If you were excited about the new president, or have any comments about the decisions for the next four years. Please feel free to debate. Even if you are not happy with the decisions. I would love to hear the people's thoughts.

Thanks again everyone for your points of view.

Right, Alicia!

Just a message from all of us here down south :-p

what was that about? i was not able to see it.

wait a sec, its an audio file, takes a second to download, prolly alot more than a second on dial up, the file is 2.18 megs

Too funny Noobguy!!!

agreed... granted... I'm not for the whole 'git' idea... but yes, you don like it, get lost.

^^

thanks again everyone. your thoughts are well received.

i'm lost again. maybe self-imposed sleep deprivation and caffeine overload isn't such a good idea . . . 'down south'? wazzit gotta do with it? gaaaaaaaaah i need sleep

if you listen to the clip, u will notice the obvious southern accent

oh. I see . . . I think.

haha i like that

I still can't hear or try it. My server won't allow it. Thanks everyone for the posts.

You know it is really strange how recently the news seems to get worse. The weather and everything. I really hope that it does not get bad too soon.

I never actually agreed with Bush but if you think about it.... he's there to take care of America, not the rest of the world. Period. When it comes to making America a more powerful country, that's exactly what he's doing. It's not his duty to look out for any other nation. Of course, all the wars could be avoided.....

Of course the wars could be avoided. But all the things that happen in a war that make you want to prevent them were happening in Iraq and wherever beforehand. Sure we could have avoided war. But it was too late to save anyone from the ravages normally associated with it. If you lived over in Iraq and your family and friends were tortured and murdered by a merciless and unfeeling despot and you knew that someone could stop the reign of terror and decided not to because they did not believe in war, what would you think then? Pacifism is all well and good until there is someone knocking down your door in the middle of the night to drag out your husbands and wives and children to die because you tried to live a decent life. We can talk until our brains turn to dust and run out of our rotting skulls, but we cannot comprehend what living in such conditions is like. Trust me. If you had anything horrific happen in your life, you'd realize that knowing it happens or even seeing it happen are nothing compared to having it happen to you. While you sit at home in your nice house knowing that no one can hurt you without the consequences of the American justice system, saying, no more war! when those people sit there in bad living conditions constantly in fear of their lives because the head of their nation who is supposed to lead them and keep them safe from harm would just as soon murder you as know you exist. When you know that people will suffer and die either way, would you rather that innocent people were murdered and no one intervened, or that people lost their lives intervening to stop the bloodshed? Yes, more people will die. More people will die either way. You know, everyone always praises these epic movies where people set out against impossible odds to protect freedom and their very lives. You hypocrites. Look at yourselves. You think that movies like Star Wars and The Lord of the Rings and The Patriot and Braveheart and Gladiator and any of those others are such great examples of the human spirit, of people brave enough to stand up to save others' lives even if it means their own. They did not let each other die in fear. That was the whole point. And you cheered them on. You cried for them. And yet-- and yet-- I can barely go on. The magnitude of your inconsistency appalls me. Have I been inconsistent or cowardly? Perhaps--but I'm human. And I would never advocate inconsistency or cowardice when people's lives are at stake. And don't give me that %$#! about "I never claimed to uphold those ideals" because I'll laugh in your face. Of course you have. We've become to jaded to believe in the American dream any longer, but we believe in the ideals of places we create ourselves. Are we to be remembered in history as a people who only had the courage to do the right thing in make-believe? The country of children! Brats who cared nothing but for what they wanted! You all sound like screaming brats who want what they want because the world should be a happy place! Well guess what? IT'S NOT!!! You should stand up like human beings, if you really are human, and accept that we can't make world peace by preaching pacifism. I don't advocate mititantism either--but there are times when war is necessary. Not good. Not desireable. But necessary. Claim your humanity and stop screaming that it should not me. It rips out my heart to but it must be done or we are not what we ought to be--and if you are going to rail against the world for not being the wonderful, peaceful, global community you think it should be, then you had better be who you ought to be--someone who stands for what's right. Don't expect the world to follow an ideal you won't hold up yourself. Pacifism only works until another dictator or terrorist or whatever rises up again and sets his selfish, mad ambitions loose on innocent people. Sure, let's avoid war at all costs! Yes! We'll just not rebel against England in the eighteenth century. We'll let them have their way. We'll just petition them while we become mired further and further into poverty with each passing year as they overtax us without our consent. Sure. All those little German tribes'll just surrender their entire way of life to Alexander the Great, and a few decades or centuries or millenia or whatever later, surrender what new life they built under Alexander without the least bit of compuction to the Romans. Never mind that they'll probably steal and rape our town afterwards. At least we'll be alive. Do you hear yourself? Have you even considered the implications of your standpoint? Do you know what would have happened in history if all the peoples ever oppressed decided to allow it to happen? If you will speak of invading a country that isn't our business, tell me this: are they not human too? Haven't you read Shakespeare? "Prick us, do we not bleed?" I suppose you advocate eradication of racism as well. If we're all human and should all be treated with equal respect and dignity, are we going to let some greedy, grasping despot grind innocent people beneath his heel? "It's their country. It's none of our business." DO YOU HEAR YOURSELF?! I can scarce believe that one human being would not do all he can to help another in need. Don't you want to end world hunger? I'm sure you do. That will do the downtrodden a great deal of good after they're dead.

