"off topic from rx-8"

I think his just a trigger happy guy who has the influence of his father. His making stupid decisions while there are bigger threats out there. Look at N Korea, they are mocking us with their nuclear silo turned on. Since 9/11 his been aftering sadam instead of chasing the real bad guy Osama bin Laden... sure sadam needs to be taken down, but no need of war... *sigh*... wellz I got tons of hasty remarks but I want to keep it clean.


"Did you guys know he is also the dumbest president in americas history, he has the iq of 91, bill clinton the smartest with 180."

OK, by fighting Saddam, he's fighting Bin Laden. This is because Saddam is a major backer of terrorist activity. Hell, he pays $20,000 dollars to the families of each Palestinian suicide bomber. By liberating Iraq, there will only be like 2 coutnries in the middle east who will house terrorists, and those countries will be surrounded by anti-terrorist governments. This war isn't about oil, or finishing daddy's nasty work, it's about the ruthless murder of 2000 innocent citizens on September 11th 2001. If you think that the war in Afghanistan was the end of it, you obviously have no scope of things.

Oh and
1. Bill Clinton, with his massive iq of 180 can't have much sense after he got head in his office.

2. Iq tests are really shitty,

3. If you think they're accurate, explain how Marylin Munroe could have been smarter than Albert Einstein.

"Comments: * You'd think Americans would have grown weary of "Bush is an idiot" jokes by now, but the popularity of this forwarded email suggests otherwise.
It's obviously satire, though in a few cases it has been posted around the Net as factual and, strange as it seems, hotly debated.
We have found no evidence of a "Lovenstein Institute" in Scranton, Pennsylvania or anywhere else. There's no trace of a "Dr. Werner R. Lovenstein, world-renowned sociologist" or "Professor Patricia F. Dilliams, world-respected psychiatrist" ? not in this world, at any rate. All of the facts and figures appear to have been made up. Some versions of the text claim it was published by the Associated Press, which is not the case.
The apparent source of this work of fiction was www.linkydinky.com, which is home, appropriately enough, to a humor mailing list.
* UPDATE:* Newspapers around the world take the joke seriously!
""
-Urban Legends, urbanlegends.about.com

I can't believe you fell for that, typical Californian :)

Rob

Plz don't go off topic, I asked what do you think of the guy.

What can you expect from Bill Clinton... his a guy..... if you have an oppurtunity to have free head you would take it 2. And you can't judge me saying I have no scope of things... if I want to go on and argue with yah I would but no point, and not once did George Bush made a statement about 9/11 when he proposed war on IRAQ. One last thing I want to know what you think of G Bush, plz dont put stupid comments when you dont know me.

Typical californian...?? Ok, yeah alot of us don't like Bush. Yeah Iq are shitty but I think he is still stupid and many americans think so 2. I can't wait 2 send Bush some of my salty pretzels I made.: :p

if this thread going to start a flame war than moderator plz close it down but leave the voting poll on.

Oh the Irony! It's pretty darn funny when someone posts a poll with the intent of calling Bush an Idiot, they spell it as Ediot in the poll question.

HaHa. Perhaps I shouldn't be the one pointing this out, since I'm a horrible speller and I really don't care about spelling and grammar on informal online forums. It just cracks me up in this case that the one throwing the stone is guilty of the same crime.

As far as Clinton vs. Bush, I believe we can quote one of the great philosophers of our time, Forest Gump. "Stupid is as stupid does." Enough said. :)

I only have two words to say regardling Dubbya, 'One Term' and I even support the war effort though I think N. Korea and the domestic economy should have had higher priority.

Personally, I think Bush is a moron.

However, while I didn't really like the idea of the war, I also understand that Saddam is truly an evil human being and the world will be better off without him. I think we should have finished what we started 12 years ago, though, and not be dealing with this now. I still never saw any convincing arguments to attack Iraq at this point in time. But since it's now started, and it's not going to stop, I may as well be supportive of what's going on. Especially since I now have friends over there in the middle of the fighting.

Um.... "ediot"?

I also understand that Saddam is truly and evil human being and the world will be better off without him.

Hear, hear. We can't let this guy continue to mess with the world. Think about it- when he is gone, the whole world will be a less dangerous place. I think we should do it just to free the Iraqis. No one deserves to live under someone like that. As for N. Korea, they have behaved somewhat more responsibly than Saddam and have not invaded neighbors or gassed people.

I voted for Gore and did not like Bush until 9-11. I was impressed by the way he handled everything and I would have voted for him afterwards. Then, as the economy tanked, I started thinking "one term" again.

Now the war is on and it looks like it is going better than we would have hoped. We may have nailed Saddam in the opening shot and there is hardly any resistance. We are rolling in and taking over.

Maybe there is something to this guy. If they roll in and take over with so little resistance, I would say shock and awe is EXACTLY what it will be. I will be in shock and I will be in awe of what was accomplished. It is amazing But it looks like this is could happen.

That said, as a strongly secular person, especially where separation of church and state are concerned and I am sick of his constant references to religion and invoking of God, etc. It can be scary in a way. I also think this medical malpractice limit of $250k is a bunch of crap, as are the tax cuts for the top 3%.

What can I say? He seems to be good for national defense and poor at domestic issues. This could spell one termer... if the dems come up with a decent candidate!

Don, I completely agree- your line of thinking on this is almost exactly parallel to mine.

Originally posted by moogle
if this thread going to start a flame war than moderator plz close it down but leave the voting poll on. What did you expect would happen when you posted this poll?

Speaking of Naivete, if you actually think that President Bush is doing this because of his father's influence, and that Sadaam is not involved with terrorists, then you don't know enough about the situation to make an intelligent decision.

Make sure that you don't base your opinions on a bunch of hype and rumor (I'm not saying that that's what you're doing, but it sure sounds like it). There are alot of people out there talking out of their kiester and making ridiculous claims.

---jps

I think Bush is pretty dumb (almost an idiot) compared to most world leaders (look at his unscripted Q&A sessions with the press compared to Tony Blair's) but that is almost moot as he has some very smart advisors. Note he has had some incredibly tough problems since taking office - and not all were his fault (economy, unemployment, 9-11 etc).

Sad to say he is doing the right thing in Iraq before another 12 years go by with Saddam playing the UN and inspectors like a fiddle. Can you imagine how tough it must be to do something that makes you one of the most reviled men on earth - and I am talking about Bush not Saddam or bin Laden...

The current facts prove that Saddam is not a danger for the security of the USA. And that is what it is all about, isn't it? There is hardly any resistance. The USA is rolling in and taking over. But they made you believe that he was dangerous. The Iraqi population has decreased with 16% since the first Gulf war. The Iraqi Army is equipped with material of the eighties. The army of Iraq is now only 40% of what it was before the first Gulf War, and that was a white wash. I can tell you that this war has changed the public opinion in the world of the USA. We used to look up to you guys, and you were an example. Now everybody in Germany, France, China, Malaysia, Iran, Africa etc thinks that you are the big bully. You now what Washington is called behind your back? "The capital of arrogance". We are just too afraid to say it loud, we could be next you know!:mad:

Originally posted by sheylen
The current facts prove that Saddam is not a danger for the security of the USA. And that is what it is all about, isn't it? There is hardly any resistance. The USA is rolling in and taking over. But they made you believe that he was dangerous. The Iraqi population has decreased with 16% since the first Gulf war. The Iraqi Army is equipped with material of the eighties. The army of Iraq is now only 40% of what it was before the first Gulf War, and that was a white wash. I can tell you that this war has changed the public opinion in the world of the USA. We used to look up to you guys, and you were an example. Now everybody in Germany, France, China, Malaysia, Iran, Africa etc thinks that you are the big bully. You now what Washington is called behind your back? “The capital of arrogance”. We are just to afraid to say it loud, we could be next you now!:mad:

well said!

