Bush inauguration...

[SawyerLaxGirl44]

Tomorrow, everybody needs to scrape by without spending one single penny all day. This is a huge movement around the US to strike a huge blow to corporate America on the day of Bush's inauguration.

Do whatever you might tonight to prepare, but please don't spend a dime on January 20th. Imagine if the worst day for the American economy in decades happened on the same day that Bush spends $40 million to throw himself an inauguration party. It could send a huge message and grab headlines around the entire world. Band together to send the strongest message possible, the message of the almighty dollar!


Guys, Bush is wasting our precious dollars to throw himself a party.Yet, our troops are over in Iraq with out the proper things that they need, please follow this!!!

[SawyerLaxGirl44]

Your telling me that you don't care about our troops?How many friends do you have over there?

[tekz]

Don't talk to me about the troops. I'm attending a service academy this summer and I am planning on having a VERY succesful future in the military.

Our guys are doing a great job over there, but what kind of armor can protect people from an IED that is 2 feet from you when it explodes? It's a bomb for Christ sake, not a bullet. Armor would be nice, but what we have over there right now is getting the job done. War comes with casualties, you have to leanr to deal with it. Our boys signed up to do this job knowing that their lives would be in danger.

The fact that you are bashing Bush is what pisses me off. This inauguration is going to get the Washington DC area so much money, who cares how much he spends? Sorry if I come off too harsh, but I had to listen to this crap on the radio, and now it's on the forums.

[Tony]

our band will be playing in the parade, so it's nice to get rid of 300 kids

nothing to do with what your talking about but just thought i'd tell

[SawyerLaxGirl44]

I guess we have all our own opinions...

[Despise Purity]

Is he the first president to have and inauguration party?

forgot to add party

editing again to say I wasnt to sound like an a-hole...just that dont they spend about the same amount every four years?

[Longest]

Guys, Bush is wasting our precious dollars to throw himself a party.Yet, our troops are over in Iraq with out the proper things that they need, please follow this!!!

I don't know where to begin to discuss how wrong you are. The money funding the inauguration is private money from companies and citizens who have purchased the privilege of dining with the president. If you had the money, you could have sent in an check and attended.

Dan

[SDS416]

shut the **** up


Now there is an intellectual response. :imparied:

But I am not suprised. Its the typical conservative/republican approach to everything in this country. The basic theory is "if you don't like it, shut up, and go to hell" or they pull out the "if you don't support this war you are not a patriotic american". That crap makes me want to puke.

This is a president fighting a war he can't justify at a cost of $6million dollars a minute...thats right...$6mil. per minute (and that is according to the GAO)...all because his moron of a father didn't do it right the first time. While in the meantime, soldiers are buying their own body armour, the defecit is growing at a pace faster than at any other time in american history, and unemployment and stagnant job growth is running rampant.

Sounds like a perfect time to throw a $40 million dollar bash to me... :angry:

And I love how his administration has told the District of Columbia to pay for all the security out of their anti-terrorism homeland security money...that sure as hell isn't what it was intended for.

[SDS416]

I don't know where to begin to discuss how wrong you are. The money funding the inauguration is private money from companies and citizens who have purchased the privilege of dining with the president. If you had the money, you could have sent in an check and attended.

Dan

And the district of columbia's homeland security money is being spent on the security for this event...at a tune close to another $20 million. And that is taxpayers money. And a freakin waste of it.

[Longest]

Now there is an intellectual response. :imparied:

But I am not suprised. Its the typical conservative/republican approach to everything in this country. The basic theory is "if you don't like it, shut up, and go to hell" or they pull out the "if you don't support this war you are not a patriotic american". That crap makes me want to puke.

This is a president fighting a war he can't justify at a cost of $6million dollars a minute...thats right...$6mil. per minute (and that is according to the GAO)...all because his moron of a father didn't do it right the first time. While in the meantime, soldiers are buying their own body armour, the defecit is growing at a pace faster than at any other time in american history, and unemployment and stagnant job growth is running rampant.

Sounds like a perfect time to throw a $40 million dollar bash to me... :angry:

And I love how his administration has told the District of Columbia to pay for all the security out of their anti-terrorism homeland security money...that sure as hell isn't what it was intended for.

Your second paragraph admonishes someone for being immature, but then you launch into ad hominems against Bush. I don't think you can have that both ways.

Dan

[OutBurst]

I believe that Bush should have sent the $40 to the tsunami relief fund.

[Longest]

And the district of columbia's homeland security money is being spent on the security for this event...at a tune close to another $20 million. And that is taxpayers money. And a freakin waste of it.

That is a mistake and I didn't say I agreed with it. But to call the entire inauguration a big, greedy expensive $40 million mistake is a mischaracterization. Each administration has spent money fairly commensurate with that in the past. Hiding invectives against this waste behind the tsunami is to do an injustice to those who have suffered worldwide in disasters that did not receive an outpouring of support following worldwide media blitzes.

Dan

[SDS416]

Your second paragraph admonishes someone for being immature, but then you launch into ad hominems against Bush. I don't think you can have that both ways.

Dan


No, I didn't admonish them for being immature. I admonished them for lacking intellect. And there is a distinct difference.
Saying "shut the **** up" is a statement that offers no commentary, opinion or fact. At the very least I offered up some facts...granted you may not care for the reality of them.

[Longest]

I believe that Bush should have sent the $40 to the tsunami relief fund.

And that would be a fraud conviction pending. The money was paid for tickets to festivities with the intention of having the President there. To send the money off and not have those festivities means people paid money and were not compensated as they were made to believe they would, hence, fraud.

Dan

[SDS416]

That is a mistake and I didn't say I agreed with it. But to call the entire inauguration a big, greedy expensive $40 million mistake is a mischaracterization. Each administration has spent money fairly commensurate with that in the past. Hiding invectives against this waste behind the tsunami is to do an injustice to those who have suffered worldwide in disasters that did not receive an outpouring of support following worldwide media blitzes.

Dan

I don't think I ever even mentioned tsunami relief in relation to this.

[Longest]

No, I didn't admonish them for being immature. I admonished them for lacking intellect. And there is a distinct difference.
Saying "shut the **** up" is a statement that offers no commentary, opinion or fact. At the very least I offered up some facts...granted you may not care for the reality of them.

I'm sorry, the ad hominem was to the President's father. My apologies. I accepted your facts, I just disputed your hypocrisy.

Dan

[Longest]

I don't think I ever even mentioned tsunami relief in relation to this.

Then you are in the minority on those calling for an end to the inauguration. Are you upset you couldn't afford a ticket to go?

