Man United NSR Politics thread

[littleman]

Just because FOX News represents the right doesn't mean it should be discarded, just like any of the other news channels should be taking off the air becuase they represent the left for all intents and purposes.

I won't even get into that crazy conspiracy theory about 9/11. And if enough people were able to elect him for a second term even with all the supposed "mistakes" of his first term, then wouldn't you say that those people feel that their interests ARE being adequately represented?

Fox doesn't just represent the right, its reporting and accuracy is also downright atrocious.

[mhtwins113]

You do a great deal in simplifying elections to a matter of "trust" and a demonstration of the supposed faith the country has in him. You know its not true. The Bush election campaign was by far one of the dirtiest in recent American history.. the smear campaign and ads designed entirely to attack John Kerry.

He won, but that's about all you can conclude from it.
I've come out and said I'm a Bush supporter. Now I'll say that the swift boat campaign against Kerry was absolutely disgraceful, much like the campaign in 2000 in the primaries that knocked McCain's Vietnam service and POW status. NEVER knock a man's service to this country, I'm thankful to anyone who has the courage to put their life on the line to protect my freedoms and liberties everyday.

[SirManchester]

This makes no sense. You just said that Cheney makes most of the decisions, yet now Cheney only advises Bush, who now has the final call? Consistency please.

Bush goes overseas. Cameras follow. People in America see Bush overseas on their televisions, thanks to said cameras. Everytime he is in front of a camera, the acting commences. Why does it matter to him or anyone else if the country looks "stupid"? It's completely professional because it is his job to be a politician and get votes for his party. That's what he does.

I'm not touching 9-11 because that's just stupid shit waiting to happen.

Oh my, what a discovery!!! Bush isn't doing what's best for a majority of Americans. Call the press. Headline news. Exactly which politician is doing what's best for the majority of people? And again, you fail to realize the political genius the man possesses. He plays people like a fiddle.

I'm out for the night. I'll continue my rumbling tomorrow.

Don't use that sarcastic tone, be a little more mature here, I'm trying to be as clear as possible, and I don't intend to repeat myself.
I said Cheney makes most of the decisions behind closed doors, but its up to Bush to finalize them. get it? good.

Don't give me that sh!t and justify Bush's behavior infront of the world, you said its his gimmick over here, but it doesnt make sense to make himself look like a jackass infront of other world leaders, how is the rest of the world going to take him and thsi country seriously? especially when war is at stake, terrorism, flu outbreaks, etc...and he ********in jokes about it, and answers everything indirectly :rolleyes:

so according to your logic, Bush is a political genius because he's able to convince millions of uneducated people..yet he makes idiotic and indifferent political decisions which don't benefit those very people he's playing nor anyone else for that mattter...yet you back him up. Gotcha.

I'm curious in what your news sources are by the way.

[Numquam Moribimur]

Yes we did bomb Baghdad in 1998, it was a two-day campaign with air strikes aimed at killing Saddam, much like the operations we just carried out in Pakistan trying to kill Ayman al-Zawahiri, Al Qaeda's #2 operative behind Osama.

Al Gore is also the same person who was heard saying in a speech the past week that we have 10 more years to live until global warming makes the Earth uninhabitable. But I heard that from Rush Limbaugh and KFI's John and Ken (local radio personalities), so take it as you will.


Clinton was also offer Bin laden on a sliver platter if i am right back in 1998

[StrikerCW]

Wow, you learn something everyday, I did not realize this.

[Sapphire]

Let's not forget that these same douche-bag Democrats bashing Bush now for Iraq are the same bastards that wouldn't back up their criticisms by calling for immediate withdrawl when it was brought up and voted on in the House, for fear of PR backlash.That's actually not at all fair, as I hope you know. The Republicans proposed the bill to pull all troops out of Iraq immediately, as in that day. Which is completely ridiculous. They knew the democrats would oppose the bill, as would any reasonable person. Believe me, many of the democrats would have voted for legislation demanding an enforcable timeline, or pulling out after one year, or some such thing had that been allowed for a vote, which it wasn't (I'm not sure what actual proposals have been on this). No one in their right mind would propose immediate withdrawal from Iraq, and no reasonable person was calling for it.

Don't support your party's line just because it's your party's line; that particular charge is really deceptive and it hurts your credibility.


If nothing else, Bush is a man with solid ideals and enough confidence in them to take action that he feels is best for the American people. It is deeply deeply difficult for me to believe that he or almost any other politician of either party has the true interest of the American public at heart. I don't support either party; I think they're all full of crap and you have to run with the ones that are closer to your point of view. I know a few current and former federal politicians and they are, to a man, grade-a scumbags. They'd eat a baby for a vote. I don't know why this is, I think it has something to do with the overwhelming corruption of our national politics.