America is just flexing their muscles, that bs about liberating iraqis is a poor ass excuse.

Yes, you are both right. That is exactly what we are doing. America is wasting possibly thousands of lives and billions of dollars because we want to "bully" other countries... please. The diarrhea flowing from your mouths is phisically sickening to me... I'll tell you what, let's wait until Sadam decides your country is the one he wants to invade, and then we will see what your views of help from the US are.

The fact is, Sadam is a madman. He has weapons of mass destruction in his control, otherwise he would not have interfered with U.N. waepons inspectors months ago. Actually, while the weapons are the main issue, the arguably more important issue is the Iraqi people. The man is a dictator in the truest sense of the word.

As the US dismantles Sadam's regime, we are bringing food, water and supplies into the country. Not to mention the 110 million dollars that the US and Brittain will give to Iraq when this is all over. Before you start spouting off, get your facts straight.

And one more thing: Today, as a military structure of some kind was taken over by America, a soldier started to take down the Iraqi flag and put up the American and Marine Corps flag. He was immediatly ordered to take down the american flag and re-raise the Iraqi flag. This was ordered by the Pentagon as a symbol that this war is not for America to occupy Iraq; but that the country of Iraq now will belong to the rightful owners, the Iraqi people.

Originally posted by m477
Um.... "ediot"?
*shrugs* Maybe he's a Ren & Stimpy fan?? :p

To me, this war has no sense. Or do I have to say, it DOES make sense...? Anyway, all that Iraqi liberating blablabla... It's just the government putting sugar on your lips. DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE THAT'S THE REASON BUSH ATTACKS??? Come on... Let's get serious? He couldn't even find Bin Laden, so because he's so angry now, he will satisfy his anger by fighting Saddam?? To me, Bush is just a marionet played by all the big multinationals. Did you even know Australians were fighting in this war? I ask myself why? I didn't know they were attacked too? Did you? By now, Saddam has fired up some oil sources. And that's what's this war is about. Economic benefits. So if you ask me if Bush is an idiot? Well, I think HE IS. He should be putting his money in developing some other power alternatives like hydrogen in stead of putting it in developement of bombs and rockets that can kill thousands of innocent people. If we're all driving on hydrogen, Sadam can put his oil in is @$$.

WOW... I sure did not catch the ediot part... Hey I post this thread late at 2 or 3 A.M, I just came back from work, oh wellz.

Make sure that you don't base your opinions on a bunch of hype and rumor (I'm not saying that that's what you're doing, but it sure sounds like it). There are alot of people out there talking out of their kiester and making ridiculous claims.

I never based my opinions on bunch of hype and rumor, I am just stating MY opinions. I think he made alot of dumb decisions, He probably still dringking beer, smoking weed in the oval cabinet. Everyone mentioned that Sadam is housing terrorist, and he'll be attacking other countries. I believe he so 2, but I think war is not the answer and since I think he is stupid, he can't think of any conclusion but war.

Guys, let's be civil to each other. There is no reason to get worked up over posts on an internet bulletin board. While no one has gone over the line yet, I can almost see the tension building in this thread. Getting angry at people you don't know is only going to degrade this to a kindergarten shouting match.

Originally posted by JTek_55
Yes, you are both right. That is exactly what we are doing. America is wasting possibly thousands of lives and billions of dollars because we want to "bully" other countries... please. I'll tell you what, let's wait until Sadam decides your country is the one he wants to invade, and then we will see what your views of help from the US are.

The fact is, Sadam is a madman. He has weapons of mass destruction in his control, otherwise he would not have interfered with U.N. waepons inspectors months ago. Actually, while the weapons are the main issue, the arguably more important issue is the Iraqi people. The man is a dictator in the truest sense of the word.

As the US dismantles Sadam's regime, we are bringing food, water and supplies into the country. Not to mention the 110 million dollars that the US and Brittain will give to Iraq when this is all over. Before you start spouting off, get your facts straight.

i appreciate that you think he's a really terrible guy, and i agree: Hussein is a grave threat to his people and the region, while also an indirect threat to populous western countries through his support of terrorist groups, whatever level it is on.
but, in this instance, the war is no longer about disarming his country; it has become some private agenda (a vendetta, if you will) of Bush vs. Hussein, a true "us against them" (no pun intended) situation.
that's not what it was suppost to be about in the first place, it was only about removing the danger, not crippling and remoulding an entire country and society's political situation. may this be a better alternative to letting him stay in power? yes. could there be other ways? possibly. are any of them as quick? probably not. is this then the best solution? of course, i don't know.

your comments on "when he decides to invade your country next", well, have a few problems. Shey is right when he says that the Iraqi's have no chance, they have very little in the way of weapons (you can't hide an enourmous cache of weapons the way they did with their meagre few rockets and warheads they kept), and is a very broken country. The incredible economic sanctions levied on the country after the Gulf War in 1991 have done nothing but ravage this land further, and that 16% reduction in population comes from children not surviving to have their own... not disease, not Hussein, it's that they're in such trouble their children die before the parents do, whilst the old of course follow through with nature as always.

this unfortunate country has been the victim of a few assults: primarily from Hussein's rule, and secondarily from countries around the world trying to unseat and discourage him from continuing to rule, whilst hurting only the people and entrenching him in his power. it's sad to say, but maybe this war will bring an end to that, but it'll take a whole lot more than $110 mil. US and some light "nation building" to fix what's been broken here.


as for my personal opinion on George Bush, well... heh heh heh, that's all in another thread. to sum it up, i think he's a f*ckin' wad: nothing but a puppet, and from that standpoint a "good" president (the same way an obedient pet is a good one). the only problem is, he can't pronouce words with more than three syllables, answer a question by himself (has Ari Fliesher to do that), or remember the names of international leaders: i site This Hour Has 22 Minutes when he was still in Texas ( two or three years ago), and the "reporter" (Rick Mercer... a Canadian comedian who was doing his "Talking to Americans" segment) asked him what he thought of our "President, Jean Poutine"... and he BS'ed his way about how much he likes him, and knows him well and blah blah blah. it's true. he's a freakin' eeeeediot!! (Stimpy gives him a super-huge slap in the head)

...thanks Elara.

I'm hardly a right winger, or a big Bush supporter- as I have said, I did not vote for him, and there are things about the man that I can't stand, such as his religious pandering- but what do you think everyone in the world would be saying if it was July 2001 and we were going after Afghanistan, the Taliban and Bin Laden?

"American Imperialism"... "War is a distraction to keep people from noticing problems at home"... "The Arab street rages over American war on Islam"... the U.N. would be having hissy fits... you get the idea.

If we would have gone into Afghanistan in July 2001, maybe we would have found out about the plot, maybe we would still have a World Trade Center, and maybe 2,800 people would still be alive and those who loved them would not be grieving.

We can't let these problems continue to fester, and reckless dictators to plot and plan while we hope for the best they behave. Iraq has no interest in peace or goodwill between its neighbors, or even its own people. It is not a sovereign nation with a mandate, it is a land taken hostage by a murderous thug for his own aggrandisement. The people there are going to be happy and thankful when Saddam is gone, mark my words. And yes, I would gladly put on the uniform and take my place amongst those fighting. I would today if I could.