Dan

[novi26]

hey i got an idea..why don't we all sell our stocks at the same time too? I think it would be awesome to watch our economy get even more suppressed!

[roughrider]

i am walking out of school tommorrow, marching downtown and protesting all day. Tommorrow will be crazy in DC, I expect a WTO ish performance. People seem to be missing the point about the Not a Dime campaign. Its to show, that even in defeat, we have a powerful voice and cant be pushed around by some "mandate" Bush thinks he has. On a seperate point I must say Bush has lovely choice in music. Hilary Duff, 3 Doors Down, Macy Gray....lovely...

[stxbionic42]

i heard that some guy predicted 9-11 and now hes predicting that bush is goign to be assasignated. (sp? i suck at it...) but anyways thats kinda strange.

[SDS416]

Then you are in the minority on those calling for an end to the inauguration. Are you upset you couldn't afford a ticket to go?

Dan


I am calling for an end to the inaguration because I think its morally repugnant to have a large, gaudy celebration during a time of war. Historically, the precedent does exist for a president to have simple swearing in ceremony in the white house as more of a media event, FDR did this. Other presidents who chose not to have formal inaguration celebrations include LBJ in 1963 (and had a very small ceremony upon winning re-election) and Gerald Ford, obviously for other reasons, although Ford has alluded to the fact he felt it was not appropriate when the US was in a time of social and political upheaval.

For the record, I probably couldn't afford a ticket to the inaguration, and I really don't see how that has anything to do with this debate. As it is, I do have 3 family members (my uncle, aunt and their son) who are attending the inaguration and the ball, and that is their choice as to how they want to spend their money.

[AXL]

ok...the only person that could have proposed such a retarded plan is President George W. Bush himself. just playin, but for serious dawg, ha, ha, umm.

Ok. people dont spend any money for one day. they still eat the same, power the same(unless you want them to turn off the heat! brRrRrRrRrrrrRRrRRrRrrr) and all those expenses. so what happens is, well, to be quite frank, you see, they just spend double the next day. or spend double the day before in preperation. so basically, ya, i think you get it now.

[Longest]

I am calling for an end to the inaguration because I think its morally repugnant to have a large, gaudy celebration during a time of war. Historically, the precedent does exist for a president to have simple swearing in ceremony in the white house as more of a media event, FDR did this. Other presidents who chose not to have formal inaguration celebrations include LBJ in 1963 (and had a very small ceremony upon winning re-election) and Gerald Ford, obviously for other reasons, although Ford has alluded to the fact he felt it was not appropriate when the US was in a time of social and political upheaval.

For the record, I probably couldn't afford a ticket to the inaguration, and I really don't see how that has anything to do with this debate. As it is, I do have 3 family members (my uncle, aunt and their son) who are attending the inaguration and the ball, and that is their choice as to how they want to spend their money.

The time for announcing these protests was months back, not the day before the inauguration, if anyone wanted to effect massive wholesale action. You're exactly right, it's your family's choice what to do with the money, same as for every other person that bought a ticket to attend. What does a time of war have to do with the inauguration? Everyone has their own feelings on what is appropriate and what is not and when. Plenty of people feel that it's fine, plenty don't. No public figure is going to escape without criticism.
If widespread amounts of people refuse to spend money tomorrow, at least the restaurants won't be crowded when I go out to eat tomorrow night.

I do salute you for putting together cogent arguments even though on this issue we disagree.


Dan

[Longest]

Its to show, that even in defeat, we have a powerful voice and cant be pushed around by some "mandate" Bush thinks he has.

If the voice was that powerful, Kerry would have won. Are you suggesting Bush should act like he lost the election?

Dan

[unta8]

for every dime you dont spend I will spend 5.

[AXL]

for every dime you dont spend I will spend 5.
sig material!!! too bad i cant change my sig

[wayzatalax2008]

Bush is a good president. everyone forgets how well he handled 9/11

[Longest]

Bush is a good president. everyone forgets how well he handled 9/11

You mean railroading the Patriot Act through Congress to massively steal our civil liberties? Having Congress borrow money to avoid the "tax and spend" label, as if "borrow and spend" is better? Sending us to war under a false pretense? Now having no exit strategy for a war whose costs are skyrocketing? Catching Osama bin Laden? Yes, he's done a bangup job.

Dan

[laxbabe2121]

i heard that some guy predicted 9-11 and now hes predicting that bush is goign to be assasignated. (sp? i suck at it...) but anyways thats kinda strange.

hahah i hope that doesn't happen to bush tommorrow, but yea the government did know that something along the lines of 9-11 was going to occur. they just didn't know when.

[aussielax]

Bush is a good president.

I think i could pick a homeless person of the street that would do abetter job running the US.

[anjang86]

Bill Clinton spent the same amount of money on his innaguration too

[aussielax]

Bill Clinton spent the same amount of money on his innaguration too

yeah but how much money did clinton spend on invading other countries.

[anjang86]

I'm not arguing anything else here. I'm just saying that all things being equal, Bush deserves to have a party as good as Clintons

[Longest]

yeah but how much money did clinton spend on invading other countries.

Somalia. Yugoslavia. Bosnia. Haiti. War on drugs abroad. Even his peace negotiations cost the U.S. money.

http://www.fff.org/freedom/1000c.asp

Dan

[Longest]

I think i could pick a homeless person of the street that would do abetter job running the US.

Remind me when Australia became so strong and generous that everyone clamored for it to step in and spend money to bail them out of logistics crunches, peace talks, battles with warlords, and fights with AIDS.

Dan

[roughrider]

Somalia. Yugoslavia. Bosnia. Haiti. War on drugs abroad. Even his peace negotiations cost the U.S. money.

http://www.fff.org/freedom/1000c.asp

Dan

AHHH, but did he cut taxes during a time of war? That's what killed us if you asked me. As a matter of fact, Bush is the only president to have cut taxes during a time of war.

[Longest]

AHHH, but did he cut taxes during a time of war? That's what killed us if you asked me. As a matter of fact, Bush is the only president to have cut taxes during a time of war.

What does cutting taxes have to do with war? If you followed it, the government borrowed the money they cut from taxes so it's not like they came up short.

Dan

[audax]

Somalia. Yugoslavia. Bosnia. Haiti. War on drugs abroad. Even his peace negotiations cost the U.S. money.

http://www.fff.org/freedom/1000c.asp

Dan

Invade? More like save our ***. Without him, the UN, and countless other people, I wouldn't be here today.

[Longest]

Invade? More like save our ***. Without him, the UN, and countless other people, I wouldn't be here today.

I'm not quite sure how to respond. I'm glad you're alive is all that really comes to mind. Are you from Bosnia?

