Next Us President

[Houstonrush]

[Montrose1100]

Montrose,

Simply because it was the 70's doesn't offer a free ride to use drugs.  Especially if they're going damn the other person for even TRYING Them.  You have to be consistent in your beliefs for yourself as well as others.

Again, Bush did some serious drinking AND drugs during the 70's,  after he was out of college. 

What makes it so hard to understand?  Truly, montrose, I thought you were more intelligent than that.

Am I mis-stating myself on this matter?

Ricco

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Just because drug use was common in the 70's, doesn't mark on my intelligence. I am simply saying, no one's record is clean. Be it criminal record, or personal. But you can't simply not vote for someone because of what they did 30 years ago. People change over a long corse of time, expecially 30 years. And so do Cities...

[ricco67]

Montrose Sez:

Just because drug use was common in the 70's, doesn't mark on my intelligence. I am simply saying, no one's record is clean. Be it criminal record, or personal. But you can't simply not vote for someone because of what they did 30 years ago. People change over a long corse of time, expecially 30 years. And so do Cities...

I don't mark anyone's intelligence on drug use and it wasn't meant as an insult to you at all, Montrose. What I am saying is that there is a serious double standard.

During the Clinton campaigne, a big issue was made about whether or not he "inhaled" 20-30 years earlier.

During the GW presidential run, hardly anyone even CARED about his cocaine and heavy drinking (or his DWI, if I remember correctly) during the mid or late 70's.

The standard is a bit different it seems. that's all.

It's like Newt Gingrich pointing the fingers about Clinton's dalliances when Newt himself had a VERY obscene family situation going on as well.

Ricco

[Montrose1100]

Montrose Sez:

I don't mark anyone's intelligence on drug use and it wasn't meant as an insult to you at all, Montrose.  What I am saying is that there is a serious double standard. 

During the Clinton campaigne, a big issue was made about whether or not he "inhaled" 20-30 years earlier.

During the GW presidential run, hardly anyone even CARED about his cocaine and heavy drinking (or his DWI, if I remember correctly) during the mid or late 70's.

The standard is a bit different it seems. that's all.

It's like Newt Gingrich pointing the fingers about Clinton's dalliances when Newt himself had a VERY obscene family situation going on as well.

Ricco

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How can you take it other then an insult if its directed right at you?

It shouldn't be a problem what they did 30 years ago, but if they where still doing it today, then yah, you could say not to vote for them.

[CincoRanch-HoustonResident]

Cinco,

Was your smiley-face is an indiction that THAT was your response to my argument, or are you simply stalling for a counter argument?

Ricco

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Uh.....What are you talking about?

[H-Town Man]

I love this post, and your a very wise person H Town Man...

But I think "Seperation of Church and state" also means, that, if the goverment should take an action (even if it oposses god, or disrupts a sin) its for the "best". Because, if the goverment was religious, do you think we would be what we are today? We wouldn't have an army, only to prectect us, and it just wouldn't be what it is today. I think if your a leader, should be because you can make decisions based on the best possible outcome, even if it means breaking a sin, law, or moral.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why do you assume that, if the government does what's for the "best," it would oppose God or be sinful? Clearly anyone who believes in God would think that following His will is always for the best, even if it doesn't seem like it in the short term.

I don't know what you mean by "if the government was religious." It seems like you have certain assumptions regarding religion. Just because governments in certain religious societies have taken certain forms, doesn't mean that any government whose members are religious has to. I would imagine that for most of our nation's history, most of the people in our government have been religious, and have made the decisions they thought were the best according to their beliefs.

[Montrose1100]

Why do you assume that, if the government does what's for the "best," it would oppose God or be sinful?  Clearly anyone who believes in God would think that following His will is always for the best, even if it doesn't seem like it in the short term.

I don't know what you mean by "if the government was religious."  It seems like you have certain assumptions regarding religion.  Just because governments in certain religious societies have taken certain forms, doesn't mean that any government whose members are religious has to.  I would imagine that for most of our nation's history, most of the people in our government have been religious, and have made the decisions they thought were the best according to their beliefs.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you call invading a country for oil, all in gods name of corse, an indication by good faith, then go for it...

