Liberals crack me up...

What still amazes me about Liberals is they will vote for anyone that is not Bush. The Liberal media has brain washed people so bad that they honestly believe Bush is bad for this country... Liberals are willing to put one of our weakest politians into office just so Bush is out. Of course it means nothing that he turned the economy around, while cutting taxes. Or the fact that he's not afraid to stand up to the special interest groups.
Perhaps that is what the Liberals hate the most: Liberals are all about their civil rights, however when it comes to not agreeing with them about abortion, gay marriage, or affirmative action, well then your just an evil person who should be sent to sensitivity training. I like to call those classes what they really are: concentration camps. Your rights do not mean a thing as long as you disagree with them. Of course I am not too happy with Republicans either right now, because the fact of the matter is we have judges re-writing laws and they should be arrested. The Mayor of San Franciso did something that was blatantly against the law, but no one arrested him. God forbid some Mayor from Texas says it OK to buy automatic weapons... You know what would happen then....

I truly believe if Stalin or Hitler ran for office they would vote for them as opposed to Bush, because after all they were freedom fighters just like al-Sadr....

Ahhhhh, I feel better now....

Apparently Paul Wolfwitz has been brainwashed by the liberal media.

"A Pentagon architect of the Iraq war said yesterday the Defense Department underestimated its enemy, failing to predict how resilient Saddam Hussein and his government would be.

In a rare admission of prewar miscalculations, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz also said it's impossible to say how long a large U.S. military force will have to stay in Iraq after political power is handed to Iraqis on June 30.
Answering a question about miscalculations, Wolfowitz said: "I would say of all the things that were underestimated, the one that almost no one that I know of predicted ... was to properly estimate the resilience of the regime that had abused this country for 35 years."

The Seattle Times via AP

I'm not getting into a lot of the detail of the rant(s) here. I just want to say that as far as underestimating, or not getting things perfect, or getting things wrong - who cares? It's war. It happens.


Respond to errors, underestimations, fubars, and move on.

Mistakes are a GIVEN in war. Harping on them and nitpicking errors (from both sides) is nothing but politics.

I'm not saying that war is perfect. My point is that I've been hearing much rhetoric from uberconservatives about how peachy everything is in Iraq and the infallibility of our fearless leaders.

In an interesting departure from Bush's "Never Admit You're Wrong About Anything" dogma (and denial), they've finally let their chief underling start to admit they screwed up the postwar "plan."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [AK]Devil_Dog

Of course it means nothing that he turned the economy around, while cutting taxes.

---

At what cost though?

Honestly, I hate G.W. I will agree he has done some good for this country, but he has done some bad as well (some will say that what Clinton did in office led to the decline of this economy, I would argue otherwise.. Clinton was the best president this country has seen in a while. In fact, if he were to use the loop hole in the system he could run for president again this year and win in a landslide, though the landslide is purely my prediction.)

Long story short, I want Bush out of the office.. Kerry isn't going to get my vote either, though I do claim to be a Democrat.. I just don't think Kerry has what it takes to be President.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [AK]Slaughter

At what cost though?

Honestly, I hate G.W. I will agree he has done some good for this country, but he has done some bad as well (some will say that what Clinton did in office led to the decline of this economy, I would argue otherwise.. Clinton was the best president this country has seen in a while. In fact, if he were to use the loop hole in the system he could run for president again this year and win in a landslide, though the landslide is purely my prediction.)

Long story short, I want Bush out of the office.. Kerry isn't going to get my vote either, though I do claim to be a Democrat.. I just don't think Kerry has what it takes to be President.

---

If Clinton had been the best president we had in awhile then this country would be like Kosovo. The Republicans had enough control in congress to mitigate the damage he could do to the country with his socialistic agenda. We would be suffering the same ills that Germany and France have paying for all their "social" programs. He still managed to sell military technology to China, sold illegal access for contributions, committed perjury, Sold pardons for contributions, Fired federal workers to give positions to party friends, and who knows what really happened in Arkansas.