Moderator, can you please close this very ill-conceived thread some dumb@$$ started with such an incendiary title? I'm not trying to get the last word, but this is just ridiculous and not the place for it. As I read through these and people talk about "it's about oil and cheap gas", the irony that this is on a SPORTS CAR FORUM is really troubling. Buy a hybrid Toyota or Honda if you are worried about conserving gas! Sheesh! :mad:

Fact is, GWB just might be an "ediot"... I have not decided myself just yet... but this is not the place to discuss it! Please delete this thread!

Originally posted by DonG35Miata
GWB just might be an "ediot"... I have not decided myself just yet... but this is not the place to discuss it! Please delete this thread!

i think that this thread is still alright, and that this IS the place to discuss it, as a happy, friendly community of RX-8 lovers/haters/interested-in-ers ;)... it's the lounge. if it's too hot, well, i dunno... open a window?? as long as everyone keeps their cool (and fingers away from the nuclear cheap-shot button of personal attack and insult) the thread will be fine.

Make sure that you don't base your opinions on a bunch of hype and rumor (I'm not saying that that's what you're doing, but it sure sounds like it). There are alot of people out there talking out of their kiester and making ridiculous claims.


I never based my opinions on rumors or hypes, I based them on my opinions. He probably still drinks beers, smoke weed behind the oval office. I agree with everyone that Sadam needs to be taken down, but do you think that war is the answer??? I sure hell dont think so. If you don't think he wants to finish what his father didn't finish... think again, his been proposing war against Iraq long before 9/11, and not once did he think of any other way besides war, war is the last option not the first.

It's just the government putting sugar on your lips. DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE THAT'S THE REASON BUSH ATTACKS??? Come on... Let's get serious? He couldn't even find Bin Laden

Oh thank you beemer. You couldn't said it any better.

wellz sorry guys if I spelled ediot wrong, I can't help it, I am clutz at spelling 2.

I 2nd who ever said that wakee has the coolest p0st.

I think everybody is still free to have his own meaning, as long as we don't insult each other and try to understand.
And about the oil problem... We in Europe are paying about 1¤ per litre for Super Plus 98 octane (unleaded) for more than 5 years. So I don't complain about it, but now the prices in the U.S. are about the same, I think that's the reason why there's a war. (that's also the reason 90% of the people here drive diesels)

oOps... I made 2 post on accident. Sorry. Hey Hey, don't get all angry and worked up " unless your fat so you could lose weight ."
Relax, if you don't like what you see, just click back and look at another thread. Some of you don't even consider this is ONLINE, not your house DON'T GET WORKED UP FOR NOTHING. (sigh)
If this wasn't a friendly forum I woudn't even touch my keyboard, luckily it is so come on..

I think the people who are attacking Bush for his "personal vendetta" are forgeting the influence of actually becoming president. Sure during elections presidents spout off their ideas and such, but once a person becomes president he faced with the reality of protecting and maintaining a country.

Go back to the history books and see how many presidents have had to support actions that go against their ideals: wilson, jefferson, etc. You can dig up lots of examples.

Presidents are faced with reality and must do their best to solve problems. I'm not so sure some of you realize how hard the job really is. Truthfully, if you had just been elected President and had swear a oath to protect the country then a couple months later the WORST terrorist attack ever happens, what would you do. Personal Vendetta? Plz, get with reality.

Originally posted by Beemer
To me, this war has no sense. Or do I have to say, it DOES make sense...? Anyway, all that Iraqi liberating blablabla... It's just the government putting sugar on your lips. DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE THAT'S THE REASON BUSH ATTACKS??? Come on... Let's get serious? He couldn't even find Bin Laden, so because he's so angry now, he will satisfy his anger by fighting Saddam?? To me, Bush is just a marionet played by all the big multinationals. Did you even know Australians were fighting in this war? I ask myself why? I didn't know they were attacked too? Did you? By now, Saddam has fired up some oil sources. And that's what's this war is about. Economic benefits. So if you ask me if Bush is an idiot? Well, I think HE IS. He should be putting his money in developing some other power alternatives like hydrogen in stead of putting it in developement of bombs and rockets that can kill thousands of innocent people. If we're all driving on hydrogen, Sadam can put his oil in is @$$.

This war has very little to do with oil. The fact is that 2000+ people lost their lives in the 9-11 attacks and we are not going to sit on our ass while another madman stockpiles nuclear/chemical/biological weapons... I know, I know, innocent people are killed everyday in countries around the world, but the terrorists need to understand that the US will not lie down and just take it.

Originally posted by JTek_55


This war has very little to do with oil. The fact is that 2000+ people lost their lives in the 9-11 attacks and we are not going to sit on our ass while another madman stockpiles nuclear/chemical/biological weapons... I know, I know, innocent people are killed everyday in countries around the world, but the terrorists need to understand that the US will not lie down and just take it.

I sure understand, but wasn't it Bin Laden who was responsible for the 9/11 attacks and not Saddam? And can anyone prove that Saddam has nuclear/chemical or biological weapons? I sure like to see one...

Listen, I hate war as much as the next guy. But that doesn't mean I am not going to support out armed forces and our government in their decision. The people of Iraq WILL be better off without Sadam in power. He was given the chance to seek exile before any conflict started. If he valued the lives of his people, he would have complied with our requests for at least long enough to sort out the problem.

In answer to you Beemer: Yes, you are right. We have not seen any solid proof of weapons of mass destruction. And yes, Osama Bin Laden claims responsibility for the acts of 9-11. That said, do you seem to remember Osama running to the US Embassy in Afganistan and telling them what he was planning? No.

Originally posted by chenpin
I think the people who are attacking Bush for his "personal vendetta" are forgeting the influence of actually becoming president. Sure during elections presidents spout off their ideas and such, but once a person becomes president he faced with the reality of protecting and maintaining a country.

Presidents are faced with reality and must do their best to solve problems. I'm not so sure some of you realize how hard the job really is. Truthfully, if you had just been elected President and had swear a oath to protect the country then a couple months later the WORST terrorist attack ever happens, what would you do. Personal Vendetta? Plz, get with reality.

...this is more than just a case of a leader making a tough choice, this is one man rallying the strongest country in the world behind him in an effort which is spurred very strongly (though not entirely) by his personal hatred for another single leader. it has, in fact, very little to do with the terrorist attacks on NYC two years ago, however, and is not a part of the "Global War on Terror".
as i said before (rather inaccurately) that this is an "us versus them" kinda thing... but it's not that. it's an "us versus Him" situation. this is all about Hussein and how evil he is, how sneaky, cunning, and wrong this guy is.
is he a dictator?? yes (not inherently a bad thing). is he a tyrant (ie: bad dictator)?? yes. would Iraq be better off without him?? probably... i've said this before... but just because it may be in the whole country's longterm intrests to be rid of him... well, i'm simply not convinced this is the best way. anyhoo, too late to worry about that now, it's almost over.

this thread was about whether or not i think Bush is an idiot, and i do. a nice guy and everything, a fairly capable politician, but i just have no respect for the job he's doing running your country, thanks... especially how you highlighted "maintaining" after "protecting"... that seems to be his order of priorities as well, considering how he's completely un-managing the economic troubles you happen to be seeing currently... unless he really believe that the short term "hooray" factor of a multi-billion dollar war effort can save it (kinda like WW2 pulling NA out of the Dirty Thirties, but faster and not so severe)... then i think he's worse than an idiot: he'd be a lunatic.

