quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterGrayWolf60

What I want to know is, if the monthly death toll in Iraq has risen every month of the war, and the "enemies" are larger in numbers, stronger in weaponry, and more sohisticated in ability, how is that war "imporving" or being won?

Also, out of the hundreds of prisoners at Git-Mo, in 5 years, only 10 have been actually charged with crimes? Does this administration take 5+ years to build a case against a prisoner? That's just absurd!

As an Indian (feather, not dot), Bush has scewed us over worse than any previous president in my lifetime (born '60), not that any of them did anything for us anyway.

And what about the fact that the U.S. today has, by FAR, the highest percentage of Americans living below the poverty line ever in our history?

I gew up with "Thik for yourself and question authority." True authority strengthens through being questioned and challanged. Bullshit falls apart when questioned. Bush can't defend a single thing he's done.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

Sternhand4:
It would appear from your rather lengthy post 175 that you approve of torturing prisoners of war. 
No it was intended to show that ( and it does ) that the dems parrot the same issues as Al Qeada
 

That you approve of a president who lies to congress about the necessity to go to war.
Your position again. I support the current operstion in Iraq for a number of reasons.

The stated reasons for going to war in Iraq were that sodamned insane had weapons of mass deception. 
like this intel..
In congressional testimony in March of 2002 Robert Einhorn, Clinton's assistant secretary of state for nonproliferation, summed up the intelligence community's conclusions about Iraq at the end of the Clinton Administration:

"How close is the peril of Iraqi WMD? Today, or at most within a few months, Iraq could launch missile attacks with chemical or biological weapons against its neighbors (albeit attacks that would be ragged, inaccurate, and limited in size). Within four or five years it could have the capability to threaten most of the Middle East and parts of Europe with missiles armed with nuclear weapons containing fissile material produced indigenously—and to threaten U.S. territory with such weapons delivered by nonconventional means, such as commercial shipping containers. If it managed to get its hands on sufficient quantities of already produced fissile material, these threats could arrive much sooner

We have shotgun dick on meet the press when confronted with these lies saying "Our involvement in Iraq is and always was about regime change".
you would prefer Saddam then?

So it would appear that the alligations of lying to congress
If you can prove this then charge em, but again its a leftwing fantasy.
are substanciated by none other than the vice president of the United States and not some left wing wac job ...unless you think that shotgun dick is really a left wing sleeper.
thompson

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sternhand4

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

Sternhand4:
It would appear from your rather lengthy post 175 that you approve of torturing prisoners of war. 
No it was intended to show that ( and it does ) that the dems parrot the same issues as Al Qeada
The demopubs are against torturing prisoners of war and Al Qeada is against torturing prisoners of war so they are ipso facto the same...that would also seem to include most of the world.  Did'nt we sign the Geneva conventions about how to treat prisoners of war???? oh yes bush & co. said that does'nt count.
 

That you approve of a president who lies to congress about the necessity to go to war.
Your position again. I support the current operstion in Iraq for a number of reasons.
No that is your stated position
 
 

The stated reasons for going to war in Iraq were that sodamned insane had weapons of mass deception. 
like this intel..
In congressional testimony in March of 2002 Robert Einhorn, Clinton's assistant secretary of state for nonproliferation, summed up the intelligence community's conclusions about Iraq at the end of the Clinton Administration:

"How close is the peril of Iraqi WMD? Today, or at most within a few months, Iraq could launch missile attacks with chemical or biological weapons against its neighbors (albeit attacks that would be ragged, inaccurate, and limited in size). Within four or five years it could have the capability to threaten most of the Middle East and parts of Europe with missiles armed with nuclear weapons containing fissile material produced indigenously—and to threaten U.S. territory with such weapons delivered by nonconventional means, such as commercial shipping containers. If it managed to get its hands on sufficient quantities of already produced fissile material, these threats could arrive much sooner
Not sure what your point is since this has been shown to be false.  Or is it that you have this knee jerk reaction of red vs. blue thingie...I am on record in numerous places pointing out the disingenuosness of both the demopubs and the republicrats.

We have shotgun dick on meet the press when confronted with these lies saying "Our involvement in Iraq is and always was about regime change".
you would prefer Saddam then?

So it would appear that the alligations of lying to congress
If you can prove this then charge em, but again its a leftwing fantasy.
What part of the qoute of the vice president did you not understand?  Or is he part of the left wing fantasy.
 

are substanciated by none other than the vice president of the United States and not some left wing wac job ...unless you think that shotgun dick is really a left wing sleeper.
thompson

There were a lot of reasons to invade Iraq but I think that would be a new thread, you want to start it?
No it is so much more fun pointing out when  poltroonian  armchair warriors like yourself   have both feet in their mouth at the same time.
thompson

quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn

Well, those are pretty questionable examples.
I would submit that the rhetoric of the far left is very similar to that promoted by our arab friends.
I guess the word 'fertile' means different things to dofferent people.
Read some of the leftwing sites and blogs. If I was to recruit for Al Qeada Id start with people that share a similar mind set. 
I'm not the kind of person that trashes our leaders, no matter the party, seeing that as damaging to the system ... but at the same time, I'm really starting to wonder what our President really is:
 
Fiscal conservative?
My opinion, not as much as I'd like. But people from both party's get captured  by the system.
World leader?
If you mean not governing by opinion polls, and taking a stand for what he believes is right, then yes Bush is a leader.
Does it mean that mistakes havent been made. No..
But its always easier to look back, 20/20 is a hindsite thing.
 
Able to work with the other party?
Bush had a good reputation for this in Texas.
I believe that washington is a different animal. But that work together issue is a 2 way street. I don't see anything from the loyal opposition that resembles it.
A big lesson was learnd by Bush sr, when he compromised on the taxes issue. Remember the read my lips line that he was beat up with?
Many conservatives and republicans do.
Its that spirit in washington, same as the stuff here, we elected "monkeyboy" and as a current resident of " dumbfuckistan".
Would you work with people that style of mind set? 
 
Now, I see you are more aggressive, having basically atempted to make a link between Democrats and terrorist organizations ...
No I just went looking after you guys took it literally
I guess you don't have the same mindset as me towards damaging the system ... but, I would like to extend the olive branch and ask you, exactly what President Bush has done, that earns him your support?

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle


"I had hoped that we would see vouchers for education, and federal support for the charter school initiatives."

That's not the role of elections.

That's what Amendments to the Constitution are for.

If it's important enough to spend taxdollars on, it's important enough to Amend the Constitution.

Not important enough for an Amendment? Not important enough to spend federal taxes on.

So I guess we're back to local control of the schools. Which is, Constitutionally, as it should be.

Excepting that Socialist "No Child Left Behind" bullshit.

And Charter Schools suck. You wanna prove the Free Market has a place? Spend your OWN MONEY opening up a PRIVATE SCHOOL, and stop sucking away taxdollars for corporate welfare.

IF your idea is good, you'll be successful, both financially and in promoting education. If not, why waste taxdollars supporting a business model which SHOULDN'T survive?

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

There is not debate about schools. It's not the feds fucking job, and those who want it should use the proper process, of Amending the Constitution to delegate additional authority from The People and The States.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sternhand4

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

There is not debate about schools. It's not the feds fucking job, and those who want it should use the proper process, of Amending the Constitution to delegate additional authority from The People and The States.

You dont amend the constitution for every policy decision

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

You can't make the Policy Decision until the authority is delegated by Amendment.
There are other ways to make policy, In this case
Unlike the educational system of most other countries, education in the United States is highly decentralized, and the federal government and Department of Education are not heavily involved in determining curriculum or educational standards. This job of centralization and coordination has been left to large private educational foundations. Rather, the primary function of the United States Department of Education is to formulate federal funding programs involving education and to enforce federal educational laws involved with privacy and civil rights. The quality of educational institutions and their degrees is maintained through an informal private process known as accreditation which the Department of Education has no direct public jurisdictional control over.


That 9th and 10th Amendments are pretty clear. If it's not expressly delegated, it ain't their job.
Its a cabinet level position at this time, they have a right to set policy
That's WHY there's an amendment process.

quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn

 My foster parents are extremely politically active, one in each party (which makes evening meals a lot of fun), and both agree that when President Bush made this claim, he was very much seeing things the way he wanted to see them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn

I would have been interested in hearing what similarities you found between what Democrats have to say and what terror groups had to say, but when you mentioned left wing blogs, I became much less interested. You can find a blog that says anything, if you look hard enough. It proves nothing, in my view.
Your opinion, just like mine, but you are unwilling to look. I had posted previously quotes from leaders in the party ( DEM) that parrot Al qeada positions but you didnt like that either.
Conversely, show me a rightwing anything blog politician that mirrors an Al qeada position, ( ok not Pat Buchanan, lol)
 
We will have to agree to not agree on the "governing by opinion polls", "doing what he thinks it right" issue. I fall solidly in the camp that we should be electing people to do what the American people tell them to do. 
Under this theory we would still be segregated.
 
What President Bush believes is right, is worth roughly 1/276,000,000th, in my view. He is one citizen, and we didn't elect him king. ( rhetoric)
You dont elect kings, and we  ( the people )didn't
 This by the way, goes for all leaders, not just Republicans. I have no idea how governing by polls got to be a bad thing.
Slavery and other popular institutions have been reformed by taking a less than popular idea and championing it.
 
The ability to work with the other party in Texas, is perhaps a point President Bush made, that should have been looked at more closely. I suppose you have noticed that I live in Texas, and as such, tend to know a lot of Texans. My foster parents are extremely politically active, one in each party (which makes evening meals a lot of fun), and both agree that when President Bush made this claim, he was very much seeing things the way he wanted to see them. The reality is that he tended to gravitate towards issues that already had wide support from both parties,
This is how bi-partisanship works find common ground and work on areas that you can agree on.
 and then claim to have been the broker of the deal. You might also note that powerful Republicans in Texas, have tended to put distance between themselves and the White House
 
When? during the last election cycle.. I understand that  Its like saying during the Clinton Admistration's scandals he was avoided by party faithful in close races.
 
, long before that became all the rage. Sen. Kay, Ron Paul and Gov. Perry are far from strong Bush supporters, and as a Texan, I assure you that all three are so popular here that they didn't need to distance from the President to get stay in office.  President Bush may claim to have worked with both parties in texas,
I wasn't taking just his word..
In Austin, Bush – who replaced popular Democratic Gov. Ann Richards in 1995 – skillfully nurtured personal links to the Democrats who mattered most in the Texas Capitol, led by then-Lt. Gov. Bob Bullock, a crusty Democratic warhorse who had been around state government since shortly after the earth cooled.
In "A Charge to Keep," his 2000 book, Bush recalled the late Bullock as "frequently outrageous, sometimes crass, often funny, always cunning."
The two men forged a strong relationship, with Bush – a president's son – yielding to Bullock as something of a mentor. Bush knew this: Nothing would, nothing could happen without Bullock's OK.
The relationship could not have gone better for Bush. Bullock, with something akin to the pride of a father, was among the first to talk about a Bush presidential candidacy. In 1998, much to the chagrin of the Democrats, Bullock endorsed Bush for re-election as governor.
Democratic State Rep. Pete Laney, who was speaker while Bush was governor, also became a Bush friend and ally on some issues.
Bush chose Laney to introduce him in December 2000 for the victory speech after the U.S. Supreme Court ended the post-election courthouse battle over the outcome of the race.
"The spirit of cooperation I have seen in this hall is what is needed in Washington," Bush told the nation that day. "It is the challenge of our moment."
http://www.coxwashington.com/news/content/reporters/stories/2006/11/11/BC_BUSH_TEXAS_DEMS09_COX.html
 
but certainly isn't getting wide support from his own party, in this state.
 
President Bush is a very skilled politician, in my view. I don't share the opinion of most other liberals, that Presient Bush is somehow stupid or inept. I think he is smart ... very smart, and knows how to fool people.
So we have to "fool people' to advance or ideas, nope no bias there..
 
My thinking is you should look carefully at your arguments above, and consider what percentage of them have real facts behind them ... not opinion, but actual, clear, unquestioned facts.
Your facts are what?  I havent seen you cite one yet  just your/ family opinion
If the answer is none, you might consider if you are really following the man you think you are.
I advocate positions, I havent found a candidate that mirrors all of mine yet. But you have to vote for someone that comes the closest
 
Respectfully Submitted ...

quote:

If you mean not governing by opinion polls, and taking a stand for what he believes is right, then yes Bush is a leader.