Dan

[enjoi]

I'm not quite sure how to respond. I'm glad you're alive is all that really comes to mind. Are you from Bosnia?

Dan

I think NC is Bosinan slang for "Bosnia"

[stegmakk]

This is the most expensive innaugeration. The past ones have not been as costly. Plus you'd think with times as they are, Bush would step up.
Tell the private donations (yes I know it was not public $) to let him give the $ either to Tsunami relief, or to outfit the troops with body armor, etc. Yes I know body armor won't stop an explosive device, but our boys are still getting shot at, and I know family members who had to look for bulet proof vests to send to family in Iraq...
Do something to show you care about others besides yourself Mr. Bush...9 friggin balls? You aint that cool. Im not gonna deny him...hane ONE, then do somehting good with the rest of the $$.

[TheKOB]

The body armor issue isn't all it's cracked up to be. Without body armor, the Humvee's are faster, and don't use up fuel as much. There are strategic advantages to not having body armor.

Furthermore, this whole "don't spend any money" sounds like an email forward, and it'll be just as successful. Will I have a pox on me as well if I do spend money? If you think that'll have any sort of economic impact, then that goes towards explaining a lot of the Democratic party's stance on economics....

Someone please explain to me how Clinton's wars were okey dokey, but the Iraqi war isn't. Is it because Bosnians are white? European? Or is it because of the political associations of the presidents? I'd wager the latter. That's sad.

EDIT: note the plural on "wars"

[anjang86]

I'm not sure that we exhausted ourselves and our resources so much in the "wars" than we did in the "WAR'

EDIT: note the capitalization on the word WAR!!!!!!!!

[TheKOB]

I'm not sure that we exhausted ourselves and our resources so much in the "wars" than we did in the "WAR'

EDIT: note the capitalization on the word WAR!!!!!!!!


What it isn't good for.

absolutely nothing.

Don't take it too literally though... :chuckle:

I don't think Clinton accomplished very much in his "wars" as Bush did and is doing in his "WAR!!!".

[anjang86]

"accomplishing" you say?

"to succeed in doing" " to come to pass"

he accomplished, but doesn't mean it was what's best

[TheKOB]

"accomplishing" you say?

"to succeed in doing" " to come to pass"

he accomplished, but doesn't mean it was what's best


So that whole "removing a dictator, freeing a people from oppression" might not have been what is best?

[TheKOB]

"Although Bush was met with protesters when he was sworn in in 2001, inaugural protests are rare historically, Hudnut-Beumler said. “Presidents are usually given an opportunity in their inauguration address to try to claim the affections and interests of the whole nation, including people who didn’t vote for him.”"

Taken from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6842927/?GT1=6065

So does this mean protesting is just a way of showing your sour grapes?

[TheKOB]

no message

[tekz]

I just bought a Whopper today.

Oops.

[anjang86]

So that whole "removing a dictator, freeing a people from oppression" might not have been what is best?

are we planning on removing all dictators now?

[TheKOB]

are we planning on removing all dictators now?

And that would be a bad thing? Remove one dictator who has had plots to assasinate the president of the US coupled with being so hopped up on oil money that he could start up a program to produce WMD's and shown no restraint in using poison gas, and you're supposed to deal with 'em all? When it comes to republican presidents, some people are so pessimistic....

Also, name another one who is in such a vital spot as the middle east. People complain about how they pay so much at the gas pump....but try to stabilize and bring democracy to a regoin where both are in short supply, and people ask why can't you do more. Saddam was a shark, and taking him out was preemptive so he doesn't then RE-start up his programs, and then we have to bargain with 'em like N Korea.

[AXL]

I just bought a Whopper today.

Oops.
Insider tip! Time to invest in BK!

[zak]

Tomorrow, everybody needs to scrape by without spending one single penny all day. This is a huge movement around the US to strike a huge blow to corporate America on the day of Bush's inauguration.

Do whatever you might tonight to prepare, but please don't spend a dime on January 20th. Imagine if the worst day for the American economy in decades happened on the same day that Bush spends $40 million to throw himself an inauguration party. It could send a huge message and grab headlines around the entire world. Band together to send the strongest message possible, the message of the almighty dollar!

Hahahaha... yeah. Right. Sure. Lets all not spend the 5 or so dollars we would usually spend. WE CAN CONTROL THE WORLD. CVS WILL FEEL THE LOSS OF MY MONEY. 711 WILL BE WEEPING. MWAHAHAHA. Seriously, no. Just no. The most this will possibly do is create a slow day for the economy, which happens anyways. This will make no difference. None. Im sorry. Im embarassed by reading that.

Heres my justification for the war in Iraq. http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/ewieselperilsofindifference.html
Read, it trust me its good.

[Longest]

And that would be a bad thing? Remove one dictator who has had plots to assasinate the president of the US coupled with being so hopped up on oil money that he could start up a program to produce WMD's and shown no restraint in using poison gas, and you're supposed to deal with 'em all? When it comes to republican presidents, some people are so pessimistic....

Also, name another one who is in such a vital spot as the middle east. People complain about how they pay so much at the gas pump....but try to stabilize and bring democracy to a regoin where both are in short supply, and people ask why can't you do more. Saddam was a shark, and taking him out was preemptive so he doesn't then RE-start up his programs, and then we have to bargain with 'em like N Korea.

I was on board with the war when we were hunting Osama bin Laden. Transferring that over to a new target, then justifying that with what we now know was incorrect intelligence but it's okay cuz he's a dictator, despite there being little proof that the Iraqis wanted us there, while it being a "strategic" area only for oil, just does not fly for me. And now that rumors are beginning to fly about moving this whole effort over to Iran.
Nothing makes democracy inherently better or worse than anything, just the ways it is used. I believe Jefferson himself said "The best 3 types of government are a benevolent dictatorship, benevolent oligarchy, and benevolent democracy." As someone else said, do we plan to democratize the whole world? I as a taxpaying American care far more about the economy and the waste in the federal government than I personally care about democratizing peoples that may or may not want it.

Dan

[Longest]

Heres my justification for the war in Iraq. http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/ewieselperilsofindifference.html
Read, it trust me its good.

That doesn't really blow my skirt up. I don't believe the Holocaust and Saddam's regime are equivalents. I know the numbers on Saddam, I'm aware of the situation. But it's not the same thing.

If Bush was such a faith-based Christian, he would know the meaning of the Scripture "Do not criticize your brother for having a speck in his eye when you have a plank in yours" - Matthew 7:3

Dan

[TheKOB]

If Bush was such a faith-based Christian, he would know the meaning of the Scripture "Do not criticize your brother for having a speck in his eye when you have a plank in yours" - Matthew 7:3

To who are you referring? Who's got the speck? When Bush starts gassing protesters, that might ring true.

