• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

It's time to IMPEACH Bush!

ban.the.electoral.college

Progressive, Green
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
998
Reaction score
0
Location
Maryland, U.S.A.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
cnredd said:
Not true and accuarate at all...

I'll throw out a scaled down version....

Let's say there are 5 states...California, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, and Utah...California is overtly Democrat...the other four overtly Republican...If they ALL had equal voter populations, you'd never see a Democratic President ever again...But that's not the case...quite the opposite...

Since California's voter population outweighs the other four states combined, there would be no need to campaign in any of them...Why push for 500,000 votes across thousands of square miles when you can push to get that in San Diego alone?...No one will go there...

Now AFTER the election, who will the winner pander to?...The people who got him in there...No representation whatsoever on the Executive level from the four states that were deemed irrelevant...California would be catered to and the rest of the country could go scratch...

Currently, populations of the top 10 states outweigh the remaining 40...If there was no Electoral College, the same scenario mentioned above would come into play...The nominees would see no reason to go to unpopulated areas when they could get more votes just by going to the states where there are large cities...

And guess who resides in most of the large cities?...That's right...The entitlement Liberals!

That's the whole thrust of your argument....A thinly veiled way to marginalize the "flyover" states and focus on the places where Liberals live...

That is essentially what already occurs today. President's concentrate on the states who have the most electorate votes.

So, I don't see how your argument stands against mine.

Again, the representation would stay the same in Congress. So, I don't think there would be any "pandering" as you say.

Impeach Bush (stay focused on the topic, mr. mod)
 

ban.the.electoral.college

Progressive, Green
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
998
Reaction score
0
Location
Maryland, U.S.A.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
kal-el said:
No, as much as I dislike him, I don't think he had anything to do with it. IMO, it was an act of nature, not "God."

Right, again I simply used the term as insurance companies do. It has nothing to do with my argument or personal beliefs. God, nature, whatever. The point I was trying to make is that I do not believe George W Bush caused the hurricane.

My second point is that the failure of the levees was predicted and ignored by men. Therefore the aftermath is a human problem. The other day in a press conference, Bush declared he takes all the blame for the failure at the federal level. So, anyone who argues against GW's responsibility in regard to the Bushed-up response to Katrina is ignorant of that fact.


Bin Laden also said it was "Allah". Allah was making the Americans pay for occupying Iraq?

What a predicatable response.
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
ban.the.electoral.college said:

That is essentially what already occurs today. President's concentrate on the states who have the most electorate votes.

So, I don't see how your argument stands against mine.

Again, the representation would stay the same in Congress. So, I don't think there would be any "pandering" as you say.

Impeach Bush (stay focused on the topic, mr. mod)
"Concentrate" and "neglect" are two different things...With the Electoral College, the other states still are involved...your way, they would be irrelevant...

Perfect example?...The 2000 election...Florida gave GWB 1 more vote than needed to win the Presidency...If we went your way, states that have minimal electoral votes would not be needed, but as seen through the election, EVERY state mattered...You don't want that anymore so the places which have condensed populaces...which are ALL Liberal, would have the advantage...You want to throw away equal representation of the United STATES...

The representation in Congress is not only irrelevant, but insulting to the less populated states...There are two branches of government that are elected...saying "We'll take one away, but don't worry...we'll still let you have the other one" is incredibly shallow and demeaning...

My comments were directed at this post...
ban.the.electoral.college said:
And, What do you find so wrong about having a true and acurate reflection of the majority? States would still have equal representation before Congress.
You were the one that led the discussion off-topic...my only mistake of being off topic was responding to your post which was already off-topic...blame yourself...:2wave:

And thanks for reminding me...I see another page is ripped from the calendar, so it must be time for an...
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
UPDATE...

10-08-05...

Bush is STILL not impeached...
:2wave:

I must point out that it is still early in the day...