This is just of course my 2 cents on everything. I hate the idea of war, but lets look at the facts supporting it. Before Saddam came to power, Iraq was and economic leader in the region, as well as being extremely culturaly advanced. Iraq was a democracy, then slowly (a la Hitler in Germany), Saddam got rid of people's rights and turned the country into a dictatorship. He then attacked Iran, followed by Kuwait. In both wars, Saddam used chemical weapons (in the Gulf war of 1991, he used Chemical weapons against his own people!). Un weapons inspectors have been trying to find a rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction since 1991! Those people who say give him another couple months, common, he has had 12 YEARS!!! He has used in this war weapons, can't think of the name right now, that he has said he does NOT have. This proves he is a liar. He has been known to use weapons of mass destruction, against his own people. Right now he is a threat to the region, in a couple years, he could be a threat to the world. Look at the conditions Iraq is in now, compared to before Saddam took over. The people of Iraq would be much better off without Saddam. The US is also doing as much as it can to make sure that even memebers of the iraqi military are not killed!! The US is also going to leave when it is done. It does not wish to "take over". Just my opinion of course.

Originally posted by Andrew
Un weapons inspectors have been trying to find a rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction since 1991! Those people who say give him another couple months, common, he has had 12 YEARS!!! He has used in this war weapons, can't think of the name right now, that he has said he does NOT have.

your history is right, and yeah, he obviously was lying when he whipped out his SCUDs just yesterday or whatever, but let's not forget that the burden of proof is on the accuser. now yes, some were found, and some pretty good hints that he had weapons (before he started using some of the wimpier/more legal ones just now), but not someone standing beside a barrel full of nerve gas... keep in mind, i'm not stupid, and i KNOW that he has SOMETHING (anyone's guess as to how much), and certainly not sticking up for him.

Originally posted by Andrew

Look at the conditions Iraq is in now, compared to before Saddam took over. The people of Iraq would be much better off without Saddam.

*cough*economicsantions*cough**cough*

I'll admit that I didn't vote for him and I'm not happy at about how he's isolated the US from the rest of the world (like pulling out of the KYOTO PROTOCOL treaty and refusing the World Court ...)

But the real scarry thing, for me, is he's no idiot, but has played the game well - by all reports He's very smart AND quick to lose his temper and hold a gruge (as reality shows) - so please forget what the media has portrayed - he's NO good natured, friendly, humble &/or simple old texas boy who wants to be your pal (... as lomg as you belong to the same country club as his daddy does - well this part might be true IMHO)

If you want a better idea who Bush is, check this out:

http://www.indiewire.com/people/people_030318pelosi.html

Alexandra Pelosi's "Journeys With George": Covering George W. Bush From the Inside
Alexandra Pelosi insists she is not a filmmaker and would rather be considered a television maker. However, her self-described "video diary" on Bush's 2000 election campaign, called "Journeys With George," was a groundbreaking documentary specimen when it first aired on HBO last November. It deconstructed the election campaign process and gave a very entertaining front-and-center look at the "Dubya" behind the rote speechmaking and fumbling Bushisms. Pelosi, the daughter of Democratic House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, shot it using her handheld video camera while she was an NBC news producer with the Bush traveling press corps. A year and a half-worth of important, priceless Bush moments are expertly edited together -- Bush eating crackers with his mouth open, Bush dispensing love advice to the woman-behind-the-camera, Bush intimating that he was once a party animal. Surprisingly charming and quick-witted, many would also describe the George in "Journeys With George" as undeniably "scary." The film also successfully conveys the ins and outs of political campaign journalism and the tenuous relationship between the press and politicians.

DonG35Miata, no offense to the wanting to shut down these threads but I have to say something about why we should keep them open (as long as there is no personal flaming towards another member).

In these times I believe that it is important for people to share their opinions about these topics (yes, even in a sports car forum). It is on these freedoms (freedom of speech in this case) that America was built on. If we start taking these freedoms away because we want to make the world a safer place then America has lost everything. I think that a blerp from the March 17 issue of TIME says it all: "The danger to America is that is trying to protect what it has, it will lose the very thing that is worth having"

So keep up the Bush bashing or support, let's try to keep the Canadians vs. US to a minimum (that's what got the past Bush forum going so hot)

Strider-

Originally posted by wakeech

*cough*economicsantions*cough**cough*

do you think that economic sanctions were not warrented after he tried to take over another country? iraq has been allowed by the un to sell some of it's oil so food could be bought for the people of iraq. how much of the money actually went to buy food and how much did go to the people instead of saddam's pockets. without economic sanctions his people would not be in any better condition because he would just take more for himself.

for those people saying he is just trying to finish what his dad didn't, that is just wrong. the purpose of the gulf war was to drive the iraqi's out of kuwait and restore the proper government of kuwait. that is what the coalition countries did and then they went home. it was left up to the un to deal with the rest of the iraqi issue and after 12 years nothing has been done to resolve those issues. that is why we are there now.

i hope the person who started this thread goes back and edits the first post. how can you ask if someone else is an idiot when your post is full of misspelled words? you may not like the man , his policies or his actions but there has never been an idiot who became president.

The way I see it, "the war on terrorism" is going to be as effective as "the war on drugs". The war on drugs didn't do what it was supposed to do. The idea was to keep drugs off the streets and to put drug dealers behind bars. Instead, the dealers are still there and our jails are filled with inmates on possession charges. That money that was spent on law enforcement could have been better used towards education. (Yes, there was a budget for drug education but it was nowhere near the amount spent to prosecute and house the inmates.) I don't think drugs are any harder to get than before the war on drugs. I also think the government keeps the drugs on the street so that we're so messed up, we won't pay attention to what they're doing...although this could just be my imagination running wild ;)

Now, we have a war with Iraq that is an extension of the war on terrorism. Bush is going to deficit spend some ungodly amount of money that I can't remember right now in the national budget. He is also going to give tax cuts to the wealthiest of Americans while reducing funding to federal programs. All this is going on while many states are out of money (they are also not allowed to run deficit budgets) and have to cut their programs too. States like Oregon have to cut 5 weeks of school from their education budget. Our school systems lag behind the rest of the world and instead of educating our youth so that they are capable of making the right decisions when the world (or what's left of it) is handed to them, we would rather poke our head in other people's businesses.

Don't get me wrong, I do believe that Saddam should be removed from power and bin Laden should be killed and tortured for what he did. I just think that the other problems we have at home are more important than some country whose ruler we should have removed from power in '91. Not to mention that N. Korea is starting up their nuclear weapons program and instead Iraq and Saddam take priority over that? Explain how this isn't a personal vendetta.

In conclusion :D :
Bush is a moron,
Iraq is a personal vendetta, that I hope is over as soon as possible so we can get back to rebuild the economy,
and dear God, don't let anything happen to the Mazda factory building my RX-8.

Originally posted by zoom44


do you think that economic sanctions were not warrented after he tried to take over another country? iraq has been allowed by the un to sell some of it's oil so food could be bought for the people of iraq. how much of the money actually went to buy food and how much did go to the people instead of saddam's pockets. without economic sanctions his people would not be in any better condition because he would just take more for himself.

... i'm not gonna judge whether or not they were right to impose, but i will say that they (obviously) did nothing to Hussein or his power, and the only ones who really were effected were those at the mercy of the market, "his" people.
i'm also not entirely convinced that it wouldn't have worked out that they would have been okay had the sanctions not been imposed, but yes, it is clear that he would have more easily regained his weapons, power, and accumulated far more wealth than he has even now, so... double edged sword.

my point is not one of "good or bad", but i'm saying that there are other factors than just Hussein himself that have influenced the current state of this country, one of the most important the economic sanctions.

In response to Master Phu's last comment...

