Bush Hallucinating as Always

[Cable]

Yeah, and I guess that's were the Muslims differ from us.

Off-topic, is Bush religious, does he go to church?

[Riot]

Bush is a religious guy, yes. He does go to church.

But that doesn't make him religious and he wasn't always religious.

[Ty-Land]

Stangely I agree with what Riot is saying in regards to freedom. While I'm opposed to the war on terro from an Australian perspective, I think values such as freedom and human rights need to be upheld. Unfortunately the current political environment makes it very difficult to spread such ideals peacefully.

What exactly is freedom? Well most western states have it supposedly. I think Marx may suggest that it may not truly be freedom, that we have somehow accpeted that it is. We can of course gain and promote further freedom, but in compared to other places in the world, we are indeed much freer.

I'm similar in regards to religion as well. I don't believe in a particular religon, yet I believe in the concept of a 'god' and karma. Bush's claims on several occasion that he's completing 'god's will' etc. are scary as tehy crossed the, what I believe critical, divide between religon and politics. To believe that god's will is the (or a) motivation for war can divide a population and present values upon a culture that do not represent all members of that culture. It is necessary for political leaders such as Bush to keep their religious beliefs (and apparations) in the private sphere, not to display them to the public. If our PM good old Jonny Howard said something like that I would be furious because Australia is a typically non-religious state. While we have numerous religions, religious values play a minmal role in politics (while this role is changing by the growth of right wing and religious fundamentalist parties such as 'family first'). So in summary religon+politics=bad

[Riot]

Religion+politics in a free, diverse nation is bad. However, for example the new Iraqi government will be heavily influenced by Islam. It really depends on the situation, but when you have a diverse country like America, Canada, ect politics and religion should not be involved together.

[Cable]

I have to agree with you there.

[Ty-Land]

Well I disagree with you there. Religon together with politics in any nation state is bad in my opinion. Take Iran for example. They use fundamentalist Islam as a major influence on their political decisions. How does this affect moderate muslims? How does this affect non-muslims? Greatly. It imposes on them a culture and values that they don't necessarily agree with and struggle to impose. the moderate muslims in Iran are slowly gaining power, as they are pushing for greater integration with the West, the EU and the middle east in order to prevent war, promote growth in the economy and help their population escape poverty. In Iraq politics and political parties are centered around religious affiliations. This week (I believe) the Sunni muslims have come out and said that they will not vote on the constitution unless cahnges are made. While it is important to rotect individuals religious beliefs and values in which they identify with, these should be encompassed in a broader charter of writes rather than niggling religious debates. Religon and politics should be entirely seperate, like France which is a secular state and will not educate religious values at school, will not ask what religion you belong to on the census form etc. This allows no discrimination through government institutions and allows people to choose their religion on their own, rather than imposing it on them.

[cyanide]

Yeah Cy, I know what you mean. I go to a catholic school, so God is everywhere, but I don't think I'm very religious, more that I believe there is a God, but not that I need to base all that I do on pleasing him, more that I need to just be a good person.

I'm Catholic, raised a Catholic, but I don't consider myself one. I don't think it matters whether or not you believe in God, but your actions and deeds are the ones that matters. "The Christian way."

That last sentence was for you, Riot

Yeah, and I guess that's were the Muslims differ from us.

No, no, no, muslim extremists is the keyword here. Just like Christian fundamentalists those two types of religions are dangerous. Muslims in general are very peaceful people, and their religion closely parallels Christianity.

[Riot]

Well I disagree with you there. Religon together with politics in any nation state is bad in my opinion. Take Iran for example. They use fundamentalist Islam as a major influence on their political decisions. How does this affect moderate muslims? How does this affect non-muslims? Greatly. It imposes on them a culture and values that they don't necessarily agree with and struggle to impose. the moderate muslims in Iran are slowly gaining power, as they are pushing for greater integration with the West, the EU and the middle east in order to prevent war, promote growth in the economy and help their population escape poverty. In Iraq politics and political parties are centered around religious affiliations. This week (I believe) the Sunni muslims have come out and said that they will not vote on the constitution unless cahnges are made. While it is important to rotect individuals religious beliefs and values in which they identify with, these should be encompassed in a broader charter of writes rather than niggling religious debates. Religon and politics should be entirely seperate, like France which is a secular state and will not educate religious values at school, will not ask what religion you belong to on the census form etc. This allows no discrimination through government institutions and allows people to choose their religion on their own, rather than imposing it on them.

