Bush's Speech
 

I watched Bush's speech on TV last night. He didn't say anything that he hasn't said before, really, and I have NEVER heard so many references to God and prayer in a speech by a politician. EVER.

The pope himself doesn't mention God as much as Bush did.

On another subject Clinton was rushed to the hospital for a triple bypass today...God might get him for his sins :/

Why did BUSH make himself sound like more of a liberal than John Kerry? For some reason, everything I've read on John Kerry places him in the same conservative avenue as George Bush.

:( - I tried, but after five minutes or so I had enough of his bullshit.

Kerry isn't a left wing; he's centre.

you're an idiot, Fartin. :|

Which is why he sucks. I agree with the conservatives on that point. The Dems need someone who has ideas, not someone thats only selling point the fact that he isn't Bush.

I don't know... The "only selling the fact that he isn't Bush" argument platform seems like a pretty solid one to me...

until you find out that Kerry is actually Bin Laden in disguise... :dunce

What makes lame ducks like Kerry and Clinton so atractive to dems?

The fact that they're not into pissing on their allies?

Or spending bilions of dollars, which America doesn't have, to capture a "brutal dictator" who the inhabitants of his country seemed to want enough to give their lives to defend him.

and by that you mean not will to protect thier investments? ellaborate please.

No one seemed to have have problem with the problems in somalia, or Kosovo, I geuss blowjobs a more important...

The republicans were the ones trying to get him impeached for a blow job. Take the public diversion up with them.

Somalia and Kosovo were UN sanctioned, and they didn't have Daddy Bush's spectre hanging over them.

Thats true, but what can you expect with the rediculous gang mentality that surrounds politics today. But the repubicans weren't exaclty in control of the liberal media, who exploited is for all it was worth, eventhough there were many more worthwhile issues happening in the world. Including that one guy who was running around bombing embassies and what not. What was his name? oh thats right, OSAMA BIN LADEN.

I really don't hold high opinions of any of the conflicts mentioned, no matter who approves of them. I guess im not really into imperialism, sue me.

My teacher was explaining to me about how when bush offers our schools around $250,000 there is no way we can accept it because it requires us to be "No child left behind" compliant, which would cost us $750,000.

He also talked about how the next president would have the power to put in 4 new supreme court justices and if one party get's control of all three branches they could ram laws up our asses and we can do nothing bout it.

As strict American hegemony was never implaced, you can hardly claim any war effort of the last forty years was 'imperialistic.'

I like how in the mail four years ago I got a pamphlet that showed how the national test scores were steadily decreasing during the Clinton administration. In total it went down like 4%, but they zoomed it in so much that it looked like an outline relief of the god damned Mariana trench.

The solution to this astronomical dive was more standardized testing.

And as a result, during highschool, we spent two or three weeks every year diverting time from the regular schedual and instead learning how take standardized tests without actually knowing the information in them, since the only way the school got funding was good results. Now that's progress.

I would concider our actions in Iraq and Somalia somewhat imperialistic. Were not nesecarily trying to extend our borders, but are/were attempting to force our system of governent, and policies onto them. Not to mention putting them in our back pocket.

You can consider anything that strikes your fancy, but you're either ignorant of what Imperialism is (a good example would be Nipon during WW II) or the level of your own country's influence in world affairs. Since WW 2 the US has not entered into a war. Korea and Vietnam were 'peace keeping operations.' Somalia, Kosovo, Iraq et al. are classified as 'low intensity conflicts' and in none of the above were we awarded for our trouble with US territories or occupational provisos. The State of Hawaii was America's last Territory. An accord was signed -in '45 I believe- which restricted America from possessing Territories, and therefore we are left with the choice of offering Statehood or Salutations.

An American Empire would be rather impractical at his point, and legally improbably.

Some day, I would really like to watch this liberal media I keep hearing so much about.

The 'Media' always struck me as fairly balanced. No matter whom you listen to, you get the same percentage of truth - Which would be zero, equally shared.

New York Times? Rolling Stone?

But Yeah, I think as of recently it seem the amount of liberal media in ratio to concervative media is starting to even out more.

"Since WW 2 the US has not entered into a war. Korea and Vietnam were 'peace keeping operations.' Somalia, Kosovo, Iraq et al. are classified as 'low intensity conflicts' and in none of the above were we awarded for our trouble with US territories or occupational provisos."

War - A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties. (dictionary def)

Your telling me that Vietnam, Korea and Iraq dont fall under this definition? In the words of George Carlin, people tend to listen more when you dump the politically correct lingo, and tone down the syllables.

Unfortunately for you, I paid more attention to Andrew Jackson and James Madison than George Carlin. More unfortunate is that I am refering to mission statements, and not dictionaries, when choosing the terminology best suited for such political discourse. There is nothing politically incorrect, nor politically correct, in calling the minor skirmishes of the past two decades 'low intensity conflicts.' Having been active duty Navy during the Afghanistan campaign, I can tell you, noone in the service called it a war.

A good thing as it didn't qualify for that dubious distinction. No more than Iraq, Kosovo, Somalia, Haiti or any of the other half dozen half asses engagements our elated politicians felt so fit to meddle in. Our aims were clear, our involvement minimal, our presence evaporating as quickly as possible.

As for Vietnam and Korea. . .Wars have winners, and wars have losers. American forces in Vietnam never lost on the battlefield, yet Saigon was lost. . .Why? Well, the long and the short of it was because we weren't an allied power in the war. He weren't playing for keeps. We were peace keeping. That was the official explanation for our presence, and despite general opinion, thats really what it was. The entire affair is much more complex than that, but if you can't be bothered to educate yourself on issues which still impact the current state of affairs, then really neither can I.

Korea was a UN peace keeping action. The US provided the majority of the contribution made towards that aim, including propositioning the initial vote to consider armed response to what was not at all an internal conflict (indeed, we would have taken action years earlier save for a certain Soviet power exercising Veto rights) but that is neither here nor there. We were not an allied power, we were -by obligation to the UN Charter- doing what we had sworn we would should such instances arise (like sovereign powers being over-run by the influence and backing of invading imperialistically bent nations).