[ricco67]

cinco sez:

George Bush would be a better President because of his expierience. John Kerry, to me, does not no much about being a President. I am almost certain I made up my mind for who I am voting for, after watching the Republican Convention. I can't believe though, so many protesting people for one person at the convention.

then I posted in response...

Previous to his presidency, and a HALF of a term as a Governor of a state in which he has no real power, can you name his prior experience being relevent to a .....

Cinco then said again....

Uh.....What are you talking about?

Ricco

[CincoRanch-HoustonResident]

Ricco,

You were talking about a smiley face that i put somewhere.

[houstonsemipro]

John Kerry is no competion to Bush if you really look at it. Some of y'all voting for Kerry, cause of what Bush did by going to war. I agree on that, but I disagree on voting for Kerry. So some of y'all think Kerry is going to win? Please, don't make me laugh. You think Kerry and Edwards have the knowledge, and the power to win over Bush and Cheny? Cheny is going to eat Edwards alive, and you know Bush is going to just get some hot dogs and speard some Heniz ketchup while Kerry do his speech. Bush and Cheny really is not worried about their opponent.

[ricco67]

houstonsemipro sez:

John Kerry is no competion to Bush if you really look at it. Some of y'all voting for Kerry, cause of what Bush did by going to war. I agree on that, but I disagree on voting for Kerry. So some of y'all think Kerry is going to win?  Please, don't make me laugh. You think Kerry and Edwards have the knowledge, and the power to win over Bush and Cheny? Cheny is going to eat Edwards alive, and you know Bush is going to just get some hot dogs and speard some Heniz ketchup while Kerry do his speech. Bush and Cheny really is not worried about their opponent.

I'm not saying Kerry WILL win, nor am I saying he's SUPPOSED to win. I don't particularly care for either candidate. What I'm going to do is vote for Nader if possible, just so that a 3rd party can get some funds for the next election and break this stranglehold of this duel party democracy.

If I'd sooner vote for Dick instead of Bush if that option would come up. Then again, McCaine is, what I think a superior candidate to all the ones that has been running in the past.

Ricco

[jt16]

I remember the Bush DWI coming out to the press unexpectedly a day or two before the election. Hard to say that very little was made of it.

[H-Town Man]

If you call invading a country for oil, all in gods name of corse, an indication by good faith, then go for it...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

First of all, why do you assume that any person who governs according to what he believes is God's will will invade a country for oil? One could just as easily, in fact more easily, be opposed to such an invasion on the grounds that it is against what God would want.

Secondly, isn't this idea that Bush invaded Iraq for oil something that you're assuming? What makes you so sure that this is the sole, or even most powerful reason for Bush's actions? I admit it is a theory, usually put forth by cynics who hated Bush long before the invasion. But isn't it possible that he invaded Iraq to change a ruthless dictatorial regime to a free country - and that he believed that such a change is what God would want?

This is not to start an argument on why Bush invaded Iraq, but rather to point out some of the assumptions you are relying on in your refusal to admit that a nation can be governed by people doing what they think is right according to God. You seem to be dodging the issue.

[Montrose1100]

First of all, why do you assume that any person who governs according to what he believes is God's will will invade a country for oil?  One could just as easily, in fact more easily, be opposed to such an invasion on the grounds that it is against what God would want.

Secondly, isn't this idea that Bush invaded Iraq for oil something that you're assuming?  What makes you so sure that this is the sole, or even most powerful reason for Bush's actions?  I admit it is a theory, usually put forth by cynics who hated Bush long before the invasion.  But isn't it possible that he invaded Iraq to change a ruthless dictatorial regime to a free country - and that he believed that such a change is what God would want?

This is not to start an argument on why Bush invaded Iraq, but rather to point out some of the assumptions you are relying on in your refusal to admit that a nation can be governed by people doing what they think is right according to God.  You seem to be dodging the issue.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Its a joke dude, chill out... Take it down a level.

I am a strong bush supporter, and I belive what we are doign in Iraq is a good thing, and that we are there for a much greater reason then just oil.