But there is no way Iraq is going to be able to operate as it's own government if Islam doesn't have an influence in it. You're not going to convince the Muslims that it's a bad idea because they've done it for centuries.

There will be disagreements and agruments in Iraq about the new government. But the Iraqi people will get to decide and that's all that matters. The Iraqis will worry about getting the government up on it's feet while America is solely focusing our troops on keeping the country together while they draft the consitution. Once that gets settled, things will be better. But having a free nation with Shi'ates (I know I spelt that wrong), Sunni's and the Kurds will be extremely difficult.

[Cloudy]

Bush isn't Bush anymore.
He probably has too much pressure and he's going crazy..
Americans, take him down!

[Riot]

I know I'll get bashed for this, but President Bush is the perfect man in office right now. Maybe not the perfect one, but he is certainly a better choice than John Kerry or Bill Clinton. Bush has the ability to lead America through this time and he is a man of action.

The administration has gotten a lot of heat, some of it worthy sometimes not. But one thing I stand behind: Bush can lead this country. He carried this country after 9/11 and he really does mourn over the loss of life in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has taken the burden of terrorism on his shoulders and is vowing to end it. He doesn't want to be the President that is remembered because of 9/11 and the devastation. He wants to be remembered for the President that lead America out of it and vowed to end terrorism once and for all.

I guess that's one of my soon to be many political rants for today. I can't wait for the Bush and Riot bashing to begin!

[Its_asdf]

Bush kicks a lot of ass on mini-clip.com. Those games of him shooting down terrorists were pretty cool.

[iG®]

Here Riot, knock yourself out.

[Riot]

Here Riot, knock yourself out.

Played it better, I don't really like it.

[Bang]

I know I'll get bashed for this, but President Bush is the perfect man in office right now. Maybe not the perfect one, but he is certainly a better choice than John Kerry or Bill Clinton. Bush has the ability to lead America through this time and he is a man of action.

The administration has gotten a lot of heat, some of it worthy sometimes not. But one thing I stand behind: Bush can lead this country. He carried this country after 9/11 and he really does mourn over the loss of life in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has taken the burden of terrorism on his shoulders and is vowing to end it. He doesn't want to be the President that is remembered because of 9/11 and the devastation. He wants to be remembered for the President that lead America out of it and vowed to end terrorism once and for all.

I guess that's one of my soon to be many political rants for today. I can't wait for the Bush and Riot bashing to begin!

Bush is an idiot no matter how you put it. Not to mention his SAT scores are far worse than mine (almost half of mine). He went to an Ivy League school, well I am in one, and I have a much higher GPA than him, so I can call him a friggin idiot. Heck, anyone can. His father was the head of the CIA at that time. Yea, sure, reject him and they'll fry you. I don't think Bush is to be attributed to whatever "good" the administration has done. It's probably the people around him.
Bush can lead his country? What gives you that idea? Through his sheer ignorance of foreign policy? Through his amazing ability to decrease the deficit? His ignorance of the rest of world? Because he can't spell? I know you will say the same bullshit Republicans always say "We're fighting a friggin war". Well TOO BAD. That still shouldn't be an excuse. It's like saying I was drunk so I'm not responsible for killing a man or something.
The fact is, whoever it is that leads you through a crisis, regardless of how good or bad the leader is, the majority will support that leader. It's history repeating itself. Mao was thought to be a pretty damn good leader when he was fighting against the Japanese. Same thing with Chang Kai Shek. Not enough proof? Fidel Castro seemed to be a great man when he was fighting for revolution? Napoleon seemed to be alright when he was fighting for his country. You see, you're just falling into that mentality. Of course you'll deny it, but I bet no one who was under those regimes I mentioned before would say "Oh, I am blindly clinging to our leader in a time of need!"
The fact is, you don't know if Kerry, who had previous military experience, would have done better. You don't know if Clinton, who was clearly smarter than Bush, would have done better. AND NOBODY TAKES MORE VACATIONS THAN BUSH. You only assume because you think the world is safe because of your leader. You think it is due to him, but you have no idea of verifying it.
Do you really think Clinton would not vow to end the war on terror? Do you really think Kerry would've said "Oh, fuck the war on terror."? They wouldn't. I mean, Bush has just done the obvious, or the weird. Nothing extraordinary. Everyone else would've done the same or somewhat different.

[Riot]

You realize John Kerry and George Bush went to the same college and Bush had better grades than Kerry in college, right?

You realize that the economy was entering a recession when Bush took office, right?