It is a constant reminder that our education is horrible when everybody at my university that is foriegn (sp) gets higher grades and all around is more successful. While we do have the best higher education system in the world... our elementary/middle/and high school levels are way below where they should be. I think there was a survey taken over math skills across the world. In that survey American students thought themselves smart and got one of the lowest math skills in the world, while Koreans (if I remember correctly) thought of themselves stupid and got the highest rating in the world. Our budget could really use some reworking on it's priorities. But then again I think everybody other than the people in the American offices know and understand that.

To Moogle... sorry for constantly going off the original topic here... I have a thing for doing that... but on that topic though...

Bush is a moron, and because I am very stupid when it comes to politics (ie:poor education in that department) I'll just sit back and read what others have to say-

I'll start this reply by correcting what I consider to be a major misconception: Iraq's economy didn't go to hell when Saddam took power in 1979! In fact, the Iraqi economy positively boomed between 1979 and 1991. What killed the Iraqi economy was the UN sanctions after the the first Gulf War. Until 1991 Iraq actually was one of the richest countries in the region, with highly developed educational and health systems...

Is George Bush an Idiot? I voted YES!
How the American people could ever vote someone as ignorant, arogant and downright unsympathetic into office remains a mystery to me!

As a European I would reckon that, up until the war on Iraq, around 80% of the US' problems on my continent stemmed from George Bush the person. Europeans simply can't stand the guy!

Regarding the war on Iraq:
Bombing an allready hard-tried people simply because Mr. Bush doesn't like Mr. Hussein, is downright insane! If there is another reason it really hasn't been shown - there is no Saddam-Osama alliance and no-one in their right mind would consider Iraq a threat on the world stage.

I'll try to give a few alternative reasons for going after Saddam:

1) Distraction theory: Bush couldn't catch Osama bin Laden so to save face he decides to go after another camel jockey gone bad and hopes no-one will know the difference...

2) Distraction theory: The American economy is in a very poor state, so to take attention away from something this obvious (and to save the Republican Party another term in The White House), nothing but winning a lil' ole war will do...

3) Tieing up dad's loose ends: Bush senior became the first president in American history to win a major and popular war and NOT get reelected - let this be a proper rematch.

4) The bravery of being out of range: The United States has never experienced a modern war on home soil. Thus wars in general appear much more distant and somehow less terrible than it does to countries that actually have experienced the horrors of modern warfare striking down on their family and loved ones.

I know my suggestions are decidedly wag-the-dog-ish, but I see no point in repeating the obvious... O.k., I'll do it anyway: "War" is a three-letter word, spelled "O"... "I"... "L"...

Does Iraq have weapons of mass destruction? Well sure, THE UNITED STATES FUCKING SOLD THEM TO SADDAM in the early to mid eighties!
A short history lesson: Iraq has a neighbour to the east called Iran. Iran had a decidedly cruel dictator that the US supported... Well, things didn't go the US' way and the dictator was overthrown in a civil war. The US, however, were scarred shitless of the new leadership in Iran and to "stabilise the region" the US fell head over heels for the dictator in Iraq and gave him pretty much what he wanted vis-à-vis heavy toys...
Much like the Taliban (that the US trained and equipped to fight the Soviet Union), Saddam Hussein is a devil of the US' own making!

Who do you think gave Israel the Bomb? I'll give you three guesses!

Which country in the world has the single most impressive arsenal of weapons of mass destruction? The USA!!! So, if Iraq's arsenal of these was the real reason for this war, the next country to be shelled to hell really ought to be the United States... Do you think this is likely? What can justify these double standards? I sure as hell don't know!

Countries with weapons of mass destruction and nuclear capability:

Pretty much every state in the old Soviet Union
France
Israel
Great Britain
India
Pakistan
China
USA

These are already eight more wars to fight.

North Korea? Yeah sure, let's add North Korea to the list...

The moral high horse after 9.11? Please!!! 3.000 people were tragically killed in the 9.11 attack. How many civilians do you think were killed by the American bombings of Afghanistan - more or less?

"What causes the documented high level of civilian casualties -- 3,000 - 3,400 [October 7, 2001 thru March 2002] civilian deaths -- in the U.S. air war upon Afghanistan? The explanation is the apparent willingness of U.S. military strategists to fire missiles into and drop bombs upon, heavily populated areas of Afghanistan."

Professor Marc W. Herold
Ph.D., M.B.A., B.Sc.

Moral high-horse my ass!

Sadly, Denmark has decided to contribute militarily in Iraq, with a healthy 60% of the population being against the decision - proud, self-rightous, meglomanic politicians will be the end of the world.

I'd best end this rant before I stray too far away from the subject... Is Bush an idiot? Well, it's quite obvious, isn't it?

My thoughts go out to the soldiers on both sides, who are merely following orders, and to the Iraqi people that has seen so much suffering for the last 12 years.

Cheers

Eske

Originally posted by zoom44
there has never been an idiot who became president.

... i was thinkign about that for a while, and yeah, i suppose you can't just be anyone to become president... but in this case, it's more a matter of being "Daddy's little boy"... knowing the people that know him, having the connections, money, and influence he does...
in any case, no, Bush isn't a literal moron, but i certainly do not hold him in such high esteem as i do some of my peers, or even myself.
do i think i could deal with the pressure as well as he?? not if i was just dropped into place. do i think that i am "smarter" than him?? in many a measure, yes.
might i be the guy to replace him?? i sure hope not... that'd be a sad day for the mightiest nation on the planet: i know that there are men far more than my equal, i just happen to think that Dubyah isn't in more ways than one.

War should be avoided at all cost. We should have signed a treaty. Maybe the result would have been something like this:


"We, the Iraqi Leaders and American President, have had a further meeting today and are agreed in recognizing that the question of American-Iraqi relations is of the first importance for our two countries and for the Middle East.

"We regard the agreement signed last night and the American-Iraqi Weapons Agreement as symbolic of the desire of our two peoples never to go to war with one another again."

Wild cheers erupted, the crowd reiterating, reverberating the last syllables of the President's statement. He continued.

"We are resolved that the method of consultation shall be the method adopted to deal with any other questions that may concern our two countries, and we are determined to continue our efforts to remove possible sources of difference, and thus to contribute to assure the peace of Middle East."

Later at the White House, he added,

"My good friends, for the first time in our history, an American President has returned from Iraq bringing peace with honor. I believe it is peace for our time... Go home and get a nice quiet sleep."


;)

I agree with Wakeech completely, George Bush became president on his fathers merrits and, more importantly, because of his father's wealthy friends within the oil industry...
IMHO this is a very sad part of the American system: you can be the brightest, most prolific politician with all the right ideas, but if you don't have a couple of million dollars to throw around, there is no chance in hell you'll ever be president. However, as seen with Bush, the opposite is quite possible.

Can you call Bush a democratically elected president, when Al Gore actually received more votes?

Cheers

Eske

Originally posted by wakeech
...but i'm saying that there are other factors than just Hussein himself that have influenced the current state of this country, one of the most important the economic sanctions. And with the limited resources his country had during the sanctions, Saddam simply rebuilt his palaces, residences, military (as much as he could anyway), while his people suffered. And don't forget, all of those sanctions would have ceased immediately as soon as Saddam did what he promised to in the first place. I would say that most of the responsibility was Saddam's.

---jps

Originally posted by Pablo
...Saddam Hussein is a devil of the US' own making!

Which country in the world has the single most impressive arsenal of weapons of mass destruction? The USA!!! So, if Iraq's arsenal of these was the real reason for this war, the next country to be shelled to hell really ought to be the United States... Do you think this is likely? What can justify these double standards? I sure as hell don't know!