Kerry has his fathers Communist genes and it shows.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [AK]Slaughter

At what cost though?

Honestly, I hate G.W. I will agree he has done some good for this country, but he has done some bad as well (some will say that what Clinton did in office led to the decline of this economy, I would argue otherwise.. Clinton was the best president this country has seen in a while. In fact, if he were to use the loop hole in the system he could run for president again this year and win in a landslide, though the landslide is purely my prediction.)

Long story short, I want Bush out of the office.. Kerry isn't going to get my vote either, though I do claim to be a Democrat.. I just don't think Kerry has what it takes to be President.

---

No offense, Slaughter, but that post didn't make much sense. Perhaps if you itemize the things you don't like about Bush it'd be easier to see where you're coming from. Right now it sounds a lot like a popularity contest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [AK]Slaughter

Long story short, I want Bush out of the office.. Kerry isn't going to get my vote either, though I do claim to be a Democrat.. I just don't think Kerry has what it takes to be President.

---

Except that we have reality to deal with. Only two men can win the Presidency, Kerry or Bush. This means that you realistically have three choices, vote for Kerry, vote for Bush, or don't vote at all.

Regardless of your decision, the third "choice" is reprehensible to me. I'm not saying this is what you'll do, I just don't recommend it. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [AK]Sonic Boom

I'm not saying that war is perfect. My point is that I've been hearing much rhetoric from uberconservatives about how peachy everything is in Iraq and the infallibility of our fearless leaders.

In an interesting departure from Bush's "Never Admit You're Wrong About Anything" dogma (and denial), they've finally let their chief underling start to admit they screwed up the postwar "plan."

---

Seems to me you're overly interested in an admission of fault for things large and small. What would anyone gain by such and admission? It'd weaken him as a candidate and it wouldn't serve any purpose for the people of the US.

It may serve as a fake comfy moral blanket for those anxious to say "I told you so!" but you aren't one of those.

So I don't get it.

Oh and in response to your response to Slaughter... I didn't vote in the Bush/Gore election. I didn't like either of them, and I was lazy so I was in about the same boat as Slaughter. I'll definitely be voting this year. Keeping Kerry out of office is that important. He would be a disaster.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [AK]Squidly

Seems to me you're overly interested in an admission of fault for things large and small. What would anyone gain by such and admission? It'd weaken him as a candidate and it wouldn't serve any purpose for the people of the US.

It may serve as a fake comfy moral blanket for those anxious to say "I told you so!" but you aren't one of those.

So I don't get it.

Oh and in response to your response to Slaughter... I didn't vote in the Bush/Gore election. I didn't like either of them, and I was lazy so I was in about the same boat as Slaughter. I'll definitely be voting this year. Keeping Kerry out of office is that important. He would be a disaster.

---

Damn right I'm interested in admission of fault for things large and small, especially from the President. Denying fault is also denying responsibility. In order to fix something you've screwed up, you first have to admit you've screwed it up.

As far as the "fake comfy moral blanket," don't patronize me.

If you didn't vote in the last election, then shame on you. I will always find one's choice to not participate in the Democratic process reprehensible. I'll definitely be voting this year, too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [AK]Sonic Boom

Apparently Paul Wolfwitz has been brainwashed by the liberal media.

"A Pentagon architect of the Iraq war said yesterday the Defense Department underestimated its enemy, failing to predict how resilient Saddam Hussein and his government would be.

In a rare admission of prewar miscalculations, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz also said it's impossible to say how long a large U.S. military force will have to stay in Iraq after political power is handed to Iraqis on June 30.
Answering a question about miscalculations, Wolfowitz said: "I would say of all the things that were underestimated, the one that almost no one that I know of predicted ... was to properly estimate the resilience of the regime that had abused this country for 35 years."