couple a points:
I dont think anti war, anti violence people support movies like gladiator. At least not the ones I know.
"and accept that we can't make world peace by preaching pacifism"
Martin Luther King Junior would disagree

not that i'm a pacifist, I think i've made my POV clear. just pointing out some things.

ok sure. i don't know any particular antiwarists who like those movies. but then i don't know any particular antiwarists at all. all i know is the wackos walking around campus spend all day on their soapboxes and then go back to their rooms to watch the matrix etc. like i said, don't know 'em personally, but i see how they act.

i'm not completely familiar with Martin Luther King Jr.'s ideas besides the whole equal rights stuff. but even he advocated standing up for the right thing no matter what. even if it was from a pacifist point of view, sometimes war IS the right thing to do.

i'd be willing to hear what MLKJr. has to say about war, though.

uhhh, MLK was not for standing up for the right thing "no matter what." He was a strict advocate for protesting through non violence. I'm surprised(shocked) you dont know that, and more. Says something about our school system. He was anti-war.

Still shocked. I mean non violence was the entire premise of Dr. King's believes and protests. Its what made him stand out from others at the time protesting racism, or anything else for that matter. Did your school miss a few history lessons?

Bush is a strongpoint for our country, I think he will do very well in office. The Senate is also acceptable being the majority is on Bush's side. The election I think also was very close until the end. Drove me insane how Kerry looked like he even had a chance. Kerry would have defiled this country into nothing. No war??? how about we just send them a cake for christ's sake, you know? Anyway, my vote stands with Bush still with no regrets. Hip hip hooray for the President.

What, you WANT war?!?!!

I do not want war, I wish that we didn't have war... but I would rather fight back than to let them go on terrorizing while we are sitting in a slump? So... theyre just gonna kill more than 50,000 people and we're just gonna say... "Well, I dont like war, lets just let them be." How ridiculous... We need to show that we are not going to tolerate crap like that. THe al kida are threatening us with bombs, anthrax, and so many other things recently even today.
In the elections the Al kida sent a 60 min video. I qoute from the video I saw on the news, " America, you are gonna see blood. Everywhere you turn, death, World Trade Centers is gonna be Nothing to you anymore." This guy was dressed in full al kida outfit and everything... these guys want war... sometimes we are going to have to me a comprimise... war may be that comprimise.

Kerry would have defiled this country into nothing. No war???

I think you are mislead
1. the war is over
2. kerry planned on leaving troops in iraq

The war is not over Anthony... the war is still going on today, do you not watch the news my friend? The al kida threat is also higher than ever. You really need to look into the news... the war is most deffidently not over. Keryy yes, i still stand with my opinion, defiled this country, defiled. I may be a kid but i know my country just as good as a 60 yr old veteran. Trust me, Kerry would have been a disaster.

Haha, I like you, Tyler. You think a lot more than I did at your age (wasn't that long ago, I'm only 19)--well, about important things. I agree. "Kerry would have defiled this country into nothing. No war??? how about we just send them a cake for christ's sake, you know?" Oh, I definitely like you.