Countries with weapons of mass destruction and nuclear capability:

Pretty much every state in the old Soviet Union
France
Israel
Great Britain
India
Pakistan
China
USA

These are already eight more wars to fight.

North Korea? Yeah sure, let's add North Korea to the list...



whoa buddy, you took a left when you should have made a right. If any of the countries on that list has the intention of using their weapons of mass destruction and/or nuclear capabilities then yes, we should do something about it. I doubt france or britain would do such a thing. :p

Originally posted by Pablo
I'll start this reply by correcting what I consider to be a major misconception: Iraq's economy didn't go to hell when Saddam took power in 1979! In fact, the Iraqi economy positively boomed between 1979 and 1991. What killed the Iraqi economy was the UN sanctions after the the first Gulf War. Until 1991 Iraq actually was one of the richest countries in the region, with highly developed educational and health systems...


umm, why did Saddam attack Kuwait? He was out of money!

well, at least the conversation here is pretty civil... some other boards, its is pretty crazy... anyways, i agree with the last post, the reason Saddam the crazy man invaded kuwait was that he was running out of money... they quickest way to save some costs and expand quickly in oil production and distribution was to invade kuwait and have access to the Gulf and the oceans... Saddam took a prosperous country in 1979, and in 12 years, brought it down.. one of the big factors was that in the accepance speech in 1979, he executed the other leaders of the political parties, or the other smart guys... obviously the war with Iran didnt help, but by 1991, they were going down fast... as for the sanctions, if Saddam was serious about helping "HIS PEOPLE", he would have complied to the sanctions... but he did not care about "HIS PEOPLE".. he got enough money in his food for cash to build his palaces, have UDAY buy 400 cars consisting of ferraris, benz, rolls, bentlys etc, and usay just kill random people at his whim... as evidence of the SCUDS Saddam lauched over the iraq-kuwait boarder, he had weapons that he shouldnt have.. so whats to say there are chemical weapons deep down under the palaces that we can really see right now?? what is to stop Saddam from SELLING them to terrorists??? i believe that most of the IRaqi citizens are glad that Saddam will be gone...

so after that rant, going to the topic of Bush.. i dont think he is very smart, but he is doing the best in a touch situation that was a bit out of his control... war is always a bad thing, but in this case, i fully support it...

Hi Guys. I hate Saddam as much as you do. The only thing I want you to understand is that the public opinion of your country has changed with this war. America used to be our hero, the country of freedom, invention, and creativity. We wanted to be like you! Now we see you as the big brother, who disregards international law and just do as they please. It will take a lot of hard work to undo this. And yes, Bush is an Idiot, because he made the USA the villain of the world.

zoom44 = i hope the person who started this thread goes back and edits the first post. how can you ask if someone else is an idiot when your post is full of misspelled words? you may not like the man , his policies or his actions but there has never been an idiot who became president.

I misspelled one word, recheck my post again... and no I am not going to edit. Did you even read my post, I post it late 2-3 A.M. I was tired and who cares. *sigh* Couple of post got off topic 2, and if you have something to say and its going to be bunch of garbage "meaning negative comments to other members" plz put it somewhere else. Contribute +post not garbage.

Ok going back to topic...
idiot = meaning a foolish or stupid person.
Sure to be a president you can't be a total moron or mentally retarded.
Again I think his a total idiot, meaning a foolish person. Come on...have you ever heard in your life that a president almost died because of a pretzel... LOL... LOL ... OMG. He made some foolish stuff in the past and what's going to stop him from acting like it in the future...NOTHING. Majority of popular vote was for al gore, and he only won barely by 3 electoral vote. Wellz I ma go back to sleep... its 12 a clock western time... sorry if I misspell any words.

Originally posted by chenpin


whoa buddy, you took a left when you should have made a right. If any of the countries on that list has the intention of using their weapons of mass destruction and/or nuclear capabilities then yes, we should do something about it. I doubt france or britain would do such a thing. :p Honestly, Iraq hasn't shown any intention of unleashing its weapons of mass destruction on the world, but yeah, I know I'm pushing it a fair bit ;)
However, I don't really trust Pakistan and India with each their own set of bombs - it's making the Kasmir conflict seem just a tad too interesting for my liking. Actually, I don't really trust the current government in Israel either...

The US is the only country in the world to have ever used a "nuke" in warfare and I'm sure that, in a desperate situation, the US would use the Bomb again. This is why I don't trust any government with weapons of mass destruction - I wouldn't trust my own if we had them.

So, bottom line: no-one (as in NO-ONE) should have these dreadful weapons and if the US government had any real balls they would have started this campaign by destroying every weapon of mass destruction it had either direct or indirect control over - preferably starting with Israel's nukes, which would have sent a possitive signal to the Arab world.

Cheers

Eske

Originally posted by Pablo
IMHO this is a very sad part of the American system: you can be the brightest, most prolific politician with all the right ideas, but if you don't have a couple of million dollars to throw around, there is no chance in hell you'll ever be president.

yes this is a problem. i totaolly agree.so far we haven't found a way around this.


Can you call Bush a democratically elected president, when Al Gore actually received more votes?

Cheers

Eske [/QUOTE]

yes because that is how the electoral system works. and there are reasons we use this system. search wakeech's and my posts we had a conversation about the electoral system awhile ago.

Originally posted by sheylen
Hi Guys. I hate Saddam as much as you do. The only thing I want you to understand is that the public opinion of your country has changed with this war. America used to be our hero, the country of freedom, invention, and creativity. We wanted to be like you! Now we see you as the big brother, who disregards international law and just do as they please. It will take a lot of hard work to undo this. And yes, Bush is an Idiot, because he made the USA the villain of the world.

yes....sigh. :( I agree. I think Bush really could have gone thru all of this with more....diplomacy. It seems as if everything is black and white to him. But, the troops are on the ground and I will support them.

Before people who can't spell and have little grasp of grammar call some an "ediot", maybe they should do a little research. :(

There is a reason that they are leading the free world and you are mopping up on the late shift at Burger King.

This should sum it up for you:


Who's Smarter?
by Cindy Osborne

The Hollywood group is at it again. Holding anti-war rallies, screaming about the Bush Administration, running ads in major newspapers, defaming the President and his Cabinet every chance they get, to anyone and everyone who will listen. They publicly defile them and call them names like "stupid", "morons", and "idiots". Jessica Lange went so far as to tell a crowd in Spain that she hates President Bush and is embarrassed to be an American. So, just how ignorant are these people who are running the country? Let's look at the biographies of these "stupid", "ignorant" , "moronic" leaders, and then at the celebrities who are castigating them:

President George W. Bush: Received a Bachelors Degree from Yale University and an MBA from Harvard Business School. He served as an F-102 pilot for the Texas Air National Guard. He began his career in the oil and gas business in Midland in 1975 and worked in the energy industry until 1986. He was elected Governor on November 8, 1994, with 53.5 percent of the vote. In a historic re-election victory, he became the first Texas Governor to be elected to consecutive four-year terms on November 3, 1998 winning 68.6 percent of the vote. In 1998, GovernorBush won 49 percent of the Hispanic vote, 27 percent of the African-American vote, 27 percent of Democrats and 65 percent of women. He won more Texas counties, 240 of 254, than any modern Republican other than Richard Nixon in 1972 and is the first Republican gubernatorial candidate to win the heavily Hispanic and Democratic border counties of El Paso, Cameron and Hidalgo. (Someone began circulating a false story about his I.Q. being lower than any other President. If you believed it, you might want to go to URBANLEGENDS.COM and see the truth.)

