Sick Of Blaming Bush

[Jayhawker Soule]

This is true BUT they are doing a job they were sent to do.

And we will all pay for it.

Most of them feel they are doing something to try to help these people.

Then shame on those who taught them!

 

[huajiro]

I despise everything that Bush represents....not because everyone else does, but for who he is.

 

[fromthe heart]

And we will all pay for it.
Then shame on those who taught them!

Yes...we will. and they chose the job that got them there. I understand how you feel..I don't like it that we are over there in Iraq...I think we should mind our own business and tend to this country only..heck I'm glad NOT to be the president...I feel this country needs work...we need our jobs to match the rising economy,we need not to have people living on the streets, we need to keep jobs in our own country, we need to have free health care for everyone, We need to taske care of ALL of this country's needs before we try to fix someone elses country...We need to get OSAMA and bring him to justice....aren't you glad I'M not president...I'd be hated too.

 

[Pah]

Bush is more pitiful than blame-worthy. One should not make fun of the handicapped

Bob
(as always - holding back my thoughts)

 

[HelpMe]

that show with jon stewart cracks me up so bad.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Amen Brother Pah! Amen!

 

[No*s]

are you, spinkles, or cerid holding the paper trail hostage?


if he wasn't president you would condemn his actions.will you admit that the worst leader in recorded history even had supporters?

While I'll have to repeat this again shortly, it's not our job. It's the job of those making allegations to the opposite to do so. The common consensus is in both major parties, the general United States, etc. that he won the election. If you think he cheated (like getting another 180k votes in Ohio), then it is your job to prove it, not ours to disprove it. Until you do so, the common wisdom carries more force IMO.

 

[No*s]

No, but he does send out letters to cristians saying that voting for Kerry is a sin. And haliburton is not unethical, it is corruption. They have given numberless multi-million dollar conracts to them, because Dick and Bush(Dick IN Bush?) have stocks in that company. Now is a president of the United States of America ALLOWED to have stock? Well.. why don't you find out for yourself?
Yes he is worse than Nixon, at least Nixon admitted that he was a greedy prick. But Bush lies about it saying.. well.. LIES! This subject really brings my blood to a boiling point so therfore my statements may have been kinda harsh.

-Xander

1). The people doing that were certain members of the Catholic Church. Bush did not do this. Of course, I may be mistaken, and if so, what proof have you? Can you produce for me the text of a letter saying this that you can trace back to Bush? If not, this is part of the unfounded bashing this thread was started over.

2). "Is the president of the United States of America ALLOWED to have stock?" Obviously, he is. If he weren't he would have been impeached by the Dems, and possibly kicked out. However, even if my assessment is wrong, I'm not the one that has to "find out" for myself. That's your job. You are making the allegation. Visit the law libraries, and tell us which laws forbid it. It's not my job in this discussion.

3). Yeah, Nixon admitted he was wrong after the impeachment started, he was certain he was going to be convicted, and so on. So what does he do? He leaves office and is acquitted by his vice. To my knowledge, Bush isn't in danger of getting kicked out.

 

[No*s]

Which documents were these?

CBS published some documents, headed by Dan Rather, about Bush's time in the military. They weren't exactly kind. However, bloggers analyzed the documents and found them to be frauds. CBS took a while, and finally admitted that the documents were of dubious origins, but that the intent expressed by them was true. In essance, they could forge the documents, and if the point they expressed was true, then treating them as news was also acceptable.

In reality, I don't "hate" Mr. Bush, as I really wish him well and pray for him DAILY (he still hasn't repented). However, as was pointed out I honestly find the most despicable part of his character is that he and his party labeled Kerry as a "non-Christian" only because he was Catholic. His brand of "Good ol' Boy" religion reeks of a religious jihad against all of his "enemies". His gospel of hate and intolerance are not what I find in my Bible and I reject his homophobic agenda outright.

I'm not the biggest Bush fan in the world, but there is a good deal of misinformation out there. I'm not a Dem, and I'm not a Republican. I just think everyone needs a fair shake. Bush has done enough that we don't need to make up stuff about him. IMO, neither he nor Kerry is fit for office .

 

[No*s]

I,too,agree that there has been enough bashing. He IS afterall our President. We don't have to agree with him on all issues but we should try to unite on some things to pull this country together. We don't really seem to be THE "UNITED" States because there is always someone crying out there on some issue...don't get me wrong, they are intitled to how they feel but what happened to give and take? It seems there are more in this country trying to take rather than give. To me it seems currently our soldiers are doing the giving and protesters are taking something away from what they consider their pride in their mission. I remember Vietnam and what this country's protests did to our guys coming back from 'their job'...they were put down for what happened over there and they felt like they were slapped in the face...some were called baby killers,etc. If I had been given a job to do and when I was done someone called me awful things I would wonder why I even tried. For Bush to become president there had to be enough people in this country that support him in what he is doing...trust me if Kerry had won there would still have been those protesting what he would have done too. We have got to get a united stand in situations like these even if we don't agree to be able to do great things like this country always had the reputation of diong. I don't agree with our soldiers being killed in Iraq because I see them being sacrificed for a seemingly lost cause...as in Vietnam. But they deserve our support, right or wrong, we need to stand UNITED for them.