The point about me "avoiding the issue" is I don't like religion. Its the "crutch" (for lack of a better word) for humanity. And I don't want to start issues based on religion, because I know most people belive in god, and I respect them if they do. But I don't, and I only want the same in return. You don't shove religion down my throat, and I won't be sac-religious. Because I belive the Human mind can figure things out on its own, and not to belive in somthing to get them threw the day, or help make decisions. Some people do, and thats fine with me... But for a goverment to base there decisions, and acts, on the bible, is not how I would want things to be. But somtimes it is, and in this case, it isn't. I am not quite sure what you want me to say or admit, but I think the goverment should be strong, and not look to somthing else to help them decide. Some walk with the "crutch", and some walk on the leg.

[dbigtex56]

I quote from John Culberson's (R-TX) August 2004 mail-out (Volume 4, Number 1):

"I know that taxpayers can be repaid with Iraqi oil revenues, and at an absolute minimum, America must be paid back in the same manner as other nations like France, Russia and China. Overburdened American taxpayers deserve no less."

Interesting! "Repaid"? I don't recall Iraq issuing any bonds or making any promises to repay us. Using that logic, I demand to be repaid for writing this reply. And am I to believe that American oil concerns will not be involved with 'helping' Iraq get our oil (oh, excuse me...their oil) back on the market?

Bush managed to get support for this war by first confusing the American public as to Iraq's role in the 9-11 terrorist attacks (it had, at most, a minimal role), and then using intelligence which had already been discredited to suggest that Americans were in imminent danger from weapons of mass destruction. This excuse that we were overthrowing a brutal dictator to make Iraq free for democracy came much later. Yet, people still believe it.

Why?

[H-Town Man]

Its a joke dude, chill out... Take it down a level.

I am a strong bush supporter, and I belive what we are doign in Iraq is a good thing, and that we are there for a much greater reason then just oil.

The point about me "avoiding the issue" is I don't like religion. Its the "crutch" (for lack of a better word) for humanity. And I don't want to start issues based on religion, because I know most people belive in god, and I respect them if they do. But I don't, and I only want the same in return. You don't shove religion down my throat, and I won't be sac-religious. Because I belive the Human mind can figure things out on its own, and not to belive in somthing to get them threw the day, or help make decisions. Some people do, and thats fine with me... But for a goverment to base there decisions, and acts, on the bible, is not how I would want things to be. But somtimes it is, and in this case, it isn't. I am not quite sure what you want me to say or admit, but I think the goverment should be strong, and not look to somthing else to help them decide. Some walk with the "crutch", and some walk on the leg.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're a nice guy, Montrose, but sometimes I think that you're in a completely different argument with a different person, and I'm getting the responses from that argument instead of this one. Who is shoving religion down your throat? How did this devolve into a discussion about why people choose to believe in God?

dbigtex... go to Bush's State of the Union address of 2003, before the invasion of Iraq, and you will see that the "excuse" of overthrowing a brutal dictator did not come "much later." In fact it came right at the same time as the argument about weapons of mass destruction, which sober-minded individuals in both parties believe was valid right up to the time of the war. As for myself, I don't know what we knew about weapons of mass destruction, and whether they justified the war or not. The brutalities of Saddam Hussein's regime are not lost upon me, and for that reason alone I think that this war was a worthwhile thing, regardless of what Bush's or anyone else's intentions actually were. The sad fact of the matter is that most people would rather just hate Bush and concoct arguments about oil than actual consider the human realities of what is going on on the other side of the world. Although it is experiencing troubles right now, I think that in the long run Iraq will be a much happier country than it was before, and they will owe it to President Bush's decision to go to war.

[Montrose1100]

You're a nice guy, Montrose, but sometimes I think that you're in a completely different argument with a different person, and I'm getting the responses from that argument instead of this one.