Things might change later on...I'll let you know...
 

ban.the.electoral.college

Progressive, Green
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
998
Reaction score
0
Location
Maryland, U.S.A.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
cnredd said:
UPDATE...

10-08-05...

Bush is STILL not impeached...
:2wave:

I must point out that it is still early in the day...

Things might change later on...I'll let you know...

No, but his administration is falling apart. I wonder how much longer it will be until some democrat works up the nerve to say the "I" word? Given the lack of leadership they so often display, It may take some time. Or, it might never happen. We shall see.
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
ban.the.electoral.college said:
No, but his administration is falling apart. I wonder how much longer it will be until some democrat works up the nerve to say the "I" word? Given the lack of leadership they so often display, It may take some time. Or, it might never happen. We shall see.
One of the main problems with the Democratic Party is the perception, which is mostly a reality, that they are the party of accusations and no alternatives...

For someone to throw out the "I" word would cement that notion...

Many would see it for what it is....a whiney cry for vengence against the Republican Party for what happened to the last President....A situation in which he brought on himself...
 

kal-el

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 22, 2005
Messages
3,412
Reaction score
8
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
ban.the.electoral.college said:
No, but his administration is falling apart. I wonder how much longer it will be until some democrat works up the nerve to say the "I" word? Given the lack of leadership they so often display, It may take some time. Or, it might never happen. We shall see.

If a prominent Democrat throws out the "I" word, I doubt it will go very far, unless of course, Bush makes a huge blunder, bigger than his previous mistakes, that the American public cannot help but want his head on a platter. Especially if the Dems take back Congress in 2006, I'm almost certain you'll hear it often.
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
kal-el said:
If a prominent Democrat throws out the "I" word, I doubt it will go very far, unless of course, Bush makes a huge blunder, bigger than his previous mistakes, that the American public cannot help but want his head on a platter. Especially if the Dems take back Congress in 2006, I'm almost certain you'll hear it often.
What you've just said is true, but also a main point of the Democratic Party...

There are two ways to get elected...

1)Show how GOOD you are...
2)Show how BAD your opponent is...

The Democratic Party has failed on every count to go with #1...Their only hope is for their opposition to screw-up so badly that they end up winning by default...

If Democrats win back the Senate in 2006, it will be through none of their own doing...They would win by the Republicans screwing up...
 

Billo_Really

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Originally posted by cnredd:
One of the main problems with the Democratic Party is the perception, which is mostly a reality, that they are the party of accusations and no alternatives...

For someone to throw out the "I" word would cement that notion...

Many would see it for what it is....a whiney cry for vengence against the Republican Party for what happened to the last President....A situation in which he brought on himself...
You don't think Bush has brought on anything by himself?
 

kal-el

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 22, 2005
Messages
3,412
Reaction score
8
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
cnredd said:
If Democrats win back the Senate in 2006, it will be through none of their own doing...They would win by the Republicans screwing up...

You're probably right. The GOP is in huge turmoil now, with the indictment of Delay and Rove's hearings, not to mention the Mier's arguements. And this Administration has tarnished the GOP image.
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
kal-el said:
You're probably right. The GOP is in huge turmoil now, with the indictment of Delay and Rove's hearings, not to mention the Mier's arguements. And this Administration has tarnished the GOP image.
Depends on what you mean by "huge turmoil"...

This is the first time in decades where the Republican Party controlled the House, the Senate, and the Presidency...

To believe that something as unique as that to last for a long time is unreasonable...

For the Democratic Party to regain one of those entities would just bring it back to the way it's always been...what used to be the status quo...
 

kal-el

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 22, 2005
Messages
3,412
Reaction score
8
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
cnredd said:
Depends on what you mean by "huge turmoil"...

This is the first time in decades where the Republican Party controlled the House, the Senate, and the Presidency...

To believe that something as unique as that to last for a long time is unreasonable...

For the Democratic Party to regain one of those entities would just bring it back to the way it's always been...what used to be the status quo...

