Bush or Kerry or ???

Beastt

Perhaps you'd better go look again.

I would submit that it's time to take a moment and look into the mirror. You read 3-words and from nothing more than that, begin to make sweeping statements concerning the knowledge, or lack thereof, of the source.

You could easily have stated that the comment lacked enough substance to support itself, but instead you decided to attempt to use it to set yourself above other people; people you know little or nothing about.

Look at your comments here. You've established my entire political frame of mind based on 3-words. Either you're psychic or you're showing how quickly you are willing to jump to conclusions with the tiniest base of evidence.

Bush lied to the whole of the American public and when that lie was exposed, he lied again and, unfortunately, many people accepted his lies. Rumsfeld has done the same thing yet Bush continues to support him. General Richard Myers attempted to suppress the story about prisoner abuse by calling "60 Minutes" and requesting that they not show the photos. Rumsfeld backs him and Bush again, backs Rumsfeld.

I don't back those who have shown themselves to be anti-American and who have shown a belief in lying to the people in order to achieve the goals of their hidden agendas.

These people are not Americans. They hold no American values and see it as their right to lie to, and mislead the American public. If you support such ideas, then in calling yourself an American, you show a true lack of understanding about what the country is all about.

cuervo

It seems to me that your anger its going over your fingers …

BTW, I’m an American, because I was born in the American CONTINENT, even doe, I will not vote in your presidential elections (and I never will vote for Bush even if I could)

Don’t bother to answer me, I’m just amused with your fanatic attitude. That reminds me, when Miguel Bose was asked about Afghanistan invasion looking for BL, he says something like “it’s not worth to talk about it, it’s a war between two fanatics believing that the absolute right it’s on theirs side and the other side it’s the absolute evil”.

__________________
Sorry, English is not my primary language.

limerickman

In this instance, I am revoking my policy of not replying directly to your posts because of your continued disingenuousness.
In this instance, I feel compelled to reply because, yet again, your most recent reply to my points have been DELIBRATELY misleading,

You state and I quote “Comparing to Clinton era to Bush, now you have your apples to oranges scenario...9/11! I've said it before. If your country had suffered a catastophy that effected travel, fuel, of that magnatude etc...you would be typing your post on an IBM selecta III right now.
So, don't waste our time with novel like posts with misleading information attached to it, it is a waste of time. There is not a person that I know that thinks our economy is failing “

I compared the economic performance of the US economy under the Clinton administration to the Bush administration’s stewardship of the US economy.
In my post at 14-05-2004 at 3.48pm, I supplied INDEPENDENT economic data showing that your economy is not performing, I quoted names, dates and economic data (quoting the Economist magazine, quoting Han Mettling and quoting OECD).

The information that I posted at 14/5/04 at 3.48pm is my opinion, based upon facts.
Now if you want to contradict those facts, with your OPINION (and not facts - as usual), fine, but do not attempt to spin my opinion.
Quote “So, don't waste our time with novel like posts with misleading information attached to it, it is a waste of time. There is not a person that I know that thinks our economy is failing”
You are the one who has been - and continues to be - misleading and disingenuous.
WHERE ARE YOUR FACTS TO SHOW THAT MY DATA IS MISLEADING ?
I’m not talking about your alleged anecdotal evidence of buying a $120.00 meal
(and God knows, you’re not exactly splashing out paying $120.00 for a meal !).
For once, quote me some data from a respected economic journal that says that unemployment in your country is not at 6% and climbing, or which says that your
country’s budget deficit is not $500 billion and climbing !
If you did have some independent data - instead of your opinion - I might be persuaded to seriously consider your point of view.

Can I ask you, have you had the benefit of an education after you finished High School ?
I ask this because it is evident that you are unable to assimilate information.
I posted names, dates and times to the economic evidence produced in my reply at 14/5/2004 at 3.48pm
If you did have the ability to assimilate information, you would clearly see that
I posted names, dates and times to the economic evidence produced in my reply at 14/5/2004 at 3.48pm.

Indeed, from reading your replies, to those who disagree with your point of view,
your behaviour is almost Pavlovian (as another poster here has pointed out already).
You are extremely defensive to the point that you not only disagree with us
non-Americans, you vehemently disagree with your fellow citizens.
You cannot countenance anyone opposing your view.

If someone says white - you automatically say black.
It’s a problem, Zapper, when the facts get in the way, isn’t it ?
It’s inconvenient when those who oppose your view, have details and data that can be verified and checked, independently.
Instead of evaluating the data contained in other peoples posts, you put your hands over your ears, and close your eyes, and start repeating the same old tired
mantras in the hope that you can drown out those who oppose you.