The Seattle Times via AP

---

I'm not talking about admiting we made a mistake. What I am talking about is blatant media propaganda. If you don't think CNN really stands for Communist News Network, then you live in a closet. How about 60 minutes. The person who is incharge there is personally responsible for Kennedy winning the election over Nixon in 1960. He purposely showed Nixon everytime he wiped his brow. But, let's talk about here and now. To think that the majority of Iraqi people are not happy that we are not there is ludicrous. Also, you never see how Bush truly cares about the people of this country, and you never will. The Liberal Media paints one single picture. Why doesn't CNN show Marines handing food and water to children? Why doesn't 60 minutes interview people who have been over there and know that we are helping everywhere we can???
I will tell you why, because the treasonous dogs who call themselves Americans hide behind this thing called the 1st Amendment saying we can do anything we want. Well guess what, there is a line, and they have crossed it time and time again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [AK]Sonic Boom

Damn right I'm interested in admission of fault for things large and small, especially from the President. Denying fault is also denying responsibility. In order to fix something you've screwed up, you first have to admit you've screwed it up.

As far as the "fake comfy moral blanket," don't patronize me.

If you didn't vote in the last election, then shame on you. I will always find one's choice to not participate in the Democratic process reprehensible. I'll definitely be voting this year, too.

---

RE: Blanket - Reread the sentence. I wasn't referring to you.
RE: Me Not voting - Sorry.
RE: Admission of fault - First off, demanding it is nothing more than a ticky-tack partisan game - of the sort you claim to be against. Admissions of faults don't have to be public. Whenever we change our course of action in this war, you can bet that somewhere behind the scenes an assessment of effectiveness of strategy, errors, and refinement of our plans is taking place.

Expecting the President to come out during a war and say "Well we did this wrong - sorry. We did that wrong - sorry" is unrealistic, counterproductive to the war effort, and would frankly be unpresidented.

And by and large the agenda behind the folks demanding it is simply that they want him to lose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [AK]Devil_Dog

I'm not talking about admiting we made a mistake. What I am talking about is blatant media propaganda. If you don't think CNN really stands for Communist News Network, then you live in a closet. How about 60 minutes...

---

I actually haven't watched television news for over five years (with the exceptions of 9/11 and the entire Iraq invasion), so I really have no idea what they're doing these days. I will say, though, that it sounded like the liberal media did a pretty good job of crucifying Howard Dean.

Regarding the liberal media, George W. has done an excellent job of further consolidating the power of the media into the hands of a wealthy corporate elite, to the detriment of the hearts and minds of America.

Here's a tidbit I dug up:

The FCC.

On June 2, 2003, the Republican-majority Federal Communications Commission—run by President Bush’s choice for chairman, Michael K. Powell—approved sweeping changes to media ownership rules that would allow for greater consolidation of mass media across the nation. Among six major changes, the FCC made it easier for national networks to buy local affiliates and threw out the ban that prevented a company from owning a news paper and a television or radio station in the same media market.
New York Times columnist William Safire declared that “no other decision made in Washington will more directly affect how you will be informed, persuaded and entertained.” One of the two dissenting votes on the panel, Michael J. Copps, complained that the decision “empowers America’s new media elite with unacceptable levels of influence over the ideas and information upon which our society and our democracy so heavily depend.” But how did such a tidal wave of changes occur when critics from across the spectrum— from Bernie Sanders (I-VT) to Trent Lott (R-MS)—were vocal opponents of media consolidation? And when more than 750,000 citizens contacted the FCC to complain about further media consolidation and urge the commissioners to vote against the changes?

It certainly didn’t hurt that lobbying the commission were nearly all big media companies, including Clear Channel, now the dominant owner of radio stations in America with 1,225, about 970 more than its nearest competitor; its vice chairman is the individual who in 1998 purchased the Texas Rangers and made the soon-to-be president a multimillionaire. (The company also no doubt pleased President Bush when it organized several pro-war demonstrations during the buildup to the Iraq conflict, under the banner of “Rally for America.”)