Well by "huge turmoil" I mean Bush's approval ratings,( 39% last time I checked), A growing number of Americans disenchanted with his handeling of the war, like I said, Rove's case, Mier's fight for confirmation (in which it seems like it's fellow Conservatives vs. Bush), and the criminal indictment of Tom Delay.

The only reason that the Republican Party controls the House and Senate is because of 9/11. Who the hell benefitted the most? Come 2006, Bush's every action will be scrutinized.
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
kal-el said:
Well by "huge turmoil" I mean Bush's approval ratings,( 39% last time I checked), A growing number of Americans disenchanted with his handeling of the war, like I said, Rove's case, Mier's fight for confirmation (in which it seems like it's fellow Conservatives vs. Bush), and the criminal indictment of Tom Delay.
You mention "huge turmoil" but mention individual cases...That's a far cry from a systemic problem...

The only one that would qualify as "turmoil" would be Mier's confirmation...which exposes the far right as being complainers due to Dem. Sen. Harry Reid's affirmation of GWB's pick...They feel offended because he reached to the other side of the aisle for consultation...I believe they are wrong for this...

But if that's the only issue that represents a "crack" in the Republican Party, that's a stretch to say there is "huge turmoil"...If you expect every Republican to agree on every issue, than that is a misleading perception...

kal-el said:
The only reason that the Republican Party controls the House and Senate is because of 9/11. Who the hell benefitted the most? Come 2006, Bush's every action will be scrutinized.
Untrue...

The House of Representatives was Republican controlled when Bush43 first took office...The Democrats controlled the Senate, but by a 1 seat margin...and that was because a Republican became an Independant...it was 50-50 before that...

Keep in mind that the Democratic Party also lost their Senate leader(Tom Dashle) in 2004...in a race that didn't have anything to do with the war or 9/11...
 

ban.the.electoral.college

Progressive, Green
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
998
Reaction score
0
Location
Maryland, U.S.A.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
cnredd said:
One of the main problems with the Democratic Party is the perception, which is mostly a reality, that they are the party of accusations and no alternatives...

???????????????????????????????? :rofl

Yeah... OK. The Democratic Party has problems, but not the ones you mention. At least no more than the GOP.


cnredd said:
For someone to throw out the "I" word would cement that notion...

Many would see it for what it is....a whiney cry for vengence against the Republican Party for what happened to the last President....A situation in which he brought on himself...

Your cluelessness about the Democratic Party never ceases to amaze me! :lol:
 

kal-el

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 22, 2005
Messages
3,412
Reaction score
8
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
cnredd said:
You mention "huge turmoil" but mention individual cases...That's a far cry from a systemic problem...

Yea, ok, it looks to me like the Republican party is in shambles.

Untrue...

The House of Representatives was Republican controlled when Bush43 first took office...The Democrats controlled the Senate, but by a 1 seat margin...and that was because a Republican became an Independant...it was 50-50 before that...

Keep in mind that the Democratic Party also lost their Senate leader(Tom Dashle) in 2004...in a race that didn't have anything to do with the war or 9/11...

Yea Because Republicans used the war to attack Democrats who disagree with them on anything and everything- they even stuped so low as to smear senator Tom Daschle by running attack ads linking him to Saddam.

Bush's "Brain" Karl Rove urged Republicans to use the war on terrorism to take back the Senate in 2002.
 

AK_Conservative

Active member
Joined
Sep 21, 2005
Messages
499
Reaction score
0
Location
Eagle River, Alaska
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Billo_Really said:
You don't think Bush has brought on anything by himself?

In some aspects yes, but the way i see it is this.. Now this is ENTIRELY an opinion!