You also contend that you couldn’t care less about other people or their opinions !
Well for someone who doesn’t give a damn, you certainly take a lot of time to post your replies to those who you don’t give a damn about !

You also contend that there is some vast conspiracy where the only published facts are those which happen to oppose your view : and that the real facts, which tie in with your view, are somehow, deliberately, prevented from being published.
(For the record the statistical and other information that I have posted here on this thread come from publications such as the US Economic Data reports, Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, The New Yorker, Sunday Times (London), Irish Times, Reuters, Associated Press, Sky News, Channel 4 News, BBC : my view is informed from the information contained therein).

FYI : SEE THE DOLLAR IS STARTING TO SLIDE AGAIN (see www.financialtimes.com <http://www.financialtimes.com>)
And you contend that your economy is in great shape - indeed.

Finally, you contend that your country will win the war on terror.
I think this largely depends upon what you define as terror.

This is the last time that I will directly reply to one of your posts.
Unless and until, I see your posts containing verifiable data (with names and dates
and links), I intend to pursue my policy because to maintain the “white/black” dialogue with you is to only pander to your inability to debate properly.

beels99

I do not really want to get into the middle of this argumentative discussion, but I feel there is a need for everyones humble opinion to be included even though most people are probably too stubborn and closed-minded (or "ethnocentric" ) to care.


For one let me start with a true story.....

"Last month the Bush administration handed a multinational mining company 155 acres of federally owned, prime mountaintop real estate near a Colorado ski resort. The price? Just $5 an acre (a total of $875), in an area where 1/10 of an acre fetches as much as $100,000."

and some facts (which most have already been stated, but i feel there is a need to reiterate)

-The nation's top 50 polluting power plants are owned by corporations that are tightly allied with the Bush Administration both as major campaign contributors and in conducting pollution policymaking

-In Bush's state of the union he spoke so surely of weapons of mass destruction. AND.......there were none.

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." --George Bush

-The overall opinion of the population of the United States appears, and appeared to have opposed the start and the continuation of the war in Iraq.

-We are a member of the UN, and we should get UN approval before we do anything as drastic as starting a full-scale invasion of another soverign state.

-Lastly the overall message that the Bush administration is sending to the world is that we are a country that doesn't care if anything gets in our way of doing whatever we feel like doing.


While there are many more facts about the Bush administration that I would be happy to add, I would like to ask anyone who disagrees with my opinion to please post and list some positive facts about Bush, and some negative facts about kerry.

I will end by saying that I realize that kerry is not an extremely good candidate for president either, I feel that it should not be hard for him to do a better job than George Bush did.

beels99

Chaim

We did not start the war.

War has ups and downs. You can not win all the time. You need to support the people that are in charge and hope for long term win.

If somebody hides in a cave in the mountains, its hard to find him. It is as simple as that. Do you blam Bush for this?

Since we are at war, it cost money! What can we do?
Democrats have more money than republicans? Clinton started the downturn...let not forget!

We need to understand the strategy, long term goals, etc. and Bush has a vision. Its hard and takes time. Years.

Should we sit and do nothing? Hide? Negotiate with terorists? Criminals?

and about the UN...do you realy think the UN can do enything at was times? They can hardly police regions during peace times.
The the UN is not currupt?

beels99

Please explain that, because while mabye i can see somewhat reasonable evidence for invading afganistan.

Who started the war in Iraq, because as I recall in all began in Bush's big "Shock and Awe" campaign.

__________________
beels99

Chaim

Saddam did.

Invade Kuwait with plans to invade many other countries in the region (can you tell me where and with which country these invasions would have stopped),

Bulling the weak,

Killing as he wishes,

Stealing from his own people (and from the UN, the well known Food for oil program),

Subsiding terrorists throughout the region,

Encouraging suicide bombers in the Middle-East,

These regimes (not only Saddam. Look at the new young version of Saddam, this Saddar kid) make it a goal to keep their people uneducated, poor, depressed, and hopeless so they can control their emotions (using religion). They thrive on chaos and will try to introduce chaos in neighboring countries.

They know how to manipulate the mass and even the Western media and naïve people…

Chaim

...and by the way, even for Afghanistan, you can argue that we did not have to invade a country, we could just send a few special ops and capture one or two people and solve major world problem…oversimplifying.

limerickman

quote posted by Chaim
Quote “We did not start the war.
War has ups and downs. You cannot win all the time. You need to support the people that are in charge and hope for long term win.
If somebody hides in a cave in the mountains, its hard to find him. It is as simple as that. Do you blam Bush for this?
Since we are at war, it cost money! What can we do?
Democrats have more money than republicans? Clinton started the downturn...let not forget!
We need to understand the strategy, long term goals, etc. and Bush has a vision. Its hard and takes time. Years.
Should we sit and do nothing? Hide? Negotiate with terorists? Criminals?
and about the UN...do you realy think the UN can do enything at was times? They can hardly police regions during peace times.
The the UN is not currupt?”
end quote


It is my recollection that the USA invaded Iraq on 17th March 2003.
The invasion of Iraq was premised, by the Bush government, on the basis that Hussein had biological weapons (anthrax, smallpox - quantities of which have never been found), WMD’s (none of which have been found) and that Hussein supported
and help instigate 11th Sept 2001 (no evidence of which has ever been found).
America invaded Iraq and thus started the current war.