You realize that when you go to war you spend money, right?

President Clinton had over 8 chances to capture Bin Laden but he decided not to. Clinton bombed children's hospitals and innocent civilians to keep the press off his case with the scandel.

[J@3]

John Kerry was an idiot... in a country of hundreds of millions of people, how on Earth did they ever pick that moron to challenge someone as equally moronic but someone who handles it better. It was doomed to fail from the start, I wouldn't buy that guy a ticket in a chicken raffle let alone vote him in as president.

[Riot]

Excatly, Howard Dean was the best choice for the democrats to run against Bush.

[Bang]

You realize John Kerry and George Bush went to the same college and Bush had better grades than Kerry in college, right?

You realize that the economy was entering a recession when Bush took office, right?

You realize that when you go to war you spend money, right?

President Clinton had over 8 chances to capture Bin Laden but he decided not to. Clinton bombed children's hospitals and innocent civilians to keep the press off his case with the scandel.

Yes but the recession was not as bad towards the end of Clinton's term...And there is no denying what Clinton has done for the economy. America entered into a period of prosperity never before seen. Remember how the 2000 elections were about how to use the surplus? Well it's ALL FUCKING GONE! WOW TRILLIONS POOF! IT's better than George Bush Sr.'s performance in decreasing the surplus, bravo. The US had such a large surplus.

Well I didn't really like Kerry much, and yes I knew his GPA was as bad as Bush's (not that much worse.) However, CLINTON is a different matter. Also GORE. Man, that guy was MUCH smarter than bushyboy.

Yes when you go to war you spend money DUH. But the thing is, America isn't profitting from war as in the other wars. Yes it's a different kind of war. It is still a friggin war. The war machine generates a ton of money though. You know that the US got out of the Great Depression through World War 2. Also I am saying you can't go do something and use that as an excuse for an incompetency. If I say I was in serious debt, and I said "You know, those parties I hold every week use money, right?" You'd still blame me for being in debt. Just think about it. It's the same thing. I mean, so if Bush keeps on going to war, it's justified that the economy fucking sucks?

Bush could've captured the Bin Laden family got information.
Oh, and your favorite book, the 9/11 commision report states something about Condi Rice not recognizing "THERE MIGHT BE A TERRORIST ATTACK ON SEPTEMBER 11th!" Or something like that. I remember it being ridiculous.
Also, Bush could've sure spent more time in Afghanistan.
So if Bush doesn't capture Bin Laden, it would be the same. I doubt he'd capture him anyhow.
THE FACT IS ANY PERSON IN THE WORLD would have tried to hunt down Osama relentlessly after what happened in 911. It's not Bush. I mean it would be retarded not to hunt down Osama after that.

[cyanide]

I wish Gore won the first time.. well, he did, but then it was somehow given to Bush. I wish he ran again. Gore would've won the second time. Kerry was equally a joke, but he sure pwned Bush in that first debate.

[Bang]

Yea I think Gore should've ran again. He was far better than Kerry or Dean or whatever candidates there were for the Democratic Party. He should've won the first time anyhow. If it weren't for the stupid ballots in Palm Beach. I mean, the Brazilian politicians (who are the worst and probably most corrupt politicians in the world.) actually came down to US to teach them how to set up the whole computerized voting system. That's just sad. (I'm not saying anything bad about the Brazilian people; it's just a known fact that the political system in Brazil is generaly very corrupt. In fact I respect Brazilians more than any other nation for being probably the only nation having the guts to truly stand up against the US AND manage to improve their economy greatly. Now Lula, in my opinion, is a great president.)

[Andrew]

"President Bush said to all of us: 'I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan. And I did, and then God would tell me, George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq... And I did.

"'And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East. And by God I'm gonna do it.'"

"He's never made such comments," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said.

I believe him. That quote is far too eloquent. On a related note, my favourite Bush quote is the one about how he doesn't just read out every speech he's handed, he changes them so they're in his own words. I believe that, too.

[Riot]

You realize John Kerry and George Bush went to the same college and Bush had better grades than Kerry in college, right?

You realize that the economy was entering a recession when Bush took office, right?

You realize that when you go to war you spend money, right?

President Clinton had over 8 chances to capture Bin Laden but he decided not to. Clinton bombed children's hospitals and innocent civilians to keep the press off his case with the scandel.