[StrikerCW]

Can you prove that Cheney does most of the decisions behind the closed doors. I would like to hear how you came to this conclusion?

The fact that he made a good amount of money from the war in Iraq via Halliburton? Maybe but that can not be the only reason we went to war, if thats what you are saying.

[Achtung]

And honestly, would John Kerry have been any better than Bush? I think not, he himself is a waffler on all issues anyway. Bush at least stands up for himself, you are right Mike (mth).

While I agree John Kerry wouldn't have done much better (and the primary system which led to his nomination needs to be scrapped ASAP), I think that Bush comes off as far less steadfast than he is stubborn. A good leader needs to be willing to admit his mistakes all the same. His reaction to Katrina seemed to me to be the final straw when it came to him not being able to admit failings of himself and those who worked for him. It's frustrating when any leader won't admit that mistakes have been made and therefore need to be rectified.

[mhtwins113]

Fox doesn't just represent the right, its reporting and accuracy is also downright atrocious.
Well hey, without FOX News, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert would lead very empty and boring lives. So we can be thankful for that :D

[StrikerCW]

Why, pray, Republicans, tell me why we went into Iraq at all in the first place?

[SirManchester]

What exactly would you call a reliable source? CBS News with its constant yet futile attempts to discredit Bush? Perhaps NBC News who has reporters blurting out on air how horrible the job is being done in Iraq? Maybe CNN whose lone registered Republican on-air reporter is Candy Crowley?

Just because FOX News represents the right doesn't mean it should be discarded, just like any of the other news channels should be taking off the air becuase they represent the left for all intents and purposes.

I won't even get into that crazy conspiracy theory about 9/11. And if enough people were able to elect him for a second term even with all the supposed "mistakes" of his first term, then wouldn't you say that those people feel that their interests ARE being adequately represented?


:sigh: you think news is only restricted to domestic right!?
I suggest everyone keep up tp date with CNN international and BBC News to name a few.

And regarding why he was re-elected, because he plays his fiddle so well :rolleyes: and the fact that most Americans don't know anything about their country's politics or politics itself and oh yea all those strings his admin. pulled, all these make for a pretty secure re election plot.

[Achtung]

Clinton was also offer Bin laden on a sliver platter if i am right back in 1998

Nope, at least not by any reputable source. IIRC, it was an African businessman who claimed to represent his country (I think it was Nigeria), leading the administration to reply that they don't negotiate matters of national security with private citizens (nor does any administration). It's since been blown up by enemies of Clinton to make it seem as though the administration fell asleep on bin Laden.

edit: It was Sudan, where bin Laden had been rumored to be in the mid-90s.

[mhtwins113]

That's actually not at all fair, as I hope you know. The Republicans proposed the bill to pull all troops out of Iraq immediately, as in that day. Which is completely ridiculous. They knew the democrats would oppose the bill, as would any reasonable person. Believe me, many of the democrats would have voted for legislation demanding an enforcable timeline, or pulling out after one year, or some such thing had that been allowed for a vote, which it wasn't (I'm not sure what actual proposals have been on this). No one in their right mind would propose immediate withdrawal from Iraq, and no reasonable person was calling for it.

Don't support your party's line just because it's your party's line; that particular charge is really deceptive and it hurts your credibility.

Yeah I know that, but it was House Republicans saying "Hey you don't want us there? Then put your money where your mouth is (for lack of a better phrase)."

The ridiculous part would be putting a time-table on troop removal. Yeah, let's just let Zarqawi and Co. know how much longer they have to bide their time before we're gone and they can forcibly take Iraq, unimpeded.


It is deeply deeply difficult for me to believe that he or almost any other politician of either party has the true interest of the American public at heart. I don't support either party; I think they're all full of crap and you have to run with the ones that are closer to your point of view. I know a few current and former federal politicians and they are, to a man, grade-a scumbags. They'd eat a baby for a vote. I don't know why this is, I think it has something to do with the overwhelming corruption of our national politics.
I have no problems with this statement, I share many of the same sentiments.

[Sapphire]

Fox doesn't just represent the right, its reporting and accuracy is also downright atrocious. To be fair to Fox, every mainstream media outlet is suffering from this. Fox was the first and because their ratings were so high, other stations jumped on board. CNN is little better than Fox these days at giving hard news. It's like watching a pseudo-legitimate version of the tabloids.

Please remember, the news is all about keeping people tuned in to sell pepsi or viagra or whatever is playing in the advertisements. It is not about informing the public, which is one of the central problems facing our democracy. That's why I love LOVE public television, it does a much better job when its actually funded.