Basically, as the big kid on the playground, some might say we've got the responsiblility to look out for the little guy. It does serve our own interests.

I sincerely doubt the majority of Iraq wanted Saddam to remain in power.

Was one of your new year's resolutions to be a liberal? j/k :chuckle:

[TheKOB]

That doesn't really blow my skirt up. I don't believe the Holocaust and Saddam's regime are equivalents.

He gassed a minority that he didn't like. I'm not so up on whether he used them as the reason they lost the first persian gulf war, but it seems pretty similar to me. Is it a matter of scale?

He oppressed the Shi'ite majority (religious persecution?). He built up his military to all-git-out. He's got a recognizable mustache...all he's missing is something akin to the swastika

Even if we didn't actually have justification, the right thing done for the wrong reasons is still the right thing. Who's mourning the removal of Saddam from power? As soon as someone shows me how it was a bad thing, I'll shut up. If we hadn't stepped in, it would've gotten worse. The UN wouldn't do anything, and Saddam's son (the guy who beat up their soccer team for not winning and had a torture facility for Olympic athletes) would take over. Better or worse?

[Longest]

To who are you referring? Who's got the speck? When Bush starts gassing protesters, that might ring true.

Basically, as the big kid on the playground, some might say we've got the responsiblility to look out for the little guy. It does serve our own interests.

I sincerely doubt the majority of Iraq wanted Saddam to remain in power.

Was one of your new year's resolutions to be a liberal? j/k :chuckle:

If Bush is arguing that people in Iraq deserve liberty then they have the speck and he has the plank. Patriot Act, for one, is a gross violation of our civil liberties. Until equality in this country really means equality, his pleas to liberate others are going to fall on deaf ears for me.

Nice with the liberal slam tho, I was wondering when you'd throw that at me :-) Actually I'm just taking hold of my libertarian roots, it's like anarchy but I don't have to put up a fort in my yard :-)

Dan

[Longest]

He gassed a minority that he didn't like. I'm not so up on whether he used them as the reason they lost the first persian gulf war, but it seems pretty similar to me. Is it a matter of scale?

He oppressed the Shi'ite majority (religious persecution?). He built up his military to all-git-out. He's got a recognizable mustache...all he's missing is something akin to the swastika

Even if we didn't actually have justification, the right thing done for the wrong reasons is still the right thing. Who's mourning the removal of Saddam from power? As soon as someone shows me how it was a bad thing, I'll shut up. If we hadn't stepped in, it would've gotten worse. The UN wouldn't do anything, and Saddam's son (the guy who beat up their soccer team for not winning and had a torture facility for Olympic athletes) would take over. Better or worse?

The ends justifies the means is my glib way summarizing what you said. Aristotle said a good action was one taken for the sake of good, not for the "wrong" reason. As for mourning his loss, I personally have shed no tears over it. The chance for others to have liberty is a great thing. To me, it smacks of hypocrisy though, as I said in another post.

Let's not get started on the UN, you will hear no love loss from me on them. They were never intended to be a world governing body, they were designed for us to keep Russia and China in check, not for us to be forced to listen to their arbitrary mandate. Their corruption runs rampant yet you barely read about it. Wonder why that is......

A serious question for you though Kevin. If Bush turns the war into an attack and invasion of Iran, will you support that?

Dan

[audax]

I'm not quite sure how to respond. I'm glad you're alive is all that really comes to mind. Are you from Bosnia?

Dan

Yes, I moved here about 7 years ago. :o just saying it wasn't an invasion of our country.

The body armor issue isn't all it's cracked up to be. Without body armor, the Humvee's are faster, and don't use up fuel as much. There are strategic advantages to not having body armor.

Such as having your soldiers die? Seriously, think about what you're saying. You'd rather have better fuel efficiency than have the 5 guys in the humvee wear something that will protect their life in a very dangerous situation.

Someone please explain to me how Clinton's wars were okey dokey, but the Iraqi war isn't. Is it because Bosnians are white? European? Or is it because of the political associations of the presidents? I'd wager the latter. That's sad.


I reckon it's the fact that we're not sitting on so much oil over there in Bosnia, you know?

As for Clinton's wars not accomplishing anything, I disagree. I'm not hiding in a bomb shelter now like I did before I left, right?

[TheKOB]

Such as having your soldiers die? Seriously, think about what you're saying. You'd rather have better fuel efficiency than have the 5 guys in the humvee wear something that will protect their life in a very dangerous situation.

You misunderstood me. It's a question of tactics. A faster humvee is less likely to get shot as a heavily armoured on. Another reason might be heat... But that's just my general speculation...which I won't give up unless someone who graduated from west point tells me I'm wrong. I don't think it's as widespread as it's made out to be.

As for Clinton's wars not accomplishing anything, I disagree. I'm not hiding in a bomb shelter now like I did before I left, right?

One out of what, five? Also, by saying it accomplished something for you, are you AGAINST having us try and accomplish it for other people? I don't follow your loopy logic. I was saying that the same people that excuse Clinton's wars (were there wasn't even the chance of WMD's, threatening neighboring countries, etc) condem Bush's because he's in the other political party. Both (Bosnia and Iraq, but let's not talk about Somalia) freed people from oppression of a dicator for reasons of human rights, which I support. Why can't people support the Iraqi conflict based on the same reasoning?

[TheKOB]

A serious question for you though Kevin. If Bush turns the war into an attack and invasion of Iran, will you support that?

Iran has sponsered terrorism (there is no need to speculate on that) and they're working on nuclear (if I'm not mistaken) and missle programs. I wouldn't shed a tear, although you definitely have to finish what you started first. I would imagine that Al-Quaida flourishes fine in Iran

The problem is do you preemptively strike a country who looks like they'll cause trouble, or do you wait until they're stronger and start threatening their neighbors with the nuke? It's a hard decision to make, but I'd rather err on the side of better safe than sorry when dealing with nuclear weapons.

Further, it's not the US that has to be worried about Iran...they dont' have ICBM's that can reach us. It's southern Europe and the Middle East. They've got the human rights record of China, the religious zealotry of...well, Iran (couldn't think of another example) and might soon have the capability and the will to use it of N. Korea. They seem aweful dangerous, and not the most level-headed.

I'll have to go with a mild yes.

[TheKOB]

As for the Patriot Act, I see where your coming from, but it seems to be jumping the gun a little bit. I haven't heard of any abuses. It's sad if you have to rely on law to keep the people in power in line, instead of trusting them to use their power responsibly, which I do....unless it's a cop with a radar detector in BFE, SC.

