70 replies to this topic

[link.the.first]

so how exactly is Bush related to the hurricane?

[Karlos Vandango]

bush hasnt even got off his ass to see the damage himself
plus he hasnt given any aid to irleans eupore and nato had to do that

[crave22]

Quote/end quote: "I don't want them to give me any extra attention that would take them away from their work."

He does have a point. They probably would greet him and make him comfortable. But all he has to do is give them an Executive Order to stop. They probably wouldn't listen, though.

[Ace22]

*Bush* "Uh, where is all my money? Oh yeah, I wasted it on a useless war."

[Hostile]

Blah, blah, blah, Bush caused cancer, created hurricanes, promoted toe jam. You people give him more credit than he's capabilbe of. He's just a mascot. You want to blame someone blame the elitists in congress. They voted for all they shit you blame Bush for.

Who will you blame when Bush is gone? The next idiot who assumes the job of course. Republicat, Demipub, what's the differance? Two cheeks of the same ass. Blah....

[Ace22]

Well, yes. I don't see why people voted for him, though.

Cheney and Rumsfeld are also two prime culprits, not to mention the whole Republican party.

[crave22]

You guys better start getting the PMs ready, 'cuz I sense a flame war a comin'. I can smell it...

Remember what Vanguard always said:

Please keep this stuff under control, and if you must flame keep it to PMs or through messangers.

So flame away! And someone keep me posted. I love watching these things!

[Hostile]

No one is flaming anyone, just chill. Noting wrong with a healthy exchange of idealogy. But you can't really blame the ENTIRE republican party for stuff.

You have to be mature. Lots of republicans voted democrat, and lot of democrats voted republican.

And it should be that way. I'd rather live in a US that votes it's conscience and not it's party. I'd vote democrat in a second if that was what I thought to be a better candidate.

Kerry was not. Let's see the next election. I'm registered republican but I'll damn well vote for who I choose. If it's a democrat so be it.

But I still approve of Bushes actions. At least 60% of them.

[crave22]

Ah, you're from the District.

I know nobody's flaming anybody, it's just most political talks get a little iffy.

I would have to agree with you, though. Bush has made some mistakes, but that's to be expected because nobody's perfect. I'd say I'd give him slightly higher approval rating than 60%, but overall he hasn't been bad.

And that is always how I feel: You don't always have to vote for your party, just who you think is a better leader.

Sorry, I'll stay out now.

Edited by crave22, 07 September 2005 - 02:58 AM.

[Bob]

Congress likely to probe Guard delay:
http://www.usatoday....nal-guard_x.htm

I heard on a CNN interview with Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco this morning, that President Bush offered military troops to her state, and she waited a full 24 hours before giving her ok while she and her staff went over the paperwork.

Nice huh. People are dying in the streets, and she wants to stop and take a time out to read the fine print of a contract.

[link.the.first]

Whoever's in charge down in New Orleans is the problem, not Bush. His job is not to pay for damages, it's to manage the troops down there. So, he did his job sending lots of troops down there. The insurance companies are supposed to be paying, so what Bush needs to do is get on them.

Useless war? Did you read my post earlier? In case you didn't here it is:

Nearly any country can develop intercontinental ballistic missiles without outside help within five years. However, these peope may have a chance to get outside help: Russia. They are starved for cash and someone probably could either buy a missile or steal one under their underpaid security forces. They can do the same thing with their nukes. Now think about the fact that these people think they have to kill us to get to their version of heaven. They don't care if we nuke them back. They would probably nuke us the day they had the capability.

In 1945(ish, I suck with dates), about 60 years ago, we successfully dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan. Terrorists are getting better and better at keeping up with technology. Once they have a big enough bomb, they can rig anything that flies to carry it. There are no SAM sites around LA, Sacramento, or most other major cities to stop them.

Now, if any of the countries around Iraq get nuclear capability, we can fight them in their country instead of ours. They can't really do much there because they can't leave and all they can do is kill one or two soldiers at a time. Imagine if they made it into a populated center in the USA and pulled the detonator ring. There really is no realistic way to stop terrorists once they are in the USA. Now that we have a foothold in the Middle East, we can attack any other countries over there before they get a chance to attack us. A lot of the surrounding countries are populated by people who would nuke us if they could. We couldn't stop them if we didn't have trops over there.

The USA has been mostly about deterrent force. If we didn't nail Iraq when Saddam threatened us, we wouldn't be very effective at deterring attacks or a dictator.