Vice President Dick Cheney: Earned a B.A. in 1965 and a M.A. in 1966, both in political science. Two years later, he won an American Political Science Association congressional fellowship. One of Vice President Cheney's primary duties is to share with individuals, members of Congress and foreign leaders, President Bush's vision to strengthen our economy, secure our homeland and win the War on Terrorism. In his official role as President of the Senate, Vice President Cheney regularly goes to Capital Hill to meet with Senators and members of the House of Representatives to work on the Administration's legislative goals. In his travels as Vice President, he has seen first hand the great demands the war on terrorism is placing on the men and women of our military, and he is proud of the tremendous job they are doing for the United States of America.

Secretary of State Colin Powell: Educated in the New York City public schools, graduating from the City College of New York (CCNY), where he earned a Bachelor's Degree in geology. He also participated in ROTC at CCNY and received a commission as an Army second lieutenant upon graduation in June 1958. His further academic achievements include a Master of Business Administration Degree from George Washington University. Secretary Powell is the recipient of numerous U.S. and foreign military awards and decorations. Secretary Powell's civilian awards include two Presidential Medals of Freedom, the President's Citizens Medal, the Congressional Gold Medal, the Secretary of State Distinguished Service Medal, and the Secretary of Energy Distinguished Service Medal. Several schools and other institutions have been named in his honor and he holds honorary degrees from universities and colleges across the country. (Note: He retired as Four Star General in the United States Army)

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld: Attended Princeton University on Scholarship (AB, 1954) and served in the U.S. Navy (1954-57) as a Naval aviator; Congressional Assistant to Rep. Robert Griffin (R-MI), 1957-59; U.S. Representative, Illinois, 1962-69; Assistant to the President, Director of the Office of Economic Opportunity, Director of the Cost of Living Council, 1969-74; U.S. Ambassador to NATO, 1973-74; head of Presidential Transition Team, 1974; Assistant to the President, Director of White House Office of Operations, White House Chief of Staff, 1974-77; Secretary of Defense, 1975-77.

Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge: Raised in a working class family in veterans' public housing in Erie. He earned a scholarship to Harvard, graduating with honors in 1967. After his first year at The Dickinson School of Law, he was drafted into the U.S. Army, where he served as an infantry staff sergeant in Vietnam, earning the Bronze Star for Valor. After returning to Pennsylvania, he earned his Law Degree and was in private practice before becoming Assistant District Attorney in Erie County. He was elected to Congress in 1982. He was the first enlisted Vietnam combat veteran elected to the U.S. House, and was overwhelmingly re-elected six times.

National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice: Earned her Bachelor's Degree in Political Science, Cum Laude and Phi Beta Kappa, from the University of Denver in 1974; her Master's from the University of Notre Dame in 1975; and her Ph.D. from the Graduate School of International Studies at the University of Denver in 1981. (Note: Rice enrolled at the University of Denver at the age of 15, graduating at 19 with a Bachelor's Degree in Political Science (Cum Laude). She earned a Master's Degree at the University of Notre Dame and a Doctorate from the University of Denver's Graduate School of International Studies. Both of her advanced degrees are also in Political Science.) She is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and has been awarded Honorary Doctorates from Morehouse College in 1991, the University of Alabama in 1994, and the University of Notre Dame in 1995. At Stanford, she has been a member of the Center for International Security and Arms Control, a Senior Fellow of the Institute for International Studies, and a Fellow (by courtesy) of the Hoover Institution. Her books include Germany Unified and Europe Transformed (1995) with Philip Zelikow, The Gorbachev Era (1986) with Alexander Dallin, and Uncertain Allegiance: The Soviet Union and the Czechoslovak Army (1984). She also has written numerous articles on Soviet and East European foreign and defense policy, and has addressed audiences in settings ranging from the U.S. Ambassador's Residence in Moscow to the Commonwealth Club to the 1992 and 2000 Republican National Conventions. From 1989 through March 1991, the period of German reunification and the final days of the Soviet Union, she served in the Bush Administration as Director, and then Senior Director, of Soviet and East European Affairs in the National Security Council, and a Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. In 1986,while an international affairs fellow of the Council on Foreign Relations, she served as Special Assistant to the Director of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In 1997, she served on the Federal Advisory Committee on Gender -- Integrated Training in the Military. She was a member of the boards of directors for the Chevron Corporation, the Charles Schwab Corporation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the University of Notre Dame, the International Advisory Council of J.P. Morgan and the San Francisco Symphony Board of Governors. She was a Founding Board member of the Center for a New Generation, an educational support fund for schools in East Palo Alto and East Menlo Park, California and was Vice President of the Boys and Girls Club of the Peninsula. In addition, her past board service has encompassed such organizations as Transamerica Corporation, Hewlett Packard, the Carnegie Corporation, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, The Rand Corporation, the National Council for Soviet and East European Studies, the Mid-Peninsula Urban Coalition and KQED, public broadcasting for San Francisco. Born November 14, 1954 in Birmingham, Alabama, she resides in Washington, D.C.

So who are these celebrities? What is their education? What is their experience in affairs of State or in National Security? While I will defend to the death their right to express their opinions, I think that if they are going to call into question the intelligence of our leaders, we should also have all the facts on their educations and background:

Barbra Streisand : Completed high school Career: Singing and acting
Cher: Dropped out of school in 9th grade. Career: Singing and acting
Martin Sheen: Flunked exam to enter University of Dayton. Career: Acting
Jessica Lange: Dropped out college mid-freshman year. Career: Acting
Alec Baldwin: Dropped out of George Washington U. after scandal. Career: Acting
Julia Roberts: Completed high school. Career: Acting
Sean Penn: Completed High school. Career: Acting
Susan Sarandon: Degree in Drama from Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C. Career: Acting
Ed Asner; Completed High school. Career: Acting
George Clooney: Dropped out of University of Kentucky. Career:Acting
Michael Moore: Dropped out first year University of Michigan. Career: Movie Director
Sarah Jessica Parker: Completed High School. Career: Acting
Jennifer Anniston: Completed High School. Career: Acting
Mike Farrell: Completed High school. Career: Acting
Janeane Garofelo: Dropped out of College. Career: Stand up comedienne
Larry Hagman: Attended Bard College for one year. Career: Acting

While comparing the education and experience of these two groups, we should also remember that President Bush and his cabinet are briefed daily, even hourly, on the War on Terror and threats to our security. They are privy to information gathered around the world concerning the Middle East, the threats to America, the intentions of terrorists and terrorist-supporting governments. They are in constant communication with the CIA, the FBI, Interpol, NATO, The United Nations, our own military, and that of our allies around the world. We cannot simply believe that we have full knowledge of the threats because we watch CNN!! We cannot believe that we are in any way as informed as our leaders. These celebrities have no intelligence-gathering agents, no fact-finding groups, no insight into the minds of those who would destroy our country. They only have a deep-seated hatred for all things Republican. By nature, and no one knows quite why, the Hollywood elitists detest Conservative views and anything that supports or uplifts the United States of America. The silence was deafening from the Left when Bill Clinton bombed a pharmaceutical factory outside of Khartoum, or when he attacked the Bosnian Serbs in 1995 and 1999. He bombed Serbia itself to get Slobodan Milosevic out of Kosovo, and not a single peace rally was held. When our Rangers were ambushed in Somalia and 18 young American lives were lost, not a peep was heard from Hollywood. Yet now, after our nation has been attacked on its own soil, after 3,000 Americans were killed, by freedom-hating terrorists, while going about their routine lives, they want to hold rallies against the war. Why the change? Because an honest, God-fearing Republican sits in the White House. Another irony is that in 1987, when Ronald Reagan was in office, the Hollywood group aligned themselves with disarmament groups like SANE, FREEZE and PEACE ACTION, urging our own government to disarm and freeze the manufacturing of any further nuclear weapons, in order to promote world peace. It is curious that now, even after we have heard all the evidence that Saddam Hussein has chemical, biological and is very close to obtaining nuclear weapons, their is no cry from this group for HIM to disarm. They believe we should leave him alone in his quest for these weapons of mass destruction, even though it is certain that these deadly weapons will eventually be used against us in our own cities.