[stegmakk]

Bush vows to bring democracy to the world...GRRRRR...my despise for this man grows with every word he says...
Let's blow billions of our own money policing the world, and pissing off everyone else in the world...
you cant tell me bush doesn't want world domination under the policy of "spreading democracy"...

[Tony]

any body see the easton band?

[TheKOB]

Bush vows to bring democracy to the world...GRRRRR...my despise for this man grows with every word he says...
Let's blow billions of our own money policing the world, and pissing off everyone else in the world...
you cant tell me bush doesn't want world domination under the policy of "spreading democracy"...


Where do you draw the line? It seems like on one hand he's being criticized for spending money on his inaugeration party and not sending it to victums of a natural disaster, while being criticised for his efforts in the middle east.

[Longest]

Iran has sponsered terrorism (there is no need to speculate on that) and they're working on nuclear (if I'm not mistaken) and missle programs. I wouldn't shed a tear, although you definitely have to finish what you started first. I would imagine that Al-Quaida flourishes fine in Iran

The problem is do you preemptively strike a country who looks like they'll cause trouble, or do you wait until they're stronger and start threatening their neighbors with the nuke? It's a hard decision to make, but I'd rather err on the side of better safe than sorry when dealing with nuclear weapons.

Further, it's not the US that has to be worried about Iran...they dont' have ICBM's that can reach us. It's southern Europe and the Middle East. They've got the human rights record of China, the religious zealotry of...well, Iran (couldn't think of another example) and might soon have the capability and the will to use it of N. Korea. They seem aweful dangerous, and not the most level-headed.

I'll have to go with a mild yes.

I like that, a mild yes. What makes anyone think that we have the right to go around stopping ppl preemptively? Is "imagining" al-qaeda surviving in Iran a good enough reason to invade? I personally do'nt believe so. We have nuclear weapons programs. It's hypocritical to believe we can be trusted but others can't. Who else has used them? I'm not going to argue the wisdom of using them when we did, just the wisdom of thinking we have a monopoly on good sense.

There are plenty of worldwide dangers and domestic dangers. It's a dangerous world. And we are making it no less dangerous by continuing to throw our proverbial weight around. Bush is sitting on the biggest collection of world-stopping weapons in the history of man and we're supposed to hope that he is never going to get around to using them? It's clear he is unwilling to listen to calming voices or dissension. That worries me more than the Middle East does.

I guess every issue needs 2 sides, one to claim Bush is a harmless ***** cat and one to insist that he's a bully in a pissing contest. Didn't know I'd be the one on the pissing side for a change :-)

Dan

[Longest]

As for the Patriot Act, I see where your coming from, but it seems to be jumping the gun a little bit. I haven't heard of any abuses. It's sad if you have to rely on law to keep the people in power in line, instead of trusting them to use their power responsibly, which I do....unless it's a cop with a radar detector in BFE, SC.

I'm going to apply the somewhat nebulous and oft-cited slippery slope argument. It is a step down a road I refuse to see us go quietly. The Constitution exists as a limit on government power yet this one act seems to supersede that. I don't need to see any actual anecdotes to feel that it is against the theory of liberty.

Dan

[Longest]

As for Clinton's wars not accomplishing anything, I disagree. I'm not hiding in a bomb shelter now like I did before I left, right?

No disrespect intended, but one anecdote from one person does not justify, in and of itself, a war.
How about the aspirin factory bombing on the eve of the impeachment? Do you feel that accomplished some tangible wartime objective? Or just a personal one?

Dan

[Longest]

Where do you draw the line? It seems like on one hand he's being criticized for spending money on his inaugeration party and not sending it to victums of a natural disaster, while being criticised for his efforts in the middle east.

See Kevin, that's the liberal side :-) I'm still on the libertarian side ,the side of the angels :-)

Dan

[Longest]

You make good points. All I have to say is, if the 40 million won't help the military, it can sure help me. They can send me 0.1% of it and i'll be happy.

Dan

[zak]

That doesn't really blow my skirt up. I don't believe the Holocaust and Saddam's regime are equivalents. I know the numbers on Saddam, I'm aware of the situation. But it's not the same thing.

Are you implying that its not as big as the Holocaust, therefore we shouldnt worry? What if we had killed Hitler when he was still as powerful as Saddam (pre-Iraq-war power)? At one point, the tsunami was a 2 foot high wave... They most deffinetly are the same thing. If one man steals 12 million cars, should we punish the man who steals 50,000? Of course. The point of that speech is the perils of indifference, the world can not afford to be indifferent to tyranny. Even if that means only the US is smart enough to realize this.

[zak]

You know what, seeing as there are millions upon millions of starving children around the world every second of the day, why dont you you democrats cancel next elections DNC and donate all that money to feed those poor, starving children in asia?

Why stop at the DNC? The RNC, NBA, NFL, PGA, MLB, NLL, MLL, and CVS can all go. Heck, from now on, 4 letter minimum on everything. 3 and under is out. Imagine the money we will be able to donate! I think the point is, people didnt like seeing the excess coming from the on place its not expected. Especially these guys who hate Bush. If your older brother was starving to death on the streets, would you want your parents buying a lexus?

[Longest]

Are you implying that its not as big as the Holocaust, therefore we shouldnt worry? What if we had killed Hitler when he was still as powerful as Saddam (pre-Iraq-war power)? At one point, the tsunami was a 2 foot high wave... They most deffinetly are the same thing. If one man steals 12 million cars, should we punish the man who steals 50,000? Of course. The point of that speech is the perils of indifference, the world can not afford to be indifferent to tyranny. Even if that means only the US is smart enough to realize this.

If you were a student of history, you would know that we joined the war grudgingly after we were bombed by Japan which thus spun us into war with Germany. Hitler had preached his policy Jewish hatred for years and we ignored him. Hitler's invasions finally sparked European action. Who did Saddam invade in this instance? You have a long way to go from 9/11 as an invasion to Saddam. If you want to use the first Gulf War, remember that Saddam actually invaded Kuwait, we had some invasion to stand on. What we DO have here is incorrect intelligence being spin doctored.

What do you propose after Iraq? Iran? North Korea? Cuba? Rwanda? South Africa? Where does all of this liberting stop? At what cost? What if countries band together to liberate us from our "tyrant" Bush? Surely you can see our enemies being able to view us that way. Does that make you sleep more securely, to know that we are fostering hatred and danger, not solving it?