[westender]

dbigtex...  go to Bush's State of the Union address of 2003, before the invasion of Iraq, and you will see that the "excuse" of overthrowing a brutal dictator did not come "much later."  In fact it came right at the same time as the argument about weapons of mass destruction, which sober-minded individuals in both parties believe was valid right up to the time of the war.  As for myself, I don't know what we knew about weapons of mass destruction, and whether they justified the war or not.  The brutalities of Saddam Hussein's regime are not lost upon me, and for that reason alone I think that this war was a worthwhile thing, regardless of what Bush's or anyone else's intentions actually were.  The sad fact of the matter is that most people would rather just hate Bush and concoct arguments about oil than actual consider the human realities of what is going on on the other side of the world.  Although it is experiencing troubles right now, I think that in the long run Iraq will be a much happier country than it was before, and they will owe it to President Bush's decision to go to war.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

WHy? Why over throw a brutal dictator and more importantly, Why this one? Why not Mugabe of Zimbabwe, Pervez of Pakistan, Karimov of Uzbekistan, Niyazov of Turkmenistan, Bashir of Sudan, Kim Jong of N Korea, Catro of Cuba?... and the list goes on and on. If you're going to use the brutal dictators excuse then tell me what we will do about all of those.

[VelvetJ]

I'm sorry, I just can't resist.

Bush continues to manipulate the American people IMO, by saying the world is safer without Saddam, the world is safer without Saddam, the world is safer without Saddam. And I say Pleeeeeezzzzze. If I invited you all to my house for dinner and baked you guys a pie with 500 pieces of glass in it, but before I served it to you, I removed one of the pieces of glass to where there is only 499 pieces left, is the pie now safer to eat? Also, mind you, I didn't remove the largest pieces of glass or the pieces that is most obviously a threat to my guests. Well, technically yes, it is indeed safer to eat, but my removing a single piece of glass that doesn't pose the biggest threat to my guests, isn't enough for me to serve the pie while giving my guests an impression that the pie is now safe enough to eat.

This is how I see George W and his actions in Iraq, and unfortunately he has convinced a significant amount of Americans that not only is that pie now safe enough to eat but that he should be allowed to bake them another.

[westguy]

He may have given a laundry list of reasons in his SoTU address, but the one they sent through all of the media outlets through all of those preceeding months was the threat of Saddam Hussein's Iraq. There's a good reason they did this too. Americans have never supported humanitarian wars, because if we did, we'd have sent the military to Sudan to stop the much larger crisis there.

Even if most people believed Saddam had anthrax and chemical weapons, they did not all agree with the decision to conquer Iraq. The search for WMDs stopped because all weapons inspectors had to be recalled before the invasion, even though their work was proving that the threat of Saddam had been pretty well contained.

[H-Town Man]

WHy? Why over throw a brutal dictator and more importantly, Why this one? Why not Mugabe of Zimbabwe, Pervez of Pakistan, Karimov of Uzbekistan, Niyazov of Turkmenistan, Bashir of Sudan, Kim Jong of N Korea, Catro of Cuba?... and the list goes on and on. If you're going to use the brutal dictators excuse then tell me what we will do about all of those.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

First, did I ever say I was opposed to military action in those countries? Secondly, one thing that kind of sticks out about Saddam is that he was in charge of one of the most powerful militaries in the world, and posed a volatile threat to the region. Even Clinton made it a matter of internal policy to bring about regime change in Iraq.

I am not using the "brutal dictators" excuse. I am not even arguing about the war, so much as I am using the case of the war as part of a different argument. Whether the invasion of Iraq was actually justified is immaterial to that argument. You could do me a favor and actually read my posts carefully before responding to them.

[westender]

^^^^^^^^^^

I believe I did read your post.

The brutalities of Saddam Hussein's regime are not lost upon me, and for that reason alone I think that this war was a worthwhile thing, regardless of what Bush's or anyone else's intentions actually were.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you would have stopped here I would not have responded to your posts. At this point you were neutral and were just stating an opinion. However, you stopped being Switzerland when you said this.

The sad fact of the matter is that most people would rather just hate Bush and concoct arguments about oil than actual consider the human realities of what is going on on the other side of the world.

At this point you threw your weight behind Bush. You took the position of justifying the war in iraq due to humantitarian reasons whether that was your intent or not. My point in responding to your post is if that is a just reason for invading a sovereign country then why did we start with him and not with the more brutal members of the UN?

Secondly, one thing that kind of sticks out about Saddam is that he was in charge of one of the most powerful militaries in the world, and posed a volatile threat to the region.

