2
   

Was It Americas Fault

 
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 12:05 pm
McGentrix wrote:
That's BS Joe. Bush, despite my disagreements with how Congress has wasted my money, best represented far more of my interests then any other presidential candidate. Though I am for lower taxes, smaller government, individual responsibility, fiscal responsibility, supporting civil equality, I am also for anti-terrorism, pro-life, strong US presence in the world, free trade, globalization, and many other things.

Too bad Bush is acting contrary to your interests on those issues as well.
0 Replies
 
LoneStarMadam
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 12:09 pm
Joe Nation wrote:
Caught at what? Being right?

Spreading lies.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 12:12 pm
joefromchicago wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
That's BS Joe. Bush, despite my disagreements with how Congress has wasted my money, best represented far more of my interests then any other presidential candidate. Though I am for lower taxes, smaller government, individual responsibility, fiscal responsibility, supporting civil equality, I am also for anti-terrorism, pro-life, strong US presence in the world, free trade, globalization, and many other things.

Too bad Bush is acting contrary to your interests on those issues as well.


How so, give me some examples so I know your not just talking out of your ass Joe.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 01:58 pm
McGentrix wrote:
joefromchicago wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
That's BS Joe. Bush, despite my disagreements with how Congress has wasted my money, best represented far more of my interests then any other presidential candidate. Though I am for lower taxes, smaller government, individual responsibility, fiscal responsibility, supporting civil equality, I am also for anti-terrorism, pro-life, strong US presence in the world, free trade, globalization, and many other things.

Too bad Bush is acting contrary to your interests on those issues as well.


How so, give me some examples so I know your not just talking out of your ass Joe.

Talking out of my ass? I'll leave the ventriloquism to experienced practitioners such as yourself.

ANTI-TERRORISM: there have been more terrorist incidents worldwide during Bush's six years than during Clinton's eight. In terms of terrorist attacks on American soil, Bush's record is worse than Clinton's. Furthermore, the Iraq War and Bush's middle-east policy has made the US a more likely target for terrorist attacks. As for Iraq itself, the "flypaper" theory has worked in reverse: instead of the war drawing terrorists to Iraq where they can be killed by US soldiers, US soldiers are being drawn to Iraq where they can be killed by Iraqis who would, all things considered, be much happier killing each other.

PRO-LIFE: Bush has approached this issue with the same intensity and drive as Reagan and his father: i.e. none whatsoever. Although Reagan made some noises about supporting a "right to life" amendment to the constitution (without, of course, actually doing something to get such an amendment passed), Bush hasn't even done that. The most that Bush has done is to veto a stem cell research funding bill, which doesn't do anything to protect life, since the fertilized ova that would otherwise be used for research will instead be destroyed.

STRONG US PRESENCE IN THE WORLD: Where to begin? Bush has alienated many of our allies, and his policies have made the US more unpopular throughout the world than probably at any other time in its history. With a large number of troops tied down in the Iraqi quagmire, the US is not able to project force effectively in other hot spots throughout the world. The strongest presence in the world that the US can now project comes exclusively from internet loudmouths who cannot or will not put their own lives on the line to serve their country.

FREE TRADE: Bush caved in to domestic steel companies and put tariffs into place that the WTO found to be discriminatory, and only removed those trade barriers when confronted with the prospect of retaliatory tariffs on the part of the EU. Furthermore, Bush's unwillingness to cut or eliminate farm subsidies led to the demise of the Doha Round of the WTO negotiations on trade and tariffs.

GLOBALIZATION: If you mean an increasing move toward global governance (Bush I's "new world order"), then you must be joking. Bush has effectively thumbed his nose at the UN, even before promising, and then reneging on his promise, to put the invasion of Iraq to a vote by the UN security council. His interim appointment of John Bolton, who once claimed that "one could lop off the top ten floors of UN headquarters and no one would know the difference," as UN ambassador clearly proved that Bush was a unilateralist, not a globalist.

MANY OTHER THINGS: I'll leave those to your imagination, McG: if you think that Bush supports these issues, it's clearly much better than mine.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 02:20 pm
joefromchicago wrote:


ANTI-TERRORISM: there have been more terrorist incidents worldwide during Bush's six years than during Clinton's eight. In terms of terrorist attacks on American soil, Bush's record is worse than Clinton's. Furthermore, the Iraq War and Bush's middle-east policy has made the US a more likely target for terrorist attacks. As for Iraq itself, the "flypaper" theory has worked in reverse: instead of the war drawing terrorists to Iraq where they can be killed by US soldiers, US soldiers are being drawn to Iraq where they can be killed by Iraqis who would, all things considered, be much happier killing each other.


Terrorist attack on US soil planned during Clinton's term and a result of inaction following the 93 bombing and failure in Somalia. Bush has instituted many anti-terrorism actions; Patriot Act, terrorist surveillance, bank monitoring, keeping terrorists locked away from civilized society. Bush has eliminated much of Al Qaeda's resources and support structure around the world and brought America's might to bear on terrorists instead of trying to be nice and hope they go away.

Quote:
PRO-LIFE: Bush has approached this issue with the same intensity and drive as Reagan and his father: i.e. none whatsoever. Although Reagan made some noises about supporting a "right to life" amendment to the constitution (without, of course, actually doing something to get such an amendment passed), Bush hasn't even done that. The most that Bush has done is to veto a stem cell research funding bill, which doesn't do anything to protect life, since the fertilized ova that would otherwise be used for research will instead be destroyed.


Fetal stem cell research hasn't proven itself to be worth the expense of fertilized embryo's. Whether they would be destroyed or not is not a mitigating factor. Same reason we don't experiment on death row convicts. He supports the right to life and has stocked the supreme court with right to life supporters.