Dan

[zak]

If you were a student of history, you would know that we joined the war grudgingly after we were bombed by Japan which thus spun us into war with Germany. Hitler had preached his policy Jewish hatred for years and we ignored him. Hitler's invasions finally sparked European action. Who did Saddam invade in this instance? You have a long way to go from 9/11 as an invasion to Saddam. If you want to use the first Gulf War, remember that Saddam actually invaded Kuwait, we had some invasion to stand on. What we DO have here is incorrect intelligence being spin doctored.

What do you propose after Iraq? Iran? North Korea? Cuba? Rwanda? South Africa? Where does all of this liberting stop? At what cost? What if countries band together to liberate us from our "tyrant" Bush? Surely you can see our enemies being able to view us that way. Does that make you sleep more securely, to know that we are fostering hatred and danger, not solving it?

Dan

I dont propose anything, Im not standing here saying what the country should do, I'm giving my opinion on what it has done. And im trying not to resort to buck fush or kuck ferry. What do you propose, a more reactionary foreign policy? If you were a student of history, you might know that we almost lost the rest of the world twice that way. Do you propose doing nothing in Iraq? Iran? North Korea? Cuba? Rwanda? Countries will not liberate us from Bush, because we already have liberty. They might declare war, but thats different. When Bush murders children, gasses the inocent, supresses my opinion to the degree Saddam did, then I will welcome liberation.

[Longest]

I dont propose anything, Im not standing here saying what the country should do, I'm giving my opinion on what it has done. And im trying not to resort to buck fush or kuck ferry. What do you propose, a more reactionary foreign policy? If you were a student of history, you might know that we almost lost the rest of the world twice that way. Do you propose doing nothing in Iraq? Iran? North Korea? Cuba? Rwanda? Countries will not liberate us from Bush, because we already have liberty. They might declare war, but thats different. When Bush murders children, gasses the inocent, supresses my opinion to the degree Saddam did, then I will welcome liberation.

Well your air of "The US is right" gave me the impression that we would be right to liberate every country. What's good for the goose being good for the gander, I assumed your devotion to liberty extended throughout the world. "We" lost nothing in the rest of the world. It rises and falls on its own. We are our own country, beholden to no one. Don't preach our responsibilities to to others until our own house is in order with respect to liberty, equal rights, justice. How hypocritical is it to focus on those for others yet not for Americans?

What you call reactionary I would prefer to see as sensible. Is it sensible for Bush to use rhetoric regarding "liberating" others from "tyrants" when, as I pointed out, there are going to be plenty of other places where it exists? You have yet to answer what makes us so much greater than other countries. Are we right? Plenty of people think we are not. Possibly no one is right. But regardless of that, we are in no position to know that until it is history. There is a chance I can be wrong, recognize that, and recant. But there is also a chance I will be right about the path Bush has set the country on. Where does it end?

Dan

[Lockbox911]

This "protest" will work just as much as the protest on heinz ketchup. I hate when people believe something or feel a certain way and they feel the need to make sure everyone else feels the same way. There is no point to fighing over the internet. Bush won, deal with it. You don't ahve to like it just put it behind you and move to mexico or Canada.

[anjang86]

This "protest" will work just as much as the protest on heinz ketchup. I hate when people believe something or feel a certain way and they feel the need to make sure everyone else feels the same way. There is no point to fighing over the internet. Bush won, deal with it. You don't ahve to like it just put it behind you and move to mexico or Canada.

sounds like you're easily whipped, jk man

but seriously, how can tell people to stop protesting? Thats our right as Americans.

[zak]

sounds like you're easily whipped, jk man

but seriously, how can tell people to stop protesting? Thats our right as Americans.

Like this, stop protesting, Bush won. Get over it. Hes not going to read your sign that you spent 5 minutes making in your kitchen. No one cares. Go to France.

[Longest]

Like this, stop protesting, Bush won. Get over it. Hes not going to read your sign that you spent 5 minutes making in your kitchen. No one cares. Go to France.

If someone wants to spend time making signs and protesting, what harm does that do to you? The Constitution which the President purports to defend assures them that inalienable right. It's somewhat amusing to me that it's mostly individual citizens that yell at protesters to give it up, not so much the government. In the end, what is accomplished may only be in the mind of the protester: satisfaction that they did not merely yield and tried, however futiley, to do something.

Dan

[zak]

If someone wants to spend time making signs and protesting, what harm does that do to you? The Constitution which the President purports to defend assures them that inalienable right. It's somewhat amusing to me that it's mostly individual citizens that yell at protesters to give it up, not so much the government. In the end, what is accomplished may only be in the mind of the protester: satisfaction that they did not merely yield and tried, however futiley, to do something.

Dan

Sigh... you win... I quit. I really dont care anymore. Your supreme intelect and long posts are too much for me. im gonna stop using grammar to its easyer to type. maybe ill go play videogames now. madden r0cks!!11!!1

[Longest]

Sigh... you win... I quit. I really dont care anymore. Your supreme intelect and long posts are too much for me. im gonna stop using grammar to its easyer to type. maybe ill go play videogames now. madden r0cks!!11!!1

I doubt it's my intellect, more likely my longwindedness bored you into submission :-) I enjoyed our debate, don't go over to the dark side.

Dan

[Lacrosstitute]

This whole "dont spend your money" thing is going to do nothing but hurt the little guys, I'm sure Bush will still be in office and you'll all still be *****ing about it. If you would like to explain to me how taking away business from people is going to further your cause, enlighten me.

[zak]

I doubt it's my intellect, more likely my longwindedness bored you into submission :-) I enjoyed our debate, don't go over to the dark side.

Dan
I love this whole debating thing too, its the thinking and typing part that gets to me. Plus i have to get off the computer to PACK FOR MY SKI TRIP TO CANADA WOOOOOOO!!!

[roughrider]

Ahhh, back from my day of peace, love and anarchy. I heard the Seattle protest made it onto the national news. You might see me then, i am the kid with the goofy redhair. you might not see me though, well, I am in here somewhere though. We shut off downtown today. "Mission accomplished"

My handiwork- http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?g=events/ts/012005inaugprotests&a=&tmpl=sl&ns=0&l=&e=36&a=0&t=&prev=35

[SDS416]

Well, the day of waste and shame has come to pass. No major confrontations between protesting groups and police, which was good to see.
Just a few points:

1. There is actually historical precedent for the inaguration to be a media type event, held in the white house. FDR felt it was not appropriate to have a inaguration held during a time of war and therefore had a simple swearing in ceremony in the oval office. Other presidents who did not have large or elaborate swearing in ceremonies included LBJ (in 1963) and again in 1965 (he felt it not appropriate to have a large and lavish ceremony with the US involved in a war and social unrest at home) and President Ford.

2. A USA Today/Gallup/CNN poll found that 69% surveyed saw yestredays activites not as a patriotic celebration or American Tradition, but merely as a celebration by Bush supporters.