At the beggining of the war, a vast majority of people did support it! The media provided stories about what was going on! Since then, the media and others (including Michael Moore) have set out to deminish the Bush administration, and so far it has worked, mostly becuase Bush is a weak president! The media STRIVES to find stories that demote the administration! What they do bring to the table continues to do this! They have even gone to the level to publish false stories (i.e. Dan rather and Bush's NG service, newsweek and the Koran, and escalating abuses situations [13 at GITMO when technically only 5 so called "abuse" situations happened, though i do not consider them abuse])! Even when the publishers come out and say they were wrong, it still has a drastic impact upon the president, but mainly the soldiers (i.e. 17 killed american soldier due to newsweeks proclaimation). Now take into consideration what going into iraq has benifited us, iraq and the world (i.e. Freedom for iraqi's, toppling a horrendous dictator, taking steps to improve the middle east, ect). How much of that is presented in the media? If the media would promote that, Bush's approval rating would be better than it is! But the media does not care to do that! If media would promote this, our president would be looked upon better, and with more intelligence!

Now take this into Consideration: If Clinton, Gore, or Kerry had done the same thing, The media would not be presenting information like we see now! We probably wouldnt even be getting all aspects of it. When clinton bombed Iraq a day or two before his impeachment (Operation Desert Fox), there was not as much media coverage on that! It could have been the fact that the impeachment was going on, who knows!

The main reason for all this blabber was to say that how we reflect on our president is what the media brings to us! That is why i say Bush didnt bring this upon himself, the media did!

Now some may say the media is a great thing for america, which in theory it is, but nowadays, it isnt! It is more concerned with ratings than True analysis! Today, it is very hard to trust anything that comes out in a national paper, especially if it is political!
 

Caine

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
23,428
Reaction score
7,226
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
AK_Conservative said:
In some aspects yes, but the way i see it is this.. Now this is ENTIRELY an opinion!

At the beggining of the war, a vast majority of people did support it! The media provided stories about what was going on! Since then, the media and others (including Michael Moore) have set out to deminish the Bush administration, and so far it has worked, mostly becuase Bush is a weak president! The media STRIVES to find stories that demote the administration! What they do bring to the table continues to do this! They have even gone to the level to publish false stories (i.e. Dan rather and Bush's NG service, newsweek and the Koran, and escalating abuses situations [13 at GITMO when technically only 5 so called "abuse" situations happened, though i do not consider them abuse])! Even when the publishers come out and say they were wrong, it still has a drastic impact upon the president, but mainly the soldiers (i.e. 17 killed american soldier due to newsweeks proclaimation). Now take into consideration what going into iraq has benifited us, iraq and the world (i.e. Freedom for iraqi's, toppling a horrendous dictator, taking steps to improve the middle east, ect). How much of that is presented in the media? If the media would promote that, Bush's approval rating would be better than it is! But the media does not care to do that! If media would promote this, our president would be looked upon better, and with more intelligence!

Now take this into Consideration: If Clinton, Gore, or Kerry had done the same thing, The media would not be presenting information like we see now! We probably wouldnt even be getting all aspects of it. When clinton bombed Iraq a day or two before his impeachment (Operation Desert Fox), there was not as much media coverage on that! It could have been the fact that the impeachment was going on, who knows!

The main reason for all this blabber was to say that how we reflect on our president is what the media brings to us! That is why i say Bush didnt bring this upon himself, the media did!

Now some may say the media is a great thing for america, which in theory it is, but nowadays, it isnt! It is more concerned with ratings than True analysis! Today, it is very hard to trust anything that comes out in a national paper, especially if it is political!


Paranoid about the media?
This is all opinion, it was making sense until you started sounding like a whiney little bitch.

The media would cover any democratic president just as hard as any republican president because of one reason.........They are there to attract viewers so that thier advertisers can get more exposure and thus more money for the network.....In a capitalist world....Its all about money.
 
Last edited:

AK_Conservative

Active member
Joined
Sep 21, 2005
Messages
499
Reaction score
0
Location
Eagle River, Alaska
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Caine said:
Paranoid about the media?
This is all opinion, it was making sense until you started sounding like a whiney little bitch.

The media would cover any democratic president just as hard as any republican president because of one reason.........They are there to attract viewers so that thier advertisers can get more exposure and thus more money for the network.....In a capitalist world....Its all about money.