One of the most powerful armies in the world huh. I'll let this speak for itself.

Post current Iraq war.

http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/primer-iraq-pr.cfm

I especially like this part:

"Today, the Iraqi armed forces number approximately 389,000. 5 Moreover, according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), while half of Iraqi divisions are 8,000 strong (and in a "fair state of readiness") out of average authorized strengths of 10,000 men, at least half of the regular Army is at 70 percent or less of its authorized strength, with some infantry units badly undermanned and very dependent on conscripts. CSIS also notes that Republican Guard divisions average at least 80 percent of an authorized strength of 8,000-10,000, with brigades averaging the size of a large U.S. battalion of 2,500 men. 6 In addition, all Iraqi divisions (except those of the Republican Guard) are estimated by the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) to be at 50 percent combat effectiveness, with half of all Army equipment lacking spare parts."

[CincoRanch-HoustonResident]

Bush will win this election. Though, I don't know why he has to make Iraq like us. Yeah, he should have got Saddam and his Regime, but he doesn't need to make Iraq a democracy. Is he going to go and do that to every country that is not like the U.S.? Tell me if I am wrong on this.

[ricco67]

The main reason why he NEEDS to stay in Iraq is because we don't have another afghanistan to pop up again.

If you will look at your history, you can see how that poor country when to total pot after the russians left. Last thing you want to do is to have a country with a serious country vacuum.

I may not like Bush, but in this one thing I support him on.

Ricco

[deepsouthtexas]

The main reason why he NEEDS to stay in Iraq is because we don't have another afghanistan to pop up again.

If you will look at your history, you can see how that poor country when to total pot after the russians left.  Last thing you want to do is to have a country with a serious country vacuum. 

I may not like Bush, but in this one thing I support him on.

Ricco

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree that we don't want another Taliban-style state. However, the way Bush has fought this war, is hardly discouraging this. Look at all the "no-go zones." These are zones where US troops can't or won't patrol. Falluja is a prime example where terrorists have seized control. It's seems to be a magnet for terrorists and criminals. My point is that Bush has done a poor job directing this war. It's time for him to go and let somebody who actually fought in a war take over.

[CincoRanch-HoustonResident]

I heard that Veterans of the Vietnam War were getting pissed of at Kerry because he was giving false things about the war. He was saying things about torture given to the soldiers. Things about them electricuting their testicles with wires and things of the sort. Kerry also lied about different other things about the war, but i can't recall what they are at this point and time. I hate how Kerry lies about things like that.

[westguy]

Kerry didn't lie about Vietnam. His testimony countered the false and sunny predictions being floated by the government to keep the war going. If public opinion didn't change, the war would've dragged on for several more years, costing thousands of lives and even greater embarassment for the US. Of course, I expected that you would allow yourself to be led around by the ear by a GOP-funded attack campaign.

[CincoRanch-HoustonResident]

Kerry did lie. That explains the Veterans being so upset, and pissed off at Kerry becaouse of his false speakings of the war. I just hope that after Bush wins this election(which he probably will), that Kerry, in after the 4 year term is over, does not win in a presidential race because I do not want him as my President. But that may just be me.

[CincoRanch-HoustonResident]

Kerry, to me, didn't do a thing in the Vietnam War. I heard that he didn't win those medals, and that is another reason why the Vietnam Veterans are getting really angry at Kerry. Kerry lies and Kerry is such a liar. I seriously hope Bush wins and not horse-faced Kerry.

[ssullivan]

Kerry, to me, didn't do a thing in the Vietnam War. I heard that he didn't win those medals, and that is another reason why the Vietnam Veterans are getting really angry at Kerry. Kerry lies and Kerry is such a liar. I seriously hope Bush wins and not horse-faced Kerry.

I don't think anyone can say for sure if Kerry lied or not on this except for John Kerry. However, I am more inclined to believe the people who were in his boat over those who were not.

Anyway, I think there's no such thing as a 100% honest politician. And while we're on the subject of lies, how about the lies the current President told to get us into an unjustified war with a sovereign nation that had not attacked us? Thousands have died over those lies and Bush and his cronies have made out bigtime on the corporate being generated by Halliburton for helping to clean the mess up.