But then, in a surprising development, a normally disciplined Republican Congress balked. The House voted 400 to 21 to block the rules, and the Senate 55 to 40 to pass a “resolution of disapproval.” In response the Office of Management and Budget released a statement concluding that “the Administration believes that the new FCC media ownership rules more accurately reflect the changing media landscape.” And President Bush himself told Fox News: “I support what Michael Powell did. He took a long, deliberative process.”

But before the Congress could formally vote down these pro monopoly rules and before Bush could veto, on September 3, 2003— one day before the rules were scheduled to take effect—the Third Circuit Court of Appeals blocked, at least temporarily, implementation of the changes. The court argued that “given the magnitude of this matter and the public’s interest in reaching the proper resolution, a stay is warranted pending thorough and efficient judicial review.”

This is a war we shouldn't have even pursued. Has it been successful? NO, we don't have Bin Laden's head on a stick. Bush has been about as successful as a modern Democratic president declaring war (that still hasn't happened, correct?). The only successful thing about this "War on Terror" has been our aquisition of Iraq (though we don't actually possess it, it "belongs to the people of Iraq".. but what are we doing?.. shaping our ideals and systems onto a society that directly conflicts with ours, i.e. "Making them a Democracy".. Will it work? Probably not. Has it worked in Afghanistan? I would be more inclined to say, no.. it hasn't.)

I don't care what anyone says about getting Saddam, that was a secondary objective in this so-called war. The Main Objective: Get Bin Laden.. Have we done that? The simple answer is: No, we have failed miserably at getting Bin Laden. For all I know one of my best friends is in Afghanistan right now fighting this war, one of the members of his party recently went KIA.. another tragic death in this so-called war.. but what of my friend, I know he's alive.. but I don't know how he's dealing with all this.


If anything, this so-called war reminds me of Vietnam.. albiet they struck us first, but we are fighting in places we shouldn't be... We have no right to invade other countries just to persue a couple of individuals.. We should speak with the governments and send special task forces in to disable communication and shut down these individuals infrastructures.

In addition to this war, Bush cut taxes.. Many people say you can't fight a war and cut taxes.. however Bush has miracuously pulled it off.. that 1 + among many -'s for him. As I've said though, at what cost?.. Gas prices are currently astronomical, I blame Bush and his "war".

Just My $.02

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [AK]Squidly

RE: Blanket - Reread the sentence. I wasn't referring to you.
RE: Me Not voting - Sorry.
RE: Admission of fault - First off, demanding it is nothing more than a ticky-tack partisan game - of the sort you claim to be against. Admissions of faults don't have to be public. Whenever we change our course of action in this war, you can bet that somewhere behind the scenes an assessment of effectiveness of strategy, errors, and refinement of our plans is taking place.

Expecting the President to come out during a war and say "Well we did this wrong - sorry. We did that wrong - sorry" is unrealistic, counterproductive to the war effort, and would frankly be unpresidented.

And by and large the agenda behind the folks demanding it is simply that they want him to lose.

---

I agree with Squidly. I do not recall any anybody in the media being as rude to a President as they were to Bush when he came out to speak to the country. All the stinkin' bleeding heart liberal traitors tried to do was hurt our President; The Commander and Chief of our Nation. I never saw anything so disgusting. Quite frankly as bad as it was to see those American's burned in Iraq was, it still did not compare to the media attacking our President the way they did. Why is that???? Because when you attack the President and try to kill his reputation, then in theory you are attacking our nation! That's why they are committing treason and should be shot tomorrow.

Everyone makes mistakes. But, if you think that the President is going to come out and say, oh yeah we made a boo boo, guess again. Come on Sonic do you really believe that he is going to admit he was wrong????

Even Clinton would not have admitted he was wrong unless he had no other choice, which he didn't.

At least Clinton showed that he was a human being and not above temptation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [AK]Devil_Dog

Everyone makes mistakes. But, if you think that the President is going to come out and say, oh yeah we made a boo boo, guess again. Come on Sonic do you really believe that he is going to admit he was wrong????

---

No, I don't believe that he will admit he was wrong, but he should.