Wow, what an attack on me for no reason! :roll: I guess that is a headliner in the liberal ideology! :rofl

No i am not paranoid about the media. Any intelligent american should have the same view towards the media, but unfortunatly, they dont!

Maybe you are right about its about money, but i think there is an additive with that: Promote liberalism.. IMHO Generally, what political ideology do you think most journalists are? Liberal.

Now for you. You need to grow up young man! You sound like a punk teenager, which im sure youre not! Now, in logic, atacking the person for an arguement or his motives is a very weak arguement. It can not hold its own ground!

Now if any of you are thinking i believe the media should be cobservative, youre wrong. I believe it should be the very center! no biasness to it, but that is a very difficult thing to do. If that could not be accomplished, have a balanced system where there is an equal ammount of conservative/liberal news stations! But this is not a perfect world!
 

Caine

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
23,428
Reaction score
7,226
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
AK_Conservative said:
No i am not paranoid about the media. Any intelligent american should have the same view towards the media, but unfortunatly, they dont!
Your Attempted Point: Only the people paranoid about Liberal Biased Media are Intelligent...

Truth: The Bush Administration is making mistakes and the Media is eating it up because they get more money from sponsors with increased coverage and viewer attention.

Maybe you are right about its about money, but i think there is an additive with that: Promote liberalism.. IMHO Generally, what political ideology do you think most journalists are? Liberal.
How You Came Across: Paranoid about Liberal Biased Media
What is Real: Read Truth Above

Now for you. You need to grow up young man! You sound like a punk teenager, which im sure youre not! Now, in logic, atacking the person for an arguement or his motives is a very weak arguement. It can not hold its own ground!

Now if any of you are thinking i believe the media should be cobservative, youre wrong. I believe it should be the very center! no biasness to it, but that is a very difficult thing to do. If that could not be accomplished, have a balanced system where there is an equal ammount of conservative/liberal news stations! But this is not a perfect world!
How You Came Across: Angry because my statement about Money is True, and maybe the part about being a whiney little bitch.

On Additional Note: There is an entirely different section for this sort of discussion, its called Media Bias. Bring up your paranoid ideas there.

Overall: There is no media bias. Of course, there are media biased SEGMENTS (Bill O'Reily... Hannity and Colmes (Where Colmes rarely speaks, and Hannity is WAYY out there), Ummm.... I have not watched any Liberally Biased shows but I know there are some out there). In general, the regular news coverage is just whatever they can expose, be it Democrat or Republican, its to get attention and increase the amount of viewers so sponsors can be happy.
 

Canuck

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 2, 2005
Messages
849
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Caine said:
Overall: There is no media bias. Of course, there are media biased SEGMENTS (Bill O'Reily... Hannity and Colmes (Where Colmes rarely speaks, and Hannity is WAYY out there), Ummm.... I have not watched any Liberally Biased shows but I know there are some out there). In general, the regular news coverage is just whatever they can expose, be it Democrat or Republican, its to get attention and increase the amount of viewers so sponsors can be happy.



100,000 peace protestors marched on wahington
not one US news source covered it untill days after the event
All American news went into 24/7 huricanes media blitz

if that aint bias and corruption and utter control of freedom of the press

then its is sad
it is either manipulation over freedom of the press .or its the level of stupidity in America

a continuation of the nintendo world of your kids
you are in 24/7 huricane
not even a one liner on the news came out about the march on washington

The mendacity
 

AK_Conservative

Active member
Joined
Sep 21, 2005
Messages
499
Reaction score
0
Location
Eagle River, Alaska
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Caine said:
Your Attempted Point: Only the people paranoid about Liberal Biased Media are Intelligent...

Truth: The Bush Administration is making mistakes and the Media is eating it up because they get more money from sponsors with increased coverage and viewer attention.