3. Another USA Today/Gallup/CNN poll found that 49% of Americans view the President as a uniter of people, 49% find him a divider of this nation and 2% are unsure of his role in uniting or dividing this nation. To me that signals several things, including that this nation is divided by its leadership now more than at any other time in history (including the civil war), that the conservative/republican agenda is starting to lose strength and momentum, and that with the right person on the democratic ticket, the neo-facist acting republican regieme that is in power currently can be defeated and the country can start to getting back to deal with more important and pressing issues.

[TheKOB]

You can’t unite people that don’t want to be united. I find your conclusions lacking as well…

Bush won, and people with sour grapes protested, threw eggs, flicked people off, and shut down a part of a city. Mission Accomplished? What did you accomplish? Was it your goal to be petty and childish? Some of those protests ended up violent. I personally don’t really feel the need to unite with people who do such things. My conclusion from that is that the liberals and the Democratic party feel that they’re losing the majority of America and they had to take some drastic (illegal/immature) measures to try and stop it. Will the majority of Americans identify with people throwing eggs and flicking off this nations leader? I doubt it. Did people do that when Clinton won reelection? Hells no. There is a line between protesting and rioting, and you crossed it, back tracked, stomped on it, and pissed on it, and drove over it again in your ’87 toyota corollas.

Grow up and show some respect to the office, if not the man. He’s the President elected by the majority of your countryman. That at least should say something.

[Thrillhouse]

To be fair, the majority of the protestors yesterday were peaceful. It would be wrong to label everyone who was protesting yesterday as violent because a few of them caused trouble. Most of them were peaceful and doing what they think is right; God bless them. It’s just as unfair when someone points to a racist minister in an attempt to paint all Christians with the same brush.

…and they drive Hybrids, not Corollas.

Here’s a fun new game for us; “Guess Who Said It”

"There is no contradiction between support for faith-based initiatives and upholding our constitutional principles…"

[Longest]

3. Another USA Today/Gallup/CNN poll found that 49% of Americans view the President as a uniter of people, 49% find him a divider of this nation and 2% are unsure of his role in uniting or dividing this nation. To me that signals several things, including that this nation is divided by its leadership now more than at any other time in history (including the civil war), that the conservative/republican agenda is starting to lose strength and momentum, and that with the right person on the democratic ticket, the neo-facist acting republican regieme that is in power currently can be defeated and the country can start to getting back to deal with more important and pressing issues.

I disagree with your conclusion. You state the conservative movement has lost its strength 3 months after the election that secured control of both houses and the White House for them? That's somewhat of a stretch. It's possible to be a conservative but at the same time think Bush is not being the Great Uniter. Some of that is the same rhetoric that came out of the Democratic Party during the election, and they promptly nominated Bush-Lite and found a way to lose an election that seemed to be theirs for the taking.

Dan

[TheKOB]

[QUOTE=Thrillhouse]To be fair, the majority of the protestors yesterday were peaceful. It would be wrong to label everyone who was protesting yesterday as violent because a few of them caused trouble. Most of them were peaceful and doing what they think is right; God bless them. It’s just as unfair when someone points to a racist minister in an attempt to paint all Christians with the same brush.

…and they drive Hybrids, not Corollas.

[QUOTE]

You're probably right on both accounts. I guess the TV and news must've focused in on the more interesting offenses.

On the same account though, it's not very common to have demonstrations on inaugeration day....

Is that a sign of disrespect or is he doing things THAT wrong. I'd think former, since he WAS just elected President....again.

[SDS416]

You can’t unite people that don’t want to be united. I find your conclusions lacking as well…

Bush won, and people with sour grapes protested, threw eggs, flicked people off, and shut down a part of a city. Mission Accomplished? What did you accomplish? Was it your goal to be petty and childish? Some of those protests ended up violent. I personally don’t really feel the need to unite with people who do such things. My conclusion from that is that the liberals and the Democratic party feel that they’re losing the majority of America and they had to take some drastic (illegal/immature) measures to try and stop it. Will the majority of Americans identify with people throwing eggs and flicking off this nations leader? I doubt it. Did people do that when Clinton won reelection? Hells no. There is a line between protesting and rioting, and you crossed it, back tracked, stomped on it, and pissed on it, and drove over it again in your ’87 toyota corollas.
Grow up and show some respect to the office, if not the man. He’s the President elected by the majority of your countryman. That at least should say something.

Yup, it does say something...that a majority of americans lack the intellect to make a responsible and rational decision when choosing the most qualified person to lead their country. I'll respect the office of President when the person holding that office EARNS my respect by being a resposible and intelligent leader to this country. In the meantime he will continue to be nothing more than an unintelligent, unqualified redneck.
You want to know why these protests are becoming more and more violent and frequent? Because there is a growing population in this country that is being continually repressed socially and economically and they are now reaching the point of being desperate for survival. Take a look at those who are protesting the most vigorously...its the ones who are facing a future where millions of jobs are being lost to overseas every year, whose friends are dying in a war that can't be justified and are doomed to be the first generation to have taken a step backwards in terms of overall wealth, whose civil rights are being stripped from them and are being ignored by the leaders of this country. Do they have a right to be heard, their grievences and concerns addressed? Your damn right they do. And its about time this government did that.

[TheKOB]

Honestly, if you have much lack of respect for your countrymen, then maybe you should switch nationalities rather than live in a place were you think the majority of voters (who are probably the more aware and informed members) are dumb as bricks.

Referring to the president being a responsible and intelligent leader….you’d be hard pressed to get a consensus on who has been that in the last century.

Nothing like throwing in a “redneck” reference. If that’s all you can resort to…calling names and calling people stupid, then I pity you. If you have a problem with southerners, that’s called prejudice.

I’d say (and I can back this up with evidence, ie the results of the election) that the protests are becoming more violent and more frequent not because the majority of Americans believe it, but because of a vocal minority who, like a child, feels they have to have a tantrum to make themselves heard.

I don’t think it’s as much of a class warfare as you (and other democrats) are trying to make it out to be.

Millions of jobs are not being “lost” overseas every year. The economy is improving….not that the president has that much sway there in the first place.

Ask the Iraqis if the war can be justified. We’re now fighting the very enemies that we set out to. It is a valid point though, and I see the justification

Overall, it seems like you and the protesters are crying wolf. And, just like the story, the generalizations and half-truths of the Dem. Party are getting tired, old, and worn out. People are not listening. Feel free to come with some facts or some sort of justification though.