Truman had a plaque reading "The buck stops here" on his desk. Kennedy took full responsibility for the Bay of Pigs. Carter took full responsibility for the failed Iranian hostage rescue attempt. Reagan took full responsibility for both the bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon and the Iran-Contra scandal.

Goddamn right I expect him to take responsibility, and it's certainly not "unprecedented."

The level of "apology" that I know you want would be, Sonic.

It'd serve no purpose other than to boost the Dem's run at the White House.

I'll respond to Slaughter's post when I have more time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [AK]Squidly

The level of "apology" that I know you want would be, Sonic.

It'd serve no purpose other than to boost the Dem's run at the White House.

---

With the direction Bush's approval ratings are going, it might not matter.

Slaughter,

You seem awefully confused on the issues. The primary objective of the Iraq war was NOT to capture Bin Laden. Nobody every mentioned capturing Bin Laden in Iraq.

"At least Clinton showed that he was a human being and not above temptation."

If being morally weak is an asset to you, it explains your hatred for Bush.

I won't even comment on the Vietnam comparison as I have a hard time believing anyone with any real knowledge of history and no political agenda could do so with a straight face.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [AK]Slaughter

This is a war we shouldn't have even pursued.

---

Which war? The war on terror? I can't believe anyone would think that after 9/11 we should have simply stuck our heads in the sand, apologized for being the Evil Empire and not done anything.

Quote:

---

Has it been successful? NO, we don't have Bin Laden's head on a stick.

---

Has it been successful? Yes, how many large scale acts of terror have been committed in the US since 9/11? How many? Zero you say?

We have not captured Bin Laden yet but short of invading Pakistan - something that this administration would be crucified for - I don't see an easy way to get at him.

Quote:

---

Bush has been about as successful as a modern Democratic president declaring war (that still hasn't happened, correct?).

---

The President has successfully overseen two large scale successful military campaigns and brought the economy out of a recession that the previous administration started (remember the economy had soured in Clinton's last term)

Quote:

---

The only successful thing about this "War on Terror" has been our aquisition of Iraq (though we don't actually possess it, it "belongs to the people of Iraq".. but what are we doing?.. shaping our ideals and systems onto a society that directly conflicts with ours, i.e. "Making them a Democracy".. Will it work? Probably not. Has it worked in Afghanistan? I would be more inclined to say, no.. it hasn't.)

---

We have not acquired anything. We are in the process of liberating Iraq and helping the Iraqi's install a democratic, freely elected government. Do I think a democracy is better than a dictatorship, theocracy, or communist state? Damn right I do! Freedom is ALWAYS better than tyranny.

Quote:

---

The Main Objective: Get Bin Laden.. Have we done that? The simple answer is: No, we have failed miserably at getting Bin Laden.

---

No, but we are getting closer and we have him on the run. His operations and influence have been severely curtailed.

Quote:

---

We have no right to invade other countries just to persue a couple of individuals.. We should speak with the governments and send special task forces in to disable communication and shut down these individuals infrastructures.

---

You argue about the failure to capture Bin Laden but offer no real tangible alternative to getting him. What if the other government is a sympathizer of Bin Laden or just doesn't want to play nice? What then?

Quote:

---

Gas prices are currently astronomical, I blame Bush and his "war".

---

We've already argued this point in another thread. It's supply and demand that's raiding prices. That and the simple fact that OPEC represents a collusion of oil producing countries that while seeming quite unfair to us consumers is a reality and fact of life. How do we deal with OPEC? Pump more of our own oil. More offshore drilling, tapping into new areas. Create more supply to meet grwoing demand. Prices will drop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [AK]Hylander

Slaughter,

You seem awefully confused on the issues. The primary objective of the Iraq war was NOT to capture Bin Laden. Nobody every mentioned capturing Bin Laden in Iraq.

"At least Clinton showed that he was a human being and not above temptation."

If being morally weak is an asset to you, it explains your hatred for Bush.

I won't even comment on the Vietnam comparison as I have a hard time believing anyone with any real knowledge of history and no political agenda could do so with a straight face.

---

The war is not only in Iraq, its in Afghanistan as well.

Thanks for questioning my morals. Temptation is a part of being human.. if we didn't have temptation we would still all be living in a perfect world without hate, war or racism. Essentially we would still be living in the Garden of Eden.

This War on Terror is not our war, it is a war the "terrorists" created.. we should TACTICALLY aquire our targets, not just "zerg" countries and overrun them.


As for the current polls: http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...todaypolls.htm

Seems Bush isn't doing so well anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [AK]Bribo

We've already argued this point in another thread. It's supply and demand that's raiding prices. That and the simple fact that OPEC represents a collusion of oil producing countries that while seeming quite unfair to us consumers is a reality and fact of life. How do we deal with OPEC? Pump more of our own oil. More offshore drilling, tapping into new areas. Create more supply to meet grwoing demand. Prices will drop.

---

There are two primary factors driving oil prices: 1) Futures. 2) China

The 'hoarding' of crude oil futures has driven the price of oil a great deal and Chinese consumption of oil has skyrocketed over the last 18 months as it's economy is literally churning and burning.

Nobody every discusses what most Europeans pay for gas. Americans are truly 'spoiled' in that regard.

OK. Clinton was forced into apologizing Slaughter, and believe me to this day I am sure he feels victimized and wronged.
I think the saddest thing about Clinton is he was one of our most intelligent, best looking Presidents we ever had. He had charisma, and could speak well. The shame is he was morally bankrupt and like any other tax and spend liberal he claimed he was for the middle man, but all he did was rape us with tax hikes.

Bush is honest, there is nothing behind his back that we do not see. He is not the best speaker we have ever had, nor is he the smartest. He probably isn't even the President that will be remembered 20 years from now.

But, at least you know where he stands on issues. Has has never changed his stance on Abortion, defense, taxes, economy, and most importantly God.
Liberals detest someone who isn't afraid to point at the man upstairs and say he is my leader and my father. I have no idea why that bothers Liberals some much? I guess because it means that your accountable for all the things you do???
Bush knows one thing, in the end he will be held accountable for the things he has done, right or wrong. Liberals can't even fathom that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [AK]Slaughter

The war is not only in Iraq, its in Afghanistan as well.

Thanks for questioning my morals. Temptation is a part of being human.. if we didn't have temptation we would still all be living in a perfect world without hate, war or racism. Essentially we would still be living in the Garden of Eden.

This War on Terror is not our war, it is a war the "terrorists" created.. we should TACTICALLY aquire our targets, not just "zerg" countries and overrun them.


As for the current polls: http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...todaypolls.htm

Seems Bush isn't doing so well anyway.

---

I'm not sure what your point for posting that poll is for, considering Bush would win the election based on it.

I wasn't questioning your morals, I made a statement based on your comments regarding Clintons "temptation". If committing adultery is OK to you because it shows you are "human", I have to whole hearedly disagree. It only shows moral weakness. I'm certainly not perfect, and I'm certainly not without "sin" - but I certainly don't think its a positive attribute to promote a weakness as a 'credential' of ones character.

The war on terror will take place anywhere terrorism is fostered, trained, aided, and supplied. Iraq was one of those places and it certainly sent a clear message to Libya.

Has it been successful? Yes, how many large scale acts of terror have been committed in the US since 9/11? How many? Zero you say?

No, it has not been successful. The goal was to stop WORLDWIDE terrorism. Have we done that? No, we have simply forced terrorists to attack countries other than our own.

We have not acquired anything. We are in the process of liberating Iraq and helping the Iraqi's install a democratic, freely elected government. Do I think a democracy is better than a dictatorship, theocracy, or communist state? Damn right I do! Freedom is ALWAYS better than tyranny.

Read it again please: we don't actually possess it, it "belongs to the people of Iraq"

No, but we are getting closer and we have him on the run. His operations and influence have been severely curtailed.