And ya know what, Anthony? My education has huge gaps. None of my history classes made it up to that recently except my American History class my junior yr of high school. perfect class to study him, right? right time, right place . . . except I have no idea if my teacher talked about him. She was so boring . . . she's an awesome person and a good friend but I remember nothing whatsoever about her class. Especially because it was the last class of the day and I had a headache by then--every day--and took a Midrin which wacked me out. Dizzy and falling asleep and all that. But you didn't want to know all that, did you? Anyway, even if MLK was anti-war/violence, that's not the point. He had a lot of good points but he wasn't the answer to all the world's problems. He didn't know everything. I think Tyler's got some good points about letting the terrorists shove us around. Never saw that video but it sounds horrific. I don't watch the news because I have mental disorders and can't afford to become any more depressed. But that's not the point either. He said, "I do not want war, I wish that we didn't have war... but I would rather fight back than to let them go on terrorizing while we are sitting in a slump? So... theyre just gonna kill more than 50,000 people and we're just gonna say... 'Well, I dont like war, lets just let them be.' How ridiculous... We need to show that we are not going to tolerate crap like that." I totally agree. Let's just sit here and let them blow us up to make a point about violence. That'll do us one hell of a lot of good once we're dead. We can't help anyone else then, either.

=) case closed

The war (official war against Iraq) is over and has been over. It lasted a few days. Yes I watch the news. You refer to the unofficial "war on terror". Kerry voted for the war in Iraq, you are both misinformed. He wishes we didnt have war, we all do, be has was for going to Iraq. What he disagrees about mostly is the way it was handled.

Kerry is ridiculous Anthony, do you think President Bush won just for looks or something?? Of course Kerry voted for war, of course he doesnt want war. What the heck is that supposed to mean??? He voted for it... he doesnt want it? Kerry is just trying to win the country by doing the "favorable" thing. The country doesnt need the "kool" thing, or the "wanted" way... this country needs the right thing, the right way, and done right by someone who can handle not being a little pansy like John Kerry my good friend. He ticks me off, and is a disgrace to anything "American" Ive ever known. My opinions are never going to change about that person. He is a good man, yes, but i do not think he has a good enough potential even to become a US president. This really should not even be a debate, but a statement... Bush is a better president that Kerry would ever be. I would move as far as Timbuck II if I had to be under the watch of a peace loving hippie who cant "aggreee" about how the war was handled! AGREED?! This war would have gone no other way with him in charge if we wanted it to be a peaceful nagotiable war, if you want to even call it a war. And yes, i am refering to the "un-official" war on terror. It is very much a threat, and Kerry could not handle it, he would be baking pies like i told you before to send over as a present. This is a waste of my time, truly, i don't mean to offend any Kerry-supporters in any way, but those are my honest opinions about this and that... and actually... I do understand Kerry's prespective on voting for it, and not wanting it, I also feel the same way... but Kerry takes that in a way that he ACTUALLY would have not done war. He would have sent some birthday cards. Bush, allthough he doesnt want war as well, would have done it for the good of this country. Once again, don't take this in any offensive way what-so-ever... some Kerry-supporters are even my best of friends, I don't dislike them for their decisions, i totally support them, but I do NOT agree with them... they can think what they want, free country, but my vote stands strong to Bush.
Thanks for your time,
Tyler

Its good to hear your opinions. I wont post mine cause I have several times. I was merely commenting on your statements about the war. Clarifying that when I said "the war was over" I meant the unofficial war. And when you said "The war is not over Anthony... the war is still going on today, do you not watch the news my friend?", you must have been referring to the unofficial war on terror because by watching the news you would have seen that the actual war lasted but a few days ;).
My comments above were in response to "Kerry would have defiled this country into nothing. No war???". I was trying to say that we were electing Kerry for presidency after the war is over, and Kerry clearly laid out his plans to keep troops in Iraq for reconstruction. visit www.johnkerry.com. This is why I said I believed you were mislead, and I still think so.
Hope that clears things up for ya.

lol, that does not clear me, but strengthen my belief that i do not like this man... Kerry is untollerable to my standerds for an actualy president... I think you sir, are misled, to think that Kerry wants to get the good vote of the people... of course he would convert to doing things as Bush and the nation would have wanted, why else? Maybe for the next race? I have no idea, but I do know, that i will never, no matter how much someone or 'ones trys to influence my opinion, this man is indescribedly dispicable... arrg, im frustrated o.0

I still dont think u get what i'm saying. I dont mean your opinions are mislead. Just facts you stated regarding Kerