Moral Dilemma
- Thread starter 2fast4u
- Start date
khanmeister
Banned
I love Bush, I just don't like any of the Bush family. ;o
Word to your moms, I came to drop bombs.
Word to your moms, I came to drop bombs.
AlphaWolf
I prey, not pray.
Eagle said:
And when was this?
Eagle said:
So the judge, jury, and prosecutor, the ones who examined their cases in extreme detail, all believed that they were guilty, yet bush who knew nothing compared to the rest of them, should take it upon himself to override their decision every time?
To me the entire "bush executed more people than anybody" topic is just another attempt at splitting hairs over something that has no effect on his job as president. It fits right in line with the 3.2 million jobs lost after bush went into office, which had nothing to do with bush at all, its just something they want to throw out there just to try to get people pissed off at bush for nothing.
Eagle said:
It means exactly what it says it means. Its an issue that is very region specific, so I couldn't possibly have anything to say about it.
Eagle said:
A bulldyke is a very masculine lesbian, and she's raising taxes like a bitch from hell.
Last edited:
AlphaWolf said:
While I wasnt a big fan of Clinton either, he did balance the budget in his first 4 years as president. So overnight? no. In 4 years... yes. Besides, the economy only dropped after he was elected. And I dont want to go into arguing about parties but for the sake of history. Every time a democrat has been elected since Kennedy (possibly before but I havent looked that far back) the economy has risen and every time a republican has been elected since then, the economy has fallen. Take a look for yourself, Nixon, Ford, Regan, Bush, and Bush. Every time, the economy falls into a slump. Jobs are hard to find and the budjet spirals out of control.
khanmeister
Banned
Eagle said:
It's actually a very easy historical lesson that Alphawolf may not have learned in school, or apparently on his own: Laissez Faire doesn't work.*
See:
* "The French Revolution"
* "The American Revolution"
* "The Russian Revolution"
* "The current American Economy"
* "The current Global Economy"
* "Plain Old Common Sense"
* "Any form of Economic Totalitarity failing"
Either that or Alphawolf just plain refuses to acknowledge the fundamental laws of the Universe, or accept a 100% precedent as indicative of a future trend.
Either way, I'm 100% sure that this comment is just going to preclude a deluge of ignorance politically from him or someone else, and that they'll chop it into incoherent pieces in their reply, making some point by point half ass comments they heard on Rush Limbaugh.
Reagan and both Bushes have been the worst financial leaders this country has ever seen. It's interesting that the current guy, who can barely form coherent sentences in public, is also the worst political leader the country has ever seen, and that his "election" was a fraudulent debacle most reminiscent to Hitler's rise to power in pre-WW2 Germany. I especially like the correlations between Republican media FUDD and the Nazi party FUDD and their intolerance towards homosexuals. I wonder why the politically ignorant are so afraid of gays. I'm straight and I say "to each their own". Guess I rambled OT.
olice:
Last edited:
AlphaWolf
I prey, not pray.
Eagle said:
On that same coin, every democrat since kennedy has poorly handled all wartime affairs (as well as worsened our foreign image.) Kennedy/johnson and vietnam (which nixon ended), jimmy carter and several miscelaneous incidents, to include the iranian embassy (which was fixed the instant raegan took office), bill clinton is the reason for what you saw in blackhawk down, and also the reason for the shit with al qaeda, which bush is well on his way towards fixing (funny too, because all democrats were predicting iraq as another vietnam...republicans don't start the proverbial vietnams, never have. :happy: )
Also, you give too much credit to the democrats and the economy, because you are only associating the economic conditions with their time in office. I don't know about the rest, but the economy began a steep decline before bush even took office. Oh, and by the way, without knowing the exact figures, I can say that its a pretty safe bet that johnsons administration didn't lead a good economy like you say, as he raised the hell out of the national deficit for vietnam.
Last edited:
AlphaWolf
I prey, not pray.
EDIT: Actually nevermind, no point in arguing with somebody who will dismiss any fact as this:
/me will just ignore all posts from him in this thread from now on. (the 100% trend of his previous posts just indicates that all future posts will be meaningless ramble anyways)
khanmeister said:
/me will just ignore all posts from him in this thread from now on. (the 100% trend of his previous posts just indicates that all future posts will be meaningless ramble anyways)
Last edited:
AlphaWolf said:
Umm correct me if I'm wrong but didnt Jimmy Carter bring peace to two middle eastern countries that had been at war for generations and said peace is still holding firm? I dont remember the details (ie which countries, what the peace talks were called) but I know I remember studying this.
AlphaWolf said:
Oh I hear this all the time... What this president does is wont take affect until the next president is in office, if this president does poorly then it makes the next one look bad instead of him. Thats hogwash made up by republicans to explain the economic trend during their office.
Eagle said:
EDIT: I will grant you the fact that Kennedy and Johnson could have done a better job in Vietnam, but what did Clinton do again (other than sleep with his secratary, which seems to be the entire nations business)? Ive never seen Black Hawk Down.
Last edited:
AlphaWolf
I prey, not pray.
Eagle said:
Well, heres the biggest one that I mentioned specifically.
Eagle said:
When did I say this? You are basically saying that just because the economy was in good standing at the time of their term in office, they were the ones responsible for making it that way. I am saying that bush had absolutely nothing to do with the economy dropping; it began doing that before he even made it to office, and it was bound to happen even if clinton somehow managed to have a third term.
Eagle said:
Does NAFTA ring a bell? And black hawk down was about an incident in somalia that clinton dragged us into for no reason, and caused the deaths of those soldiers.
Speaking of clinton by the way, for you iraqi war protestors especially, I found an interesting tidbit a while back. It's a good thing that clinton didn't take any action, because the track record of the democrats (including clinton himself) would indicate that iraq would have been another vietnam, whereas bush is handling it just fine, and to put a democrat in charge of the current effort is definitely not something I want to experiment with on the next election day.
Last edited:
khanmeister
Banned
Alchy said:
Let's remember the LARGEST GLOBAL PROTESTS in human history were conducted specifically in order to denounce Bush publically. The guy is so incapable it is astounding. And I won't disagree about democrats sucking just as much as Republicans in foreign policy, however Kennedy was planning to get out of Namm before he got whacked, so that's a special case. My guess is that was part of the reason he got whacked.
Actually from a political/economic standpoint, Kennedy was untouchable. He could have gotten whacked by any of the myriad of bullshit special interest groups he was thumbing his nose to.
Including significant portions of the US military, which has proven to be a large corrupt organization ever since.