[Longest]

Yup, it does say something...that a majority of americans lack the intellect to make a responsible and rational decision when choosing the most qualified person to lead their country. I'll respect the office of President when the person holding that office EARNS my respect by being a resposible and intelligent leader to this country. In the meantime he will continue to be nothing more than an unintelligent, unqualified redneck.


I find this unconvincing. You accuse a majority of voting Americans of lacking intellect to make a rational choice just because you did not make the same one. That seems like sour grapes.

I'm not even that convinced the war effort would be all that different if Kerry was in office, considering most of his rhetoric was not really that different. If only the Dems had run an anti-war candidate.

Dan

[Thrillhouse]

...that a majority of americans lack the intellect to make a responsible and rational decision when choosing the most qualified person to lead their country.

Bush won because everyone is stupid, but you're not?

I voted for Bush so I guess I really don't have the intellect to debate you on this, but I don't see how not respecting the person who was elected to office justifies violence. However, since it does, keep this in mind; One day a Democratic is going to be elected President and you’re setting a standard for how people can behave when they don’t agree with the majority. Violence is acceptable.

By the way, most of us have guns.

Don’t worry; we also have jobs we have to be at in the middle of the work week so we won’t have time to protest.

[TheKOB]

Don’t worry; we also have jobs we have to be at in the middle of the work week so we won’t have time to protest.

The best I can do is yell at a username on Lacrosseforums.

What KOB don't understand KOB SMASH!

and my favorite color is green to boot...

[Longest]

The best I can do is yell at a username on Lacrosseforums.

What KOB don't understand KOB SMASH!

and my favorite color is green to boot...

KOBDor!! Burninating the countryside!! KOBDor!!

Dan

[TheKOB]

don't forget the " ' " for majesty....

my older brother has a trogdor tshirt...

That last sentence sounded like a (blank) Anonymous meeting confession.

[HdGLaxWarrior]

GET IT STRAIGHT! BUSH IS NOT PAYING FOR IT! PRIVATE FUNDING! I bet this girl was a Kerry supporter, and what she fails to realize is that Kerry voted no for giving our troops body armor!

[Longest]

GET IT STRAIGHT! BUSH IS NOT PAYING FOR IT! PRIVATE FUNDING! I bet this girl was a Kerry supporter, and what she fails to realize is that Kerry voted no for giving our troops body armor!

We've already been all up in that dawg, try and keep up. :-)

Dan

[HdGLaxWarrior]

Alright... I just wanted to get my opinion across, since it's been said... DELETED!

[roughrider]

Like this, stop protesting, Bush won. Get over it. Hes not going to read your sign that you spent 5 minutes making in your kitchen. No one cares. Go to France.

Wow, I love it when people take the "dont like it than get out" stance because it leaves me looking like a better, more inteliigant individual. For future reference, this protest wasnt over the elections outcome, but over past decisions and Bush's future ones. I protested to make sure Bush knew he didnt have some sort of lofty mandate. We went out to say, we still have a voice and we dont like where you are taking this country. We are able to mobilize and get together and if you mess with us, we are a force to recon with. If we do not stand up to express our disgust then Bush would really have his mandate

[GeorgiaMiddie2]

SawyerLaxGirl, sorry, if i sound harsh, but although I also feel bush's economic plan is awful, your idea of not spending money only helps us to hurt ourselves... what america needs right now is to spend more money... it is truly the best way for america to get out of this defecit we're in.

I don't know where to begin to discuss how wrong you are. The money funding the inauguration is private money from companies and citizens who have purchased the privilege of dining with the president. If you had the money, you could have sent in an check and attended.

Dan
dan, you also failed to mention the over $17 million that the taxpayers of DC are spending on his security...

This is a president fighting a war he can't justify at a cost of $6million dollars a minute...thats right...$6mil. per minute (and that is according to the GAO)...all because his moron of a father didn't do it right the first time. QUOTE]
SDS, I think you're wrong here, bud. his dad actually did the right thing, by having an exit strategy and pullin out before he got into so deep that it would take years and thousands of lives for a cause that's totally not worth it.

[QUOTE=lilaxgurl23]But I think it's a good I idea to protect the man having the most influence in our country, don't you think?
You know... I'd almost say I don't really care about his protection... but then I might be scared at how much more awful that dirty old man, ****, might be.

Somalia. Yugoslavia. Bosnia. Haiti. War on drugs abroad. Even his peace negotiations cost the U.S. money.

http://www.fff.org/freedom/1000c.asp

Dan
The difference is... Clinton left office with a balanced budget... and handed it off to bush...

What does cutting taxes have to do with war? If you followed it, the government borrowed the money they cut from taxes so it's not like they came up short.

Dan
That's like saying... "oh, well, he just charged it all... We dont have to worry about those 6 credit cards he maxed out till next month..."

So that whole "removing a dictator, freeing a people from oppression" might not have been what is best?
not when thousands of americans died and the man who sent those men there lied about why they went in the first place...

[Longest]

Wow, I love it when people take the "dont like it than get out" stance because it leaves me looking like a better, more inteliigant individual. For future reference, this protest wasnt over the elections outcome, but over past decisions and Bush's future ones. I protested to make sure Bush knew he didnt have some sort of lofty mandate. We went out to say, we still have a voice and we dont like where you are taking this country. We are able to mobilize and get together and if you mess with us, we are a force to recon with. If we do not stand up to express our disgust then Bush would really have his mandate

You absolutely have the right to protest Tom, and I would never try to stop you. My only question is, where was this force to be reckoned with on election day when change could be effected? Where were the voters to run Bush out of office? Shouldn't he be listening to the majority of voters who put him IN office?

Dan

[Longest]

SawyerLaxGirl, sorry, if i sound harsh, but although I also feel bush's economic plan is awful, your idea of not spending money only helps us to hurt ourselves... what america needs right now is to spend more money... it is truly the best way for america to get out of this defecit we're in.


dan, you also failed to mention the over $17 million that the taxpayers of DC are spending on his security...


You know... I'd almost say I don't really care about his protection... but then I might be scared at how much more awful that dirty old man, ****, might be.


The difference is... Clinton left office with a balanced budget... and handed it off to bush...


That's like saying... "oh, well, he just charged it all... We dont have to worry about those 6 credit cards he maxed out till next month..."


not when thousands of americans died and the man who sent those men there lied about why they went in the first place...

JJ, you jumped into this late, you semi-misquoted me in that later I acknowledged the security expenditure and counted myself as feeling that was a mistake. And I was criticizing the borrow and spend attitude as no better than tax and spend, not trying to say that it was a good idea.

Dan

[GeorgiaMiddie2]

yeah, soorry, i just kinda skimmed through it all... i havent been on for a day or two, so im just tryin to play catch up