[SirManchester]

Why, pray, Republicans, tell me why we went into Iraq at all in the first place?

to liberate its people, spread deomcracy :) get those WMD's and step into everyone else's business of course :rolleyes:

[mhtwins113]

Why, pray, Republicans, tell me why we went into Iraq at all in the first place?
You want me to pull out the WMDs line or say that removing Saddam was our priority above any weapons?

At the end of the day, I think it was neither. I think the administration felt that they needed to: 1) as someone said before, to kick the economy into high-gear after the stagnation caused by 9/11. 2) Establish an ally and large presence near Iran for political pressure and to have an ally besides Israel in the region that could serve as a "democratic model" for the rest.

I don't buy the whole oil bullcrap, why am I not paying maximum $1.50/gallon at the pump right now if we supposedly control this vast Iraqi oil reserve. I mean, importing it from a friend we control should be much easier and cheaper than from the Saudis or Kuwaitis, so oil companies can make their profits while leaving our wallets a bit thicker. But it hasn't exactly worked out that way, has it?

[Achtung]

At the end of the day, I think it was neither. I think the administration felt that: 1) as someone said before, to kick the economy into high-gear after the stagnation caused by 9/11. 2) To establish an ally and large presence near Iran for political pressure and to have an ally besides Israel in the region that could serve as a "democratic model" for the rest.

I don't buy the whole oil bullcrap, why am I not paying maximum $1.50 at the pump right now if we supposedly control this vast Iraqi oil reserve. I mean, importing it from a friend we control should be much easier and cheaper than from the Saudis or Kuwaitis, so oil companies can make their profits while leaving our wallets a bit thicker. But it hasn't exactly worked out that way, has it?

I agree with your first two points, that they were certainly two of the most important reasons for the war.

But the oil just sticks out too much. Iraq has arguably the largest oil reserves in the world, larger even than Saudi Arabia. The plan was that the oil would be completely in US control at this time. Unfortunately, the oil isn't at this time due to the insurgency, and there are more pressing matters over there such as where the next IED attack will come from.

Of course back in the 80s, the plan was to make Iraq into the next Saudi Arabia. That is, a modern, relatively westernized, US-allied nation that could provide cheap oil to the west in exchange for protection for the unpopular leadership of the nation. Unfortunately, Saddam waffled, made unreasonable requests, and decided for kicks to invade Kuwait. Just think, if he'd gone along with the whole thing, we'd have pictures of Saddam and Bush holding hands in the White House Rose Garden. :)

[Sapphire]

I don't buy the oil thing either. In fact, I haven't heard not one reasonable argument for our invasion if Iraq. Not one. Certainly not from our leadership. I'm still waiting (although yours aren't all that unreasonable, mht, I still don't see them as solid enough reasons.)

And with that, goodnight. ;)

[StrikerCW]

At the end of the day, I think it was neither. I think the administration felt that they needed to: 1) as someone said before, to kick the economy into high-gear after the stagnation caused by 9/11.
I said that, and as I said I don't think it had much affect. First of all, I'm not sure how much it actually helped as opposed to just simply the economy because we aren't producing anymore vehicles than we were or anything to get industry going which was the main reasoning behind WWII helping the Great Depression out. Secondly, we were also already in Aghanistan before March 2003 in which we were also 'fighting a war'.
2) Establish an ally and large presence near Iran for political pressure and to have an ally besides Israel in the region that could serve as a "democratic model" for the rest.
Possible, but you know good and well once we get out of there its all going to go to shite again and a dictatorship is going to be set up and start all over again.

Again, I point out that we wouldn't need an ally in the region if not for our actions in the past (Reagan in Iran, and putting the Jews in Israel)

I don't buy the whole oil bullcrap, why am I not paying maximum $1.50/gallon at the pump right now if we supposedly control this vast Iraqi oil reserve. I mean, importing it from a friend we control should be much easier and cheaper than from the Saudis or Kuwaitis, so oil companies can make their profits while leaving our wallets a bit thicker. But it hasn't exactly worked out that way, has it?
This I am not sure of, damn straight the gas is up now (of course it was 1.75 or so down here until Fvkcing Katrina..) you would think the oil would go down and it should anyways, then why is it not? I believe this may be down to the destruction of the towers in Iraq since the invasion. As many of them were set ablaze.

[Numquam Moribimur]

Nope, at least not by any reputable source. IIRC, it was an African businessman who claimed to represent his country (I think it was Nigeria), leading the administration to reply that they don't negotiate matters of national security with private citizens (nor does any administration). It's since been blown up by enemies of Clinton to make it seem as though the administration fell asleep on bin Laden.

edit: It was Sudan, where bin Laden had been rumored to be in the mid-90s.


you might be right but IMO from all the things that he had the chance


and btw clinton was on of my fav pres :)