Closer you say? Is it worth getting "closer" without the information of where he exactly is and just losing MORE american lives? I personally don't think it is.. I personally think we DIDN'T use TACTICS in this war, and I think TACTICS are necessary to win.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [AK]Hylander

I'm not sure what your point for posting that poll is for, considering Bush would win the election based on it.

---

Actually thats only out of the "likely" voters.. if you look at the national adults and actual Registered voters Kerry would win. Not to mention people really aren't approving of what Bush is doing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [AK]Hylander

There are two primary factors driving oil prices: 1) Futures. 2) China

The 'hoarding' of crude oil futures has driven the price of oil a great deal and Chinese consumption of oil has skyrocketed over the last 18 months as it's economy is literally churning and burning.

Nobody every discusses what most Europeans pay for gas. Americans are truly 'spoiled' in that regard.

---

OMG! Someone really gets it! Thanks Hylander, because I am really sick of hearing people bitch about gas at the pumps, this was predicted to happen 2 years ago. Now Opec is under the heat and says that "We cannot sustain 40$ a barrel oil futures". Wonder where that pressure is coming from in a market which epitomizes "buyer beware"? Or in other words, "Hey don't blame me, I am just supply the market, I don't set the prices". And China's go-go economy, well let's see how long that lasts, as there is a lot of concern about their pace right now on world markets and consumption. Because oil is not the only thing that they are chewing up at record pace right now. Try coal and scrap metal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by '[AK

Slaughter'
No, it has not been successful. The goal was to stop WORLDWIDE terrorism. Have we done that? No, we have simply forced terrorists to attack countries other than our own.

Do you truly believe that we are forcing terrorists to commit acts of terror on other countries. If so there is no real point in discussing this with you.

Closer you say? Is it worth getting "closer" without the information of where he exactly is and just losing MORE american lives? I personally don't think it is.. I personally think we DIDN'T use TACTICS in this war, and I think TACTICS are necessary to win.

---

What exactly does it take for you to approve of the war on terror? Does an act of terror have to be commited in your home town before you realize the severity of what happened? Or was the attack not large enough for you do 10,000 or 100,000 people have to die first? Should we just sit here and wait to be kicked again? Or do all that we can to prevent it from ever happening again? YES! Being a New Yorker and knowing people that died on 9/11 I fully support Bush and his effort imperfect or not. Also if you place the blame squarely on the president, then do you realize he doesn't gather the intel himself, not to mention the thousands of people that are involved in the decision making process. Are all politicians that approved the war on terror Bush's boys? NO! Do they continue to approve additional funding for the war on terror YES!

Slaughter In regards to your statement "At least Clinton showed that he was a human being and not above temptation. " Do you truly you feel lieing to the people of this country and only admitting the truth when the overwhelming evidence was presented is an admirable trait in a president?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [AK?]GovermentCheese

OMG! Someone really gets it! Thanks Hylander,

---

You're Welcome! :cool:

China is an interesting economic study. It's population size alone is enough to drive GDP growth, but China has a great deal of liabilities to face in terms of resources and history has shown over and over that Communism / Socialism does not work in the long run. China is trying to mix the market economy in with limited 'freedoms', but the State still controls most of the industry and in the long run, disincentives will definitely take hold and they will never approach the efficiency and productivity of a free market place. Our economy kicks ass like no other and I've mentioned this before, but I find it quite humorous listening to people who say the economy sucks and it's worst "it's ever been" or "in a long long time". Americans have very short attention spans, memory, and very little retention of history. Most 'youngns' born after 1980 don't really know what hard times are. The mid 90s and early 2001 - 2004 were not and are not hard times! LOL Hell, I could argue that most people born after WWII (Which I obviously was (1971)) don't know what true hard times are - but that's a different discussion. ;) In what most young people think are 'bad' conditions, almost any country in the world would kill to have. We are most fortunate and just one of the reasons we have to defend it wherever it is threatened.