Yes but the recession was not as bad towards the end of Clinton's term...And there is no denying what Clinton has done for the economy. America entered into a period of prosperity never before seen. Remember how the 2000 elections were about how to use the surplus? Well it's ALL FUCKING GONE! WOW TRILLIONS POOF! IT's better than George Bush Sr.'s performance in decreasing the surplus, bravo. The US had such a large surplus.

Well I didn't really like Kerry much, and yes I knew his GPA was as bad as Bush's (not that much worse.) However, CLINTON is a different matter. Also GORE. Man, that guy was MUCH smarter than bushyboy.

Yes when you go to war you spend money DUH. But the thing is, America isn't profitting from war as in the other wars. Yes it's a different kind of war. It is still a friggin war. The war machine generates a ton of money though. You know that the US got out of the Great Depression through World War 2. Also I am saying you can't go do something and use that as an excuse for an incompetency. If I say I was in serious debt, and I said "You know, those parties I hold every week use money, right?" You'd still blame me for being in debt. Just think about it. It's the same thing. I mean, so if Bush keeps on going to war, it's justified that the economy fucking sucks?

Bush could've captured the Bin Laden family got information.
Oh, and your favorite book, the 9/11 commision report states something about Condi Rice not recognizing "THERE MIGHT BE A TERRORIST ATTACK ON SEPTEMBER 11th!" Or something like that. I remember it being ridiculous.
Also, Bush could've sure spent more time in Afghanistan.
So if Bush doesn't capture Bin Laden, it would be the same. I doubt he'd capture him anyhow.
THE FACT IS ANY PERSON IN THE WORLD would have tried to hunt down Osama relentlessly after what happened in 911. It's not Bush. I mean it would be retarded not to hunt down Osama after that.

Clinton was in office during a technogoly boom. The President has little control over the economy.

It is a different kind of war, yes. This is a war to end terrorism and tyranny in the middle east. The War on Terror probably wasn't even on Bush's mind when he ran for President, but after 9/11 it was a must. I still don't think I can find most Americans who disagree with the War on Terror.

The War in Iraq is all about getting and rebuilding a country. It was one of the biggest invasions in American history. Eventually, we'll get our money back when we have trading with the new Iraqi government.

We should have stayed in Afghanistan longer? Hello, earth to Bang: We're still in Afghanistan! We still thousands of troops in Afghanistan fighting off insuregents and trying to get a government going there, too. We took out the taliban and now we have to hand the government over. A lot of the troops are giving out water, food and blankets and the kids and adults are getting physicals, drugs (medicine) and vaccines.

Like I said, the economy isn't controlled by the President. The President actually has little he can do over the economy because it's a capitalist. For the most part, the people control the economy. And the economy is starting to rise and we're getting out of the recession.

You obviously have no clue on what's going on. We still have the hunt for Osama very much alive. We have intelligence trying to see where he is and we have special forces teams that we send to raid caves and towns that we think he might be in. But it's like finding a needle in a haystack, you have no idea where he could be. He might not even be in Afghanistan anymore.

You are right, Bush, the CIA and the FBI were warned about a possible terrorist attack. However, they didn't take it seriously because they get threats like these everyday. I mean, flying commercial planes into landmarks? That's impossible with our top security. But then it happened, we were exposed and Bush vowed to make sure it doesn't happen again and that those responsible will pay.

I think you are overall missing the point though, Clinton is 100% more to blame for 9/11 than President Bush. Clinton had so many warning signs, intelligence and opertunities to capture Bin Laden but he decided not to. They knew excatly where Bin Laden was and they were going to capture him but Bin Laden was with a Saudi prince and they didn't want to hurt their relationship with the Saudi's so he called off the ambush.

[Bang]

I still don't see how Clinton would have done things differently if his regime suffered such an attack as well. The fact is, tragedies make somewhat ordinary leaders into heroes. I think probably anyone would have done the same, except take that weird tangent and invade Iraq. What in George Bush's PRE 9/11 year does it seem to indicate him being a hero? He just took a record amount of vacations.

[Riot]

I saw a President who mourned deeply that day and he went down to ground zero and comforted the victims and their loved ones.

Would Clinton have done the same thing? We don't know. Now you are speculating. Would George Bush do the same thing as Lincoln when he was in office considering the circumstances? If you say that, you can't compare any presidents because they never went through the same situations and issues.

All I'm saying is Bush is a strong leader and he carried us out of 9/11, out of Huricane Katrina (that was not his fault) and a recession. He'll carry us out of Iraq too.

[iG®]

I'm just curious? Do you (not only Riot) think that attacks would've happened if Clinton was the president?