From the Heart, I agree in part. I don't think the soldiers should have to face hordes of protesters coming back, but I'm also not going to stop the protesters. It is their liberty, even if it's a sad choice.

However, criticizing the president is not just American in situations like this, it is neccessary for our liberty. It is only by criticism that we can hold him in place. It's the validity of the criticism that counts. When statements are true, then the criticism has a point.

For instance, Bush shouldn't be protested quietly about his choice of Gonzales for Attorney General. It is an offront to all things decent with some of the stuff he's published, and I don't believe the sanitized interpretations. Nor should he be quietly protested for the Patriot Act (Congress ialso needs to be rebuffed for that one, including the Dems). Lastly, the issue at Guantanamo Bay is ridiculous. It is an affront to human rights.

We are right to get all huffy about things like this. It's when we start making up stuff, deliberately taking them out of context, etc. that it's a problem. I think it has indeed become nearly an obsession, such that any accusation is acceptable. Sadly, a similar thing happened to Clinton.

 

[HelpMe]

It's the job of those making allegations to the opposite to do so...

If you think he cheated (like getting another 180k votes in Ohio), then it is your job to prove it, not ours to disprove it...

Until you do so, the common wisdom carries more force IMO.

how could something be proven without a physical observable trail?how an evolutionist could accept the electronic results but not id is beyond me for the moment at least.

to be honest i don't think democratic politicians had the most to lose if the republican president stayed in office.

 

[Scuba Pete]

CBS published some documents, headed by Dan Rather, about Bush's time in the military.

"Published" or "reported" this fraudulent info? They did NOT create the document.

That was not even CLOSE to the charater assassination the Bush camp did to Kerry. How dispicable and the President NEVER ordered them to stop OR COME OUT PUBLICLY AGAINST THEM. Anyone who claims the man's innosense in this has their head in the sand. I am so thankful that the Kerry camp did not respond quid pro quo.

This election was the most devisive in our history, and we owe it all to Bush's "End Justifies the Means" morality. The man not only allowed but ENCOURAGED people to hate others and all in the name of God and for power. How incredibly disgusting!

 

[Mr Spinkles]

They did NOT create the document.

Publishers rarely create what they publish.

 

[No*s]

how could something be proven without a physical observable trail?how an evolutionist could accept the electronic results but not id is beyond me for the moment at least.

Actually, there is still a good bit of a paper trail. Many, many votes cast were on traditional paper machines. Electronic machines were hardly universal in the election. I voted on paper myself, for instance. So did every person I am friends with in the physical world.

You'd have to come up with a pretty crazy scenario to account for, say, the 180k lead in Ohio. If you did find such a scenario with electronic machines at the center, it'd be ridiculously easy to test. Just look it the discrepancies between statistical votes on paper and votes on machines. So, no, appealing to machines doesn't work. I'm sure the atheistic evolutionists would agree with this theistic evolutinist that this is a valid system of testing it.

It's also a little bit of a double-standard to say, in effect, that it is impossible when I ask you to live up to the burden of proof here. I made my statement, because someone said that the "common man" doesn't support Bush and quoted it. You asked me if I'd done the work to verify it. You should be willing to do the work that you are asking others to do. In fact, you should be more than willing, since I express the consensus of the media (even the hostile media), the states, apparently the popular vote, and the electoral college. Even the rival candidate gave it to Bush. If you are going to say that there's a good possibility that Bush stole the 2004 election, you'd better be willing to put your money where your mouth is, because there is near-universal consensus in the opposite direction.

to be honest i don't think democratic politicians had the most to lose if the republican president stayed in office.

Actually, they had quite a bit to lose. Both parties had a lot to lose, in fact. The appointment of Supreme Court Justices, four more years of shaping policy in a critical time, and so on. There was quite a bit to lose, and I don't think they'd just give it up willingly. They don't on far more minor things; neither side does.

 

[No*s]

"Published" or "reported" this fraudulent info? They did NOT create the document.

That was not even CLOSE to the charater assassination the Bush camp did to Kerry. How dispicable and the President NEVER ordered them to stop OR COME OUT PUBLICLY AGAINST THEM. Anyone who claims the man's innosense in this has their head in the sand. I am so thankful that the Kerry camp did not respond quid pro quo.

This election was the most devisive in our history, and we owe it all to Bush's "End Justifies the Means" morality. The man not only allowed but ENCOURAGED people to hate others and all in the name of God and for power. How incredibly disgusting!

It isn't? They published it even when their in-house expert advised them it was dubious at best, and found a "better" opinion. When it came out that it was a fraud, they denied it. When they finally acknowledged it, they still said it was valid, because its contents were true, even though they couldn't prove it. So, they knew the document was dubious, and actively chose to ignore it. They denied it's being a fraud in the face of evidence. They justified their use by the fact that its contents were "true" despite the fact they couldn't prove it.

Both sides were bad about character assassination from this and Faranheit 9/11 to the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth. It was all mud, but this is by far the most outrageous. It wasn't done by disgruntled vets, a crackpot movie director, but by a respected news agency. That fact should be very telling.

 

[HelpMe]

Actually, there is still a good bit of a paper trail. Many, many votes cast were on traditional paper machines.

many is not most, and i have not come across one person in person here in florida that got a reciept.whether from the machines or from the mail in votes.

You'd have to come up with a pretty crazy scenario to account for, say, the 180k lead in Ohio.

how about have a computer company back one president financially?

If you did find such a scenario with electronic machines at the center, it'd be ridiculously easy to test.

no it wouldn't, be cause the first run of votes does not have to be the same as the next or previous.

In fact, you should be more than willing

honestly we both(i hope) know that no matter what the election would not be turned over.*points to 2000 in my state*

Even the rival candidate gave it to Bush.

i remember one of kerry's people saying (to the effect of) "bush and kerry aren't that different".so your point is not a point at all to be honest, as i stated, and even as kerry stated in debates, he has/had alot to gain from a republican president.

because there is near-universal consensus in the opposite direction.

argumentum ad populum?

anything

Actually, they had quite a bit to lose. Both parties had a lot to lose...

you went on to name nonmaterial things.this was not my point.

 

[Scuba Pete]

They denied it's being a fraud in the face of evidence.

What evidence? All they had were people just like you saying that no such thing could be true. That ain't evidence my friend.

Comparing the dishonesty of the Bush camp to the Kerry camp is like comparing WWII to the invasion of Grenada.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

NetDoc-- Maybe you need to quit blaming Bush for everything as truthseekingsoul suggests, and start taking your criticism out on those who are really responsible for his reelection--the voters.

 

[No*s]

many is not most, and i have not come across one person in person here in florida that got a reciept.whether from the machines or from the mail in votes.

Well, I don't have statistics on which is used more, but I'd be surprised if it was under half, honestly. However, my system I proposed will work, unless of course, the number of votes on paper are so small as to be statistically insignificant. We both know that isn't the case.

It's not receipts that count. It's the hard ballots that count in my test. Receipts are irrelevant to the test. We go in, count the paper ballots, which are quite physical, then we in turn compare them to the electronic ballots. We can then compare them statistically.

Receipts as an end-all test are rather poor for several reasons. First, most people wouldn't preserve them. Second, a receipt can be forged just as easily as dead people voting. Thirdly, receipts for said dead people voting would never be counted. Receipts for electronic ballots don't answer any questions at all. They just postpone uncertainty.

how about have a computer company back one president financially?

Again, you can test this with my scenario. The funny thing about conspiracy theories...is they are almost always wrong.

no it wouldn't, be cause the first run of votes does not have to be the same as the next or previous.

So, in other words, they change the election to cover their tale a second time? That's like saying "There are twelve men who control the whole world, but if you try to get proof, they've already covored the proof so you can't find them." Honestly, if Bush stole the election, he would reveal himself simply by retampering with the results to hide it. The differences alone woudl be telling when it comes to machines. Digital files don't change radically very easily, and when they do, we know it happened.

i remember one of kerry's people saying (to the effect of) "bush and kerry aren't that different".so your point is not a point at all to be honest, as i stated, and even as kerry stated in debates, he has/had alot to gain from a republican president.

So? That would be a reference to character. The Dems. fought hard for that office. Are you seriously proposing that Kerry, after all that effort, simply overlooked evidence that it was rigged and give up his shot at the most powerful office in the world? Kerry gave every sign to me of seriously desiring the office. Unless I see this quote in context, I'm going to have to say that I cannot see it being validly applied this way, since I have watched Kerry for a whole election season as evidence to the contrary.

argumentum ad populum?

anything

Yes it is, and also an appeal to authority. And it is valid in numerous places. Appealing to the number of states is valid, because he is president of those states. Appealing to the opinion of the electorate is valid, because they decide. Appealing to the consensus of the parties is valid, because they have a vested interest and the knowledge to judge the matter. Appealing to the media, who have the expertise to investigate it and a vested interest (both financial and with some political) is also justifiable.

Those are all authorities, and they hold this without waver. Why shouldn't I appeal to them?

you went on to name nonmaterial things.this was not my point.

Actually, I named several material things: paper ballots, parties, media reports, states, and the like. They just aren't the material things you want. You named a grand total of three things: 2000, which is a different situation, and the pair of digital voting and a ballot manufacturer supporting Bush, which my test deals with. I named far more verifiable evidence on my sides...no shadowy deals behind the scenes to complete the circle, just hard evidence. Your closing statement cuts against you harsher than I.

 

[HelpMe]

sry but that's all way too long winded for me at the moment, didn't get much sleep last night.i'll answer another time maybe.