[StratComm]

I really am inclined to post a 2 page rant about how everyone loves to criticize when there is no possible gain to be had from it, but I'm not getting involved.  No one who isn't already convinced one way or another is going to be convinced, and those that have already made up their minds won't give the other side a chance. It's just like talking politics here.  All I can say is that we really don't need like 5 active threads on the topic, all saying essentially the same thing.

And TinCan, stop.  Stop now.  That's a fight you can't win.

[Kazan]

Tin Can knows as much about politics as my cat it seems


Bush better than clinton: ROTFL - economic numbers say: nay, national security: nah (Clinton had drawn up a total and complete, and in hindsight would have been utterly effective, battle plan to completely cripple al qaeda in one swift stroke, it was finished late in his second term, HE GAVE BUSH THE BATTLE PLAN AND BUSH IGNORED IT), yada ya da -- every real indicator of a president being good shows: Clinton GOOD, Bush ****

Tin Can you need to stop using "Fair and Balance" (they're the antinym of that) Faux News for your media source -- Rupert Murdoch  (owns fox news) has REPEATEDLY, OPENLY stated that he INTENDED TO BE BIASED and IS BIASED

[Rictor]

Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
Rictor, we didnt attack Iraq because we didnt like them, the guy running them, or how their political system was put together. We attacked because they had fairly obvious links to Al Queida, and we made it VERY clear at the start of the war we would attack anyone who harbors or supports terrorsists, so that was his final warning. Comply or die. We also liberated the rest of the people in the process of bringing down the guy who funded them pretty heftly.

every source, including your own government, has said that there were in fact no links between Iraq and al Queda. Osama on numerous occasions criticized Saddam for running a secular country. They were enemies, get your facts straight.

[Ace]

Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
We attacked because they had fairly obvious links to Al Queida...

Obvious links to Al Qaeda such as...?

Ohh that's right, you don't have any

It's one thing to wage a war, but you have to have a good excuse. Bush not listening to his advisors when it comes to making one is not an admirable trait. Of course, we're all supposed to praise him for his initiative and self-assertiveness...

[Kazan]

Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
We attacked because they had fairly obvious links to Al Queida,

this statement is completely, totally and unequivocally false -- both British Intelligence and the CIA _KNEW_ that there was no such link, but the Bush Administration didn't want to hear it, and had cheney lean on the CIA until the CIA falsified reports saying what they wanted


Once again: Stop using the, self admittedly, radically-right-biased Rupert Murdoch Propganda Network (Fox News) as your information source -- INDEPENDANT (as in non-political-organization, multiple-university cooperation) studies have shown that 80% of Fox News viewers hold opinions that are completely factually FALSE -- you're and example of one of them (they have also corrected for every possible variable imaginable - it's a damn good study, and I don't say that jsut because it damns you ignorant fools)

[Knight Templar]

Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
I was watching the RNC about 20 minutes ago before I came up, played some NS, then checked out the boards. What confuses me is how a lot of non-Americans even CARE about our politics. I rarely (if ever) see anyone saying how they can run Germany, France, Australia, or England's politics better other than the people who live in the country themselves. If you dont live here and havent even visited America, dont think you know what is better for us when you have not even stepped foot on the ground we walk every day. I would never in my life make a topic *****ing about British, German, or French politics and how much they suck and how much more intelligent I am over your political system, and how I know better than all of you. I wouldnt do it, and neither should you.

That's because Britain, Germany and France don't impose their iron (Cruise Missile) fist on the rest of the world.....

Well, anymore.

Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
Rictor, we didnt attack Iraq because we didnt like them, the guy running them, or how their political system was put together. We attacked because they had fairly obvious links to Al Queida, and we made it VERY clear at the start of the war we would attack anyone who harbors or supports terrorsists, so that was his final warning. Comply or die. We also liberated the rest of the people in the process of bringing down the guy who funded them pretty heftly.

You know the people who you are defending openly admitted that is not a true statement, right?

[Rictor]

meh, CNN and the rest are not much better.

[MatthewPapa]

Originally posted by Kazan
Tin Can knows as much about politics as my cat it seems


Bush better than clinton: ROTFL - economic numbers say: nay, national security: nah (Clinton had drawn up a total and complete, and in hindsight would have been utterly effective, battle plan to completely cripple al qaeda in one swift stroke, it was finished late in his second term, HE GAVE BUSH THE BATTLE PLAN AND BUSH IGNORED IT), yada ya da -- every real indicator of a president being good shows: Clinton GOOD, Bush ****

Tin Can you need to stop using "Fair and Balance" (they're the antinym of that) Faux News for your media source -- Rupert Murdoch  (owns fox news) has REPEATEDLY, OPENLY stated that he INTENDED TO BE BIASED and IS BIASED

I see it more as, clinton was in the right place at the right time.

