ApologeticChrist
Junior Member
Here, I hone Apologetics for the glory of Jesus Christ
Posts: 77
|
Post by ApologeticChrist on Feb 19, 2005 23:20:13 GMT -5
Let me make some ground rules here. Attack the problem, not the person. We are discussing ONLY Bush's presidency and no not the first Bush, the one we have now. Support your point of view with FACTS from RELIABLE SOURCES or don't bother posting at all. Fully expand your thought and don't leave single sentence gibes. I want this to be a clean, serious and professional debate about the quality of the Bush Presidency as a whole.
Now, with that out of the way, I'll just say a few things.
North Korea
Iraq
Social Security
Tax Cuts
Budget
Have fun everybody!
-R. S. of UC
|
|
|
|
Post by Triphus (Titanian) on Feb 20, 2005 0:21:08 GMT -5
Alright,
Definitely have to say pretty good. True Social Security and Tax Cuts are bad, but the way America has come together these past 4 years since the Twin Towers fell is amazing!!! You see many more U.S. flags and a lot more community action now adays.
Also, I feel Bush is handling Iraq pretty well. I mean Iraq has a President for the first time and we put millions of dollars of drugs that are saving thousands of kids lives.
Third is one word "AIDS." The U.S. has created privately owned corporations that are supporting the AIDS project. I know for one that my church is supporting One Life Revoltion in sending $100,000 over to Africa to build 5 wells and a church. 5 wells may not be much, but statistics show that many less people would die if they just had access to fresh water.
Titanian
|
|
|
|
Post by Chocolate Bar on Feb 20, 2005 1:18:40 GMT -5
Let me make some ground rules here. Attack the problem, not the person. We are discussing ONLY Bush's presidency and no not the first Bush, the one we have now. Support your point of view with FACTS from RELIABLE SOURCES or don't bother posting at all. Fully expand your thought and don't leave single sentence gibes. I want this to be a clean, serious and professional debate about the quality of the Bush Presidency as a whole. Now, with that out of the way, I'll just say a few things. North Korea Iraq Social Security Tax Cuts Budget Have fun everybody! -R. S. of UC A real debate!! Yeah! 1. North Korea. We have the most influintial country in the world when it comes to N. Korea trying to convince them to stop using their necluer reactors, China. I don't think they will use their weapons anyway. I think the threat from them comes from the fear theiy will sell their weapons to terrorists. 2.Iraq. Iraq isn't as big of a issue as it used to be. They have their FIRST elections EVER! Let's imagine you are an Iraqie under Saddam. You live in CONSTANT fear that Saddams police might drag you out of your house in the middle of the night and shoot you. Can you imagine the fear they lived in? Even if our intelligagence was wrong it was still tolotarism (sp). 3.Social Security. The Democrats haven't realized that Social Security is breaking down. That's why the President is trying to reform it. I think it will be passed in this term. 4.Tax Cuts. I am for tax cuts. It will help small buisnesses and in the long run help the economy. 5.Budget. The unyploment rate is better than when Clinton was in office. Our economy is improving. Even if it wasn't WE ARE IN WAR! What do you expect? |
|
|
|
Post by New Titania (TD) on Feb 20, 2005 9:47:02 GMT -5
Well, reffering to Titanian's comment, Social Security is bad because the Democrats refused to fix its problems back in the 90s. Now Bush wants private accounts for Social Securty, giving you, the American People, more Freedom.
North Korea is a problem.......no doubt about that. We MUST try to end this dimplomatically. It is important to keep our 6 party talks up (which include China) rather than have just a one-on-one conversation with them. They may have nukes....the may not. They're known around the World for being filthy liars, so, if all 5 nations press North Korea, then, maybe, we can squeeze the truth out of them.
Iraq....Iraq is getting better. For sure. We now have had elections in Iraq, and the people are beginning to feel more safe and secure due to the lull in terrorist attacks. Yes, there is still violence, but, you need to put it into perspective: More people die due to crime in the United States every day than people do in Iraq. Plus: American troops are less and less becoming the targets of these attacks. Now, the Iraqi people are baring the blunt...if that's a phrase.