How You Came Across: Paranoid about Liberal Biased Media
What is Real: Read Truth Above


How You Came Across: Angry because my statement about Money is True, and maybe the part about being a whiney little bitch.

On Additional Note: There is an entirely different section for this sort of discussion, its called Media Bias. Bring up your paranoid ideas there.

Overall: There is no media bias. Of course, there are media biased SEGMENTS (Bill O'Reily... Hannity and Colmes (Where Colmes rarely speaks, and Hannity is WAYY out there), Ummm.... I have not watched any Liberally Biased shows but I know there are some out there). In general, the regular news coverage is just whatever they can expose, be it Democrat or Republican, its to get attention and increase the amount of viewers so sponsors can be happy.


You are playing the strawman approach in this arguement! Your Attempted Point: Only the people paranoid about Liberal Biased Media are Intelligent is not what i said! My point was that you should be weary to believe what the media publishes, especially politically. I did not take offence to your money aspect of the arguement! There you are skewing my words again! It was calling my statement paraniod and a whiney bitch! I know the admistration has made many mistakes, what administration hasnt?

Secondly, i posted this here to show that Bush did not bring this upon himself as Bill_Oreally said. I was countering his arguement!

There is not one bit of paranioa in my statement. I did not say i fear the media. I said i did not trust it becuase of the false stories it has been providing lately!


You need to start reading my posts the way i wrote it, not some out of the arena skewed interpretation you have of it! Secondly, grow up and use some respect!
 

Caine

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
23,428
Reaction score
7,226
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
AK_Conservative said:
You are playing the strawman approach in this arguement! Your Attempted Point: Only the people paranoid about Liberal Biased Media are Intelligent is not what i said! My point was that you should be weary to believe what the media publishes, especially politically. I did not take offence to your money aspect of the arguement! There you are skewing my words again! It was calling my statement paraniod and a whiney bitch! I know the admistration has made many mistakes, what administration hasnt?

Secondly, i posted this here to show that Bush did not bring this upon himself as Bill_Oreally said. I was countering his arguement!

There is not one bit of paranioa in my statement. I did not say i fear the media. I said i did not trust it becuase of the false stories it has been providing lately!


You need to start reading my posts the way i wrote it, not some out of the arena skewed interpretation you have of it! Secondly, grow up and use some respect!

I noticed that you didn't mention that you still believe the Media is Liberal.
At least we have now agreed on that, The media is a Capitalist organization just like any other.
Now, for the rest of your concerns.
Bush did bring this upon himself..... even if it was his Administration that caused some of the problems, He Chose to employ those people, He chose to tell those lies.
 

Canuck

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 2, 2005
Messages
849
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Past DUE date
 

Caine

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
23,428
Reaction score
7,226
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Canuck said:
Past DUE date
?????????????????????????????????????????
 

AK_Conservative

Active member
Joined
Sep 21, 2005
Messages
499
Reaction score
0
Location
Eagle River, Alaska
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Caine said:
I noticed that you didn't mention that you still believe the Media is Liberal.
At least we have now agreed on that, The media is a Capitalist organization just like any other.
Now, for the rest of your concerns.
Bush did bring this upon himself..... even if it was his Administration that caused some of the problems, He Chose to employ those people, He chose to tell those lies.

This is where your ignorance comes into play with the Strawman approach. I did not need to repeat myself that the media is liberal. My opinion is still the same! But you took it into your own hands to say otherwise and turn my view around! Which in turn is pure ignorance!

Second of all, there is no proof bush lied. The evidence shows that there was intelligence that saddam had nuclear weapons so we acted upon it diplomatically, then it turned into war becuase saddam did not cooperate! Simple as that!

He Chose to employ those people

This may be the overlaying approach to this, but i believe it goes much much deeper as i expressed above! Now you can chose to turn your head and not take into consideration this is a cause, or you can sit back and be a true liberal and ignore every possible outlook on something and stick to your ignorant rhetoric like you provided in your last 3 posts!
 
Top Bottom