[.::Tin Can::.]

Kaz, those numbers were obviously pulled out of your ass, because in fact if you looked, unemployment is down, economy is up, and in fact we have boosted our military power after Clinton cut it down to size. As I said, those numbers were obviously pulled out of the very thick crack in your ass.

As for Fox News, I actually listen to them only ever so often.

You can get me to believe that Clinton actually set the stage for Bush and all his sucess, then I will admit I was wrong, but until then I think that you only say what you like to say and when its good to say it.

And TinCan, stop. Stop now. That's a fight you can't win.

And no, because it seems Im one of the only people who can take gripe after gripe from the same people without backing down just because Im being argued with. Im standing up for my ideals and Im not backing down, I'm not quivering under the pressure.

[Bobboau]

links between Al Queida and Sadam... I'll let the denials pass given the context in wich  it was started.

[.::Tin Can::.]

Well then I'm willing to stand up and say I was wrong about it. Fair enough, now lets move on to other matters.

[Knight Templar]

Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
Kaz, those numbers were obviously pulled out of your ass, because in fact if you looked, unemployment is down, economy is up, and in fact we have boosted our military power after Clinton cut it down to size. As I said, those numbers were obviously pulled out of the very thick crack in your ass.
 

Unemployment... down? From what... last month?

[.::Tin Can::.]

From since economy got better? Duh?

[Ghostavo]

@Tin Can

Taken from the CIA site
The years 1994-2000 witnessed solid increases in real output, low inflation rates, and a drop in unemployment to below 5%. The year 2001 saw the end of boom psychology and performance, with output increasing only 0.3% and unemployment and business failures rising substantially.

Here's the link to the info above - http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html#Econ

and it seems it has been decreasing... well... because in the beggining of the "Bush years" it rose a lot. Here's a link to show you the latest - http://stats.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t01.htm

[Knight Templar]

And it's from the CIA, so you know it's fact.


Err...    hehhe....

[Kosh]

I really can't see why people even call this 'politics' anymore. I am so glad only America holds this type of 'show-politics'. I'd be embarrased to be American if I saw that happening in my country.

Right on. I agree with you 100%. What is pathetic is all of the attack ads running. What is even more pathetic is how many people seriously believe them. Not to mention all of the hate that is on the right. It's sad when any opposition to a policy is labeled as "treason". Isn't that what democracy is all about? Isn't that what US alledgedly invaded Iraq to give people?

[Bobboau]

the ecconomy started to crash months before Bush was elected

the red line is the dow, the blue line is the Nasdaq (tech heavy)

[Knight Templar]

Notice how the sharpest drop is right when his presidency is announced?

Also note that the lowest point during the end of the Clinton admistration is still higher than any point on the Bush administration.

[Ghostavo]

[Vaelinx]

OK... just to keep everyone honest... you have to think global...  cause since the cold war has ended, that's how economics has been... global...  There are a number of reasons the economy was good in the US during the late '90's...   of them had to do with the crash in Indo-China and Russia (yes, that actually boosted the American economy, and I'll explain how if someone wants explanation).  Some of them had to do with the Telecom boom and a new industry growing to proportions larger then it could sustain.  And NONE (well maybe one or two) of them had to do with the policies of the President at the time.  Numbers were hidden, spending increased...  But as it went, there was a Democratic President with a Republican Congress, and here in the United States of America, that means it's hard to pass anything that isn't widely supported.  Meaning of Presidential "policy" required Republican approval to go thorugh...  Anyhow the problem we have now, is that the Republicans pretty much rule capitol hill... and so some wackjob extreme stuff gets through... only to be knocked down by supreme courts.  It's not that the Republicans are wackjobs, both parties have wackjobs...  It's just when both houses and the Presidency are controlled by the same party, then it's easier for that party's wackjobs to get their bills passed...  Unless there's fillabuster...

But don't fall into the stupid fallacy that every brain dead TV zombie seems to believe:  The President does not single-handedly influence and control to US economy by himself...  You can make an argument that Congress can...  but even then it's tough...