|
|
|
|
Post by Armany on Feb 20, 2005 14:14:45 GMT -5
I think it's "bearing the brunt of it," TD.  North Korea: We need to deal with them in a tougher manner. Pretty soon, if they have nukes, we'll be forced to be more decisive. Kim Jong-Il won't hesitate to kill millions of S. Koreans if he has WMD's. Iraq: I agree with TD: It's getting better. Elections will and have helped Iraqis realize that they can be a free and stable country without Islamic radicals running the country. Eventually, though, when they're strong enough to handle their own security, we'll have a good ally amongst the Mid East Arab nations. |
|
ApologeticChrist
Junior Member
Here, I hone Apologetics for the glory of Jesus Christ
Posts: 77
|
Post by ApologeticChrist on Feb 20, 2005 14:33:48 GMT -5
North Korea: In my opinion, an obvious display of the failures in our foriegn policy that have been accumulating since the end of the Regan administration. We tried to appease North Korea when they threatened to create nuclear weapons before, and it only encouraged them to use it as their trump card. Now, with Bush totally ignoring the problem that North Korea was posing, they can openly declare to the world that they have built at least one nuclear weapon, and possibly more. Despite our call to war as upholding the UN resolutions that no one else would, we totally ignore North Korea in their blatent moves towards WMD's and kicking out UN peacekeepers. Now North Korea has pulled out of the six nation talks, painting a grim picture for the poorest nation on earth. At least they show no signs for invading anyone anytime soon.
Iraq: I'll be impressed if we get out of Iraq in under 5 years. I think we might be out by 10 and 15 would not be rediculous. The "elections" were for a council to create a constitution to actually hold REAL elections, if that is the system they create. Iraq is better than it was under Saddam, but I still think Bush is just a little too quick to pull out the guns in his policies.
More to come, of course.
-R. S. of UC
|
|
|
|
Post by Armany on Feb 20, 2005 14:48:41 GMT -5
The elections are a start, though, and are better than Saddam butchering thousands to get his way. I've heard one very liberal kid at my school say that they were a "joke," but with Iraqi people voting in many instances for the first time in their lives, I think it is a more historic moment in the history of Iraq.
|
|
|
|
Post by Siko Michael on Feb 20, 2005 15:10:01 GMT -5
OUR CURRENT ECONOMY IS BETTER THAN CLINTON?  hmmmmm... Unemployment under Clinton was 3.6% look it UP! Bush is 5.5% hmmmm u do the math... we have a deficit under Bush but under Clinton we were the positive? ? Do some more math! |
|
|
|
Post by GDL on Feb 20, 2005 15:49:49 GMT -5
I think that we're much better off under the bush adminastration than under the clinton administration.
I n my opionion he wouldn't of been able to handle 9/11.
|
|
|
|
Post by Siko Michael on Feb 20, 2005 16:05:25 GMT -5
If Clinton was prez 9/11 wouldnt of happened  ! Ashcroft already knew what al-quedia(sp) was up to but yet it didnt even bother to do anything about it  |
|
|
|
Post by GDL on Feb 20, 2005 17:07:20 GMT -5
I disagree.We knew that they were going to attack but we didn't know how.Plus we needed better airport security.
|
|
|
|
Post by Armany on Feb 20, 2005 17:11:51 GMT -5
Guys, please try not to turn this into another political bloodbath! I'm willing to tone down my biases and just debate the issues, so please, don't start arguing again.  |
|
|
|
Post by GDL on Feb 20, 2005 17:14:18 GMT -5
I wasn't they said state our opinions and that's what we were doing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Armany on Feb 20, 2005 17:23:59 GMT -5
Not saying that you were . . . YET. It was going down that road, though. But, I do the same thing, so I really can't say anything, I guess.  |
|
|
|
Post by GDL on Feb 20, 2005 17:25:51 GMT -5
;D
|
|
|
|
Post by maatshalz on Feb 20, 2005 21:18:46 GMT -5
Well even if I had numbers and facts it would not matter because you guys would make more and more arguements so i will not try to post stuff and why do you guys keep coming up with bush this and bush that! It is crazy! And this will be my final post of this part of the forum! What if Al gore would have won HUH! What if the terror attacks never happened! We wouldn't be talking about this and maybe the prices would be lower and not somewhat fighting for oil! Well thats all I got to say! Even though I should not post this! I am!  |
|
ApologeticChrist
Junior Member
Here, I hone Apologetics for the glory of Jesus Christ
Posts: 77
|
Post by ApologeticChrist on Feb 20, 2005 21:55:17 GMT -5
If you guys look it up, Saddam was actually elected by the Iraqi people in a free election. Of course... no elections before or since have been free...
-R. S. of UC
PS: The entire POINT of this forum is to argue and go on and on and on about the opinions we have. That is why I created it, so people would stop just locking them.
COME ON!!! He was the only person on the balllot!!!!! Anyone who didn't vote for him got KILLED!! I wouldn't call that free.
Mike, you said that if Clinton were in office, 9/11 wouldn't have happened. Well, let me say this, if Clinton HAD NEVER been in office, 9/11 may not have happened. The Clinton administration gave up NUMEROUS chances to capture Osama bin Laden when offered by the Sudanese. They did NOTHING to stop terrorism except lob a few cruise missiles at Iraq.
|
|
|
|
Post by Triphus (Titanian) on Feb 20, 2005 23:05:56 GMT -5
That is very true AC, but for one minor point. He was the only one running because he already had the power to kill anyone so noone wanted to go against him.
I was watching a video of when he was elected and you can see the fear in the peoples eyes as they went up to shake his hand.
|
|
|
|
Post by Armany on Feb 21, 2005 10:36:52 GMT -5
About the arguing thing: True, but some people get ridiculous. They start ranting on about senseless things that force other people to stoop down to the level of insulting one or the other. That's what happened in all the other threads. And BTW, I can't lock anything, so don't worry about me. ;D
Back to politics: Yeah, maybe Saddam was elected the first time, but he was simply a thug that, as Titanian said, would have killed any enemies. And, since then, Saddam has been elected more times- when he was the only person on the ballot. Saddam tortured, gassed, and killed all dissenters. There is a horrendous list of offenses that could be brought up. If we'd have brought him before the UN, they wouldn't have done a thing, because of France and Russia's suspicious financial ties to him.
And, what do you think about the WMD's. Personally, I think they're in Syria, but what about you guys?
|
|
|
|
Post by New Titania (TD) on Feb 21, 2005 11:59:25 GMT -5
If you guys look it up, Saddam was actually elected by the Iraqi people in a free election. Of course... no elections before or since have been free...
-R. S. of UC
PS: The entire POINT of this forum is to argue and go on and on and on about the opinions we have. That is why I created it, so people would stop just locking them.
COME ON!!! He was the only person on the balllot!!!!! Anyone who didn't vote for him got KILLED!! I wouldn't call that free.
Mike, you said that if Clinton were in office, 9/11 wouldn't have happened. Well, let me say this, if Clinton HAD NEVER been in office, 9/11 may not have happened. The Clinton administration gave up NUMEROUS chances to capture Osama bin Laden when offered by the Sudanese. They did NOTHING to stop terrorism except lob a few cruise missiles at Iraq.
|
|
|
|
Post by GDL on Feb 21, 2005 12:06:18 GMT -5
Well said Td Well said.
|
|
ApologeticChrist
Junior Member
Here, I hone Apologetics for the glory of Jesus Christ
Posts: 77
|
Post by ApologeticChrist on Feb 21, 2005 16:17:11 GMT -5
He was elected freely the first time as far as I had understood. No, he was never legally elected again and yes, he really raped the country as viciously as Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot or any of the other modern mass murders have. I won't say anything against that.
Question though. If Bush stated a plan to go nation by nation throughout the world (Latin America, Africa, Middle East, Asia, etc.) and to democratize them after deposing their dictators, what would you think? Support or no support from you?
-R. S. of UC
|
|
|
|
Post by GDL on Feb 21, 2005 16:29:55 GMT -5
I support democracy.Very much!I would support bush if he'd do that to.But obviously he's not doing that so we don't haft to worry.
|
|
|
|
Post by Siko Michael on Feb 21, 2005 16:35:54 GMT -5
well then td did anything like 9//11 happen during the clinton administration...........NO......bush administration......YES......hmmmmm....and i would not be for Bush spreading democracy by attack/invading other countries....it isnt right to force our western views on the eastern side of the world and vise versa with the eastern side forcing there views on us.
|
|
|
|
Post by GDL on Feb 21, 2005 16:39:15 GMT -5
I would exactly call it bad to put evil pshycotic dictators out of power would you?
|
|
hmmmmm... Unemployment under Clinton was 3.6% look it UP! Bush is 5.5% hmmmm u do the math... we have a deficit under Bush but under Clinton we were the positive?
! Ashcroft already knew what al-quedia(sp) was up to but yet it didnt even bother to do anything about it 
