis, then he'll go skinny dipping in the oil.

All your presidents have been ignorant. Clinton bombed a 'weapon factory' in Iraq, and you know what, it turned out to be making asprin, and luckly for all the dying Iraqis, they got to go through a painful death. Even children.

So fuck bush. I don't know how that evil fucker lives with himself.

[Sir Auros]

QUOTE (Drunken Uncle @ Aug 30 2003, 12:59 PM)

what an ignorant fucking website.

I'll second that...Wong Hung Lo's yer typical right-wing idiot, so something like that would make him happy...it makes normal human beings sick. Shit like that is just as intolerant and dangerous as the muslim extremists who've bastardized the religion and have given all muslims a bad name now.

Bush's education plans are horrible and they're set up so that the rich, white suburban schools continue to get more funding and any rural or inner-city school gets less and less.

He's done nothing to help the economy, and like every Republican leader since Nixon, he's increased the deficit. Yes, the party that claims that they're against big spending is the party that caused us to have our first deficit in over 100 years and they're continuing it with their tax cuts to the wealthiest members of society and both increased military and bureaucratic spending. Reagan's administration was the biggest red-tape government ever and yet one of the party's major platforms is small government and less spending.  

Bush has no foreign relations skills and if you think the war in Iraq was motivated because we actually gave a shit about those people, you're dead wrong. We helped create the situation there and when Saddam was gassing his own people, we didn't care because he was on our side. Also, there are plenty of South American countries that are in worse shape (often thanks to the US' efforts during the Cold War to keep the countries from going communist) that we will probably never do a damn thing about.

Finally, Bush is far less trustworthy than Clinton where it counts. It's one thing to try and cover up a sex scandal, it's another to fabricate evidence to go to war...where are the WMD's? Bush also lied about Iraq planning on selling weapons to another nation as part of the reasoning behind the war. Remember the State of the Union this year?

He's not even a good leader, he's just been glorified because he was the muppet in the White House during the 9/11 attacks and then started a war about it...that's about all he's "accomplished" during his presidency. Regardless of one's opinion of either party, I find it very hard to believe that any person in office at the time would just take the terrorist attacks sitting down, so had Gore won, he'd have done something about it, but I'd like to think he'd be a bit more diplomatic about it.

Finally, I think several of us are choosing the $50,000 option because there is no, "No amount could make me vote for him," option.

Edit - Oh yeah, and while Bush may not have personally made money out of the invasion, guess who's former company was the very first to win a bid for rebuilding Iraq? Here's a hint, it's a company a certain vice president with a heart problem has connections to...

[SadSammy]

I can't say I'm 100% certain about this...but I'd be willing to bet that this company that's rebuilding Iraq helped fund some of Bush and Cheney's presidential campaign.  Which, if that is the case, it's only normal for a president to help pay back that company in some way, shape, or form.  Like I said, I'm no scholar on the subject, but even my 11th grade Government book said that one of the top priorities for a president is giving back to the people who helped fund his campaign.  If he didn't give back to them, he could possibly lose their support in the next election.

[johnnobts]

bob, good point.  I'm sick of presidents either taking credit for or getting flack over the economy.  the economy is not bush's fault, just like the robust economy wasn't b/c of anything clinton did.  its called a "global economy" boys and girls, and when the world's markets suffer, so do ours.  jeez...  

the only way a person could say "the president's screwing up the economy" is if he actually had the power to do it...  and guess what?  he doesn't...

[johnnobts]

"Finally, Bush is far less trustworthy than Clinton where it counts."  

Listen, if your own wife can't trust him (and she still doesn't), WHY do we trust him so much?  They'd get a divorce in a split-second if they could, but then they'd lose their immunity not to testify against each other and they'd both be doing 5-10 in white-collar prison...  that's why.  

hillary in 2004.  as sure a way for the democrats to lose as if the "reverend" al sharpton won the nomination...

[Mechazilla]

Much like here at X-S

War = Partiotism = Boosted Economy = Inflation = Recession.

By the way Clinton is great, he did an awesome job in Kosovo, and lets not forget that "weapons factory" (cough* asprin) in Sudan.

And yes all the Dems, this year are fags, Bush-Naysaying Fags.

[Sir Auros]

QUOTE (Booger Bob @ Aug 30 2003, 02:51 PM)

QUOTE Finally, Bush is far less trustworthy than Clinton where it counts I almost shit myself, damn you should be a comedian QUOTE He's done nothing to help the economy If you knew a damn thing about economics you would know the president has absolutley no contol over the economy. No matter what a president says he has little to do with fixing the economy its just the natural business cycle. DUMBASS (i got that quote from red forman of that 70s show)

Wow, what excellent points you made. You said some stuff without backing it up and then called me a name. You're just fucking brilliant aren't you?

Yes, I understand that presidents don't have a lot of control over the economy, but there are things they can do to help it along or hurt it. Remember Reagonomics? That sure as hell hurt the economy more than it ever helped it.

As for Clinton being more trustworthy, if you guys honestly think that his cheating on his wife and trying to cover it up is actually worse than fabricating evidence to start a war, then your heads are off in the clouds somewhere...

[brahm2]

QUOTE (Drunken Uncle @ Aug 30 2003, 02:30 AM)

QUOTE (brahm2 @ Aug 30 2003, 06:08 AM) No politition is going to pay anyone $50,000 for their vote so the 8 or 9 dummies who voted that are either 1) tooo commited to a sheltered political ideology against Mr. Bush, or 2) just plain dumb thats a pretty bold statement to say someones ideology that is against what Bush stands for is just plain dumb....especially considering you spelled "politician" wrong.   Seriously though....fuck Bush, hes scum....but then again, fuck all the democrats running in 2004.

typos happen...a lot

basically i was trying to say anyone who seriously expects $50,000 for ONE VOTE in the US presidential race is dumb. (i say seriously, because most of the voters for 50k are probably jokers)

[SadSammy]

Booger Bob and other Bush Supporters:

It's great to see other people who see things the way I do.  I think it's a shame that many Americans seem more concerned with having more money than giving freedom to people in the middle east that have never experienced it.