So why the hype out of Hollywood? Could these celebrities believe that since they draw such astronomical salaries, they are entitled to also determine the course of our Nation? That they can make viable decisions concerning war and peace? Did Michael Moore have the backing of the Nation when he recently thanked France, on our behalf, for being a "good enough friend to tell us we were wrong"? I know for certain he was not speaking for me. Does Sean Penn fancy himself a Diplomat, in going to Iraq when we are just weeks away from war? Does he believe that his High School Diploma gives him the knowledge (and the right) to go to a country that is controlled by a maniacal dictator, and speak on behalf of the American people? Or is it the fact that he pulls in more money per year than the average American worker will see in a lifetime? Does his bank account give him clout? The ultimate irony is that many of these celebrities have made a shambles of their own lives, with drug abuse, alcoholism, numerous marriages and divorces, scrapes with the law, publicized temper tantrums, etc. How dare they pretend to know what is best for an entire nation! What is even more bizarre is how many people in this country will listen and accept their views, simply because they liked them in a certain movie, or have fond memories of an old television sitcom! It is time for us, as citizens of the United States, to educate ourselves about the world around us. If future generations are going to enjoy the freedoms that our forefathers bequeathed us, if they are ever to know peace in their own country and their world, to live without fear of terrorism striking in their own cities, we must assure that this nation remains strong. We must make certain that those who would destroy us are made aware of the severe consequences that will befall them. Yes, it is a wonderful dream to sit down with dictators and terrorists and join hands, singing Cumbaya and talking of world peace. But it is not real. We did not stop Adolf Hitler from taking over the entire continent of Europe by simply talking to him. We sent our best and brightest, with the strength and determination that this Country is known for, and defeated the Nazi regime. President John F. Kennedy did not stop the Soviet ships from unloading their nuclear missiles in Cuba in 1962 with mere words. He stopped them with action, and threat of immediate war if the ships did not turn around. We did not end the Cold War with conferences. It ended with the strong belief of President Ronald Reagan... PEACE through STRENGTH.

thank you husker.:)

Originally posted by moogle


Come on...have you ever heard in your life that a president almost died because of a pretzel... LOL... LOL ... OMG.

P.S. -- I once had the horrifying experience of performing the Heimlich Maneuver on a doctor who was choking on a piece of celery at an Italian restaurant. I suppose she was also an "ediot" for ordering Minestrone soup.

Originally posted by moogle


...... if you have something to say and its going to be bunch of garbage "meaning negative comments to other members" plz put it somewhere else. Contribute +post not garbage.



i did not post any negative comments to other members. i suggested that if someone is going to call someone an intellectual inferior than they should do so with proper grammer and speeling. your comment that my post was garbage was what i would consider a negative comment.

arguements like this are why i tried not to respond to this thread. wakeech if you would like to carry on our conversation pm me so we don't have to wade thru this to have a civil conversation.

lol lol. Ouch.
before you guys try to gang up on me, let me clear this up 2 you, I don't flip burgers , I work for the state. And the only reason G Bush Junior got into Yale because his daddy put up couple of buildings. Also as a pilot he never flew one. Show me proof that he got there with his grades, and him flying a plane than I call him one smart hill billy. Recheck my grammar buddy, I misspell one word... WOW.

and if you have something to say and its going to be bunch of garbage "meaning negative comments to other members" plz put it somewhere else. Contribute +post not garbage.

Ok, sorry. If anyone " "you" could be anyone" I never said zoom44.
Wellz zoom44, I dont think anything you said to me was rude or negative. I don't have revenge or heat to anyone here, this is after all online. If anyone flames me, I could careless. After all this is one of the friendliest forum, why should we even argue, we can disagree and counter with your opinion, but 2 argue its pointless.

G W was arrested three times, once for a stupid fraternity prank, once for disorderly conduct at a football game, and once for drunk driving when he was 30 years old.

G W got into Yale, ironically, thanks to affirmative action as a son and grandson of alumni and a member of a politically influential family. Harvard accepts 40% of applicants who are children of alumni but only 11% in general. His SAT score was ordinary, 566 verbal and 640 math and a self-described C student. You think the ordinary joe can get into Yale and Harvard with that record?

G W was AWOL for a year and a half when he was in the Texas ANG. Let me tell you what, my ass would be in jail if I was AWOL for one day, let alone a year and a half, then again my last name is not Bush.

Is Bush an idiot? Hell no, in fact, I think he's one slick SOB.

BTW, Cheney was CEO of Halliburton Industries, an oil services company that was doing business with Iraq. What's up with that?

In all seriousness, my heart goes to the servicemen who died in Iraq. We need to get this thing over with and get our people home.

I have a couple of questions about that article you put up husker. I tried a search to find out more about this Cindy Osborne but I couldn't find any information as to her or her article in any major news source at all. The only place I found the article other than the many variations posted on personal sites was in the opinion corner at www.bushcountry.org which quotes "This page reflects commentaries submitted to BushCountry by guest writers". It may just be me but I don't think this qualifies as an objective source and I begin to question the argument presented.

A college education doesn't automatically make you smart if you're still slanted to one side or the other. Many "smart" people once believed that the Earth was flat. Many others believed that the Earth was the center of the universe. Copernicus and Galileo were condemned as heretics by the Catholic Church because they discovered that the Earth was not the center of the universe. When the author calls Bush a "honest God fearing Republican", I don't feel any better about the decision to go to war.

"It is time for us, as citizens of the United States, to educate ourselves about the world around us." How about the fact that the rest of the world hates us now and instead of dealing with the Taliban (who we helped to get in power), we're gonna have to deal with more terrorist threats than before. Is it better to deal with just al Queda with MWD or 5 or 6 other terrorist groups that now hate the US? Also on a side note, what evidence of weapons of mass destruction? I remember Sec of State Colin Powell presenting some "evidence" to the UN but most of the evidence was apparently "classified". If that evidence is classified and the world leaders don't have access to it and don't know about it, is it still evidence?

The United States has always influenced foreign policy of other countries. When someone takes office that doesn't have the same agenda as our capitalist leaders, he is ousted by "freedom fighters" or so we're told. If we can't create a civil war in that country, we suspend trade with that country. Whenever the US suspends trade with another country, that country's economy is in trouble. It's how the US leverages its position on foreign policy. Did anyone also notice that in the weeks leading up to the war, the US was trying to buy off other countries with economic aid in return for support for the war?

In all seriousness, my heart goes to the servicemen who died in Iraq. We need to get this thing over with and get our people home.

Thank goodness he is president. I rather have a man that makes decisions by really thinking about it and making a choice. Not waiting to see what the polls said. Another thing some times leaders have to lead. We are going to Iraq to make sure we don't get another N. Korea's on our hands and so we have one less country that will help O.B.L. Then we will take care on N. Korea. and I would like a man of his word in the white house. Not a bad liar who thinks he is above the law" Bill Clinton." If Al Gore was president we would be doing nothing about Iraq and would just be waiting for the foot to drop kick us in the a#@.

In all seriousness, my heart goes to the servicemen who died in Iraq. We need to get this thing over with and get our people home.

the same here.