Quote:
STRONG US PRESENCE IN THE WORLD: Where to begin? Bush has alienated many of our allies, and his policies have made the US more unpopular throughout the world than probably at any other time in its history. With a large number of troops tied down in the Iraqi quagmire, the US is not able to project force effectively in other hot spots throughout the world. The strongest presence in the world that the US can now project comes exclusively from internet loudmouths who cannot or will not put their own lives on the line to serve their country.


Our allies have no problem continuing to receive our foreign aid and manufactured products though. The US continues having a strong presence around the world, both militarily and economically. It's time for our Allies to pitch in in some of those "hot spots". The US has enough on it's plate. Nice to see you jump on the "serve or shut up" band wagon. You'll likely enjoy the company.

Quote:
FREE TRADE: Bush caved in to domestic steel companies and put tariffs into place that the WTO found to be discriminatory, and only removed those trade barriers when confronted with the prospect of retaliatory tariffs on the part of the EU. Furthermore, Bush's unwillingness to cut or eliminate farm subsidies led to the demise of the Doha Round of the WTO negotiations on trade and tariffs.


George W. Bush on Free Trade

Quote:
GLOBALIZATION: If you mean an increasing move toward global governance (Bush I's "new world order"), then you must be joking. Bush has effectively thumbed his nose at the UN, even before promising, and then reneging on his promise, to put the invasion of Iraq to a vote by the UN security council. His interim appointment of John Bolton, who once claimed that "one could lop off the top ten floors of UN headquarters and no one would know the difference," as UN ambassador clearly proved that Bush was a unilateralist, not a globalist.


The Bush administration's Response to Globalization

Quote:
MANY OTHER THINGS: I'll leave those to your imagination, McG: if you think that Bush supports these issues, it's clearly much better than mine.


You don't like Bush, that's fine, I get it. I don't really care though. I do like him and I support him. Earlier you said "I don't know many conservatives who are either." Well, you can't say that anymore. Who I vote for has little to do with what I am for. My candidate, McCain, lost the primary in 2000 so I was stuck with choosing the best to represent me. That was Bush who far surpassed either Gore or Kerry. At least I voted.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Jan, 2007 09:10 am
McGentrix wrote:
Who I vote for has little to do with what I am for.

The perfect Republican.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Jan, 2007 09:28 am
joefromchicago wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Who I vote for has little to do with what I am for.

The perfect Republican.


So, tell me Joe. Who received your vote?
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Jan, 2007 09:39 am
"Was it Americas fault?"

I blame parents for the lack of education in the United States.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Jan, 2007 09:59 am
McGentrix wrote:
So, tell me Joe. Who received your vote?

Why do you ask?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Jan, 2007 10:02 am
joefromchicago wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
So, tell me Joe. Who received your vote?

Why do you ask?


Because you have been so busy critiquing who I voted for, I am very curious which illustrious candidate received you vote. You did vote, right? You aren't ashamed of admitting who you voted for are you?
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Jan, 2007 10:14 am
McGentrix wrote:
Because you have been so busy critiquing who I voted for, I am very curious which illustrious candidate received you vote. You did vote, right? You aren't ashamed of admitting who you voted for are you?

I have critiqued your voting behavior because it is at odds with your stated policy preferences, and because you can't see that your votes are at odds with your preferences. If you think that I have been similarly inconsistent, then please point out those inconsistencies and I'll be happy to address them. Otherwise, I don't feel obligated to indulge your curiosity just so that I can be the target of your tu quoque arguments.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Jan, 2007 10:43 am
joefromchicago wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Because you have been so busy critiquing who I voted for, I am very curious which illustrious candidate received you vote. You did vote, right? You aren't ashamed of admitting who you voted for are you?

I have critiqued your voting behavior because it is at odds with your stated policy preferences, and because you can't see that your votes are at odds with your preferences. If you think that I have been similarly inconsistent, then please point out those inconsistencies and I'll be happy to address them. Otherwise, I don't feel obligated to indulge your curiosity just so that I can be the target of your tu quoque arguments.


I figured you'd be too embarrassed to admit who you voted for. I'm not embarrassed at all to say I voted for Bush. He was certainly the best candidate to best represent my interests.

Too bad none could represent yours, whatever those may be.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Jan, 2007 01:40 pm
McGentrix wrote:
I figured you'd be too embarrassed to admit who you voted for.

I figured you wouldn't have any explanation for why you wanted to know who I voted for.

McGentrix wrote:
I'm not embarrassed at all to say I voted for Bush.

You should be.

McGentrix wrote:
He was certainly the best candidate to best represent my interests.

Not really.

McGentrix wrote:
Too bad none could represent yours, whatever those may be.

But at least I don't delude myself into thinking that they do represent my interests when they are actively working against them.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Jan, 2007 01:54 pm
Hey, whatever Joe. You have made yourself irrelevant to the conversation now.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Jan, 2007 01:56 pm
McGentrix wrote:
Hey, whatever Joe. You have made yourself irrelevant to the conversation now.

So you're the arbiter of relevancy now? How disappointing.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Jan, 2007 02:37 pm
joefromchicago wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Hey, whatever Joe. You have made yourself irrelevant to the conversation now.

So you're the arbiter of relevancy now? How disappointing.


Why shouldn't he think if your posts or revelent or not. You seem to know the best person he should have voted for. Tit for tat as far as I can see.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Jan, 2007 03:21 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
. . .101st Keyboard Kommandos.

Cycloptichorn


HAHAHAHA! ! !

okbye
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 May, 2007 10:54 pm
Re: Was It Americas Fault
LoneStarMadam wrote:
That the WTC was hit?


How do you define America?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 06/15/2021 at 08:19:35