You also intertwine two separate issues in to your post above.
You include Osama Bin Laden and Hussein in your post.
Let me re-iterate it again : Hussein Ba’ath regime was a secular regime and had no interest or connection to Bin Ladens.
BinLaden, in return, viewed Hussein’s regime as he does the Bush regime : Godless and anti-Islamic.
BinLaden accused Hussein of being “a bad muslim” - which to our ears may seem to be mild criticism but in the muslim world would be considered to be the worst possible criticism from one muslim to another muslim.

As I have stated before, I have no difficulty with the USA pursuing the Al Quaeda.
However, by starting the illegal war in Iraq, it is my belief that the USA have diverted valuable attention and resources away from what was a legitimate manhunt - in to an illegal war.
The Bush government, instead of avenging those poor peoples death in the Trade Center, instead fixated upon an Iraqi regime which, although terrible, had nothing whatsoever got to do with Sept 11th.

You blame Clinton for the economic downturn in your country.
The statistics show that the downturn took effect under the Bush government.
Under the Democrat government of Bill Clinton, the USA enjoyed great economic
performances.
Take the Dow Jones average for the period 1996-2000.
The Dow Jones average increased substantially, year on year, during the Democrat
period in government.

Taking the entire Dow Jones, the overall value of the price index was as follows :
1996 up 26.01%
1997 up 22.64%
1998 up 16.10%
1999 up 25.22%
2000 down 6.81%
Thus, the values for pensions, invested in stocks and shares increased dramatically in the first three years of the second Clinton terms.
Compare and contrast this to the Dow Jones performance during this Bush government.
2001 down 7.10%
2002 down 16.76%
2003 down 7.31%
The gains in terms of real wealth made during the Clinton era, were completely wiped out under the stewardship of George W.Bush’s government.

Statistics from Econstats show just how poorly the Bush Government has performed in creating jobs in the US economy since assuming office.

In 1992 when Bill Clinton became president, he inherited an unemployment rate of 8.1% from the previous Bush government and he also inherited a substantial current budget deficit of $275 billion.
By 1996, this rate of unemployment had dropped to 5.5%, and the Clinton government had managed to clear the budget deficit $275 billion.
The average unemployment rate between 1996-2000 dropped to 3.5%.(full employment in the USA is regarded as 3% !!!!!!!!!!!).
And the Clinton government created a budget surplus $250 billion, on leaving office.

Bush enters office.
By the end of 2000, unemployment had jumped to 4.2% - by the end of 2001 unemployment was up to 5.4%, by the end of 2002 unemployment was up to 6%.
In 2003, unemployment averaged 6.1%.
To March 2004, unemployment was at 6.1%.
Employment and jobs created under the Clinton administration has been steadily eroded by the Bush goverment and it has also created the largest budget deficit in history - $500 billion.

Finally, one salient point - you state in a reply to Beels, that Hussein invaded Kuwait.
Hussein did indeed invade Kuwait in 1991.
It is worth considering that up to 1948, the territory known now as Kuwait, was the 14th Province of Iraq !
In 1948, the British and US governments annexed this part of Iraq, installed a royal family and created a country called Kuwait.
British Petroleum and Exxon were given a preferential deal and oil rights and receive
(to this day) a commission payment for every gallon of oil sourced from Kuwait.
Hussein justified his invasion of Iraq on the basis that he wished to reclaim that sovereign territory.
His claim has some justification - although invading a country is not the way to go about things - a lesson that the USA has failed to heed in the last 15 months.

limerickman

Chaim

Limerickman,

On Online Forums I like to keep it short so people actually read…

You used the following words in one of your sentences:
“…in your country…”. Where are you from? Why do you use an International Cycling forum to bring down a US president?

I agree with “zapper” regarding your “numbers; Basic, wrong, supporting evidence.

The Bush/USA long term strategy is to fight every “entity”, that can be a country, a terrorist organization (by US definition), financial institutions that support US enemies, etc. that harm the US and the Western, modern world. This can be Syria, Iran, a US Company, a European Bank, etc. Not Libya anymore.

Numbers do not work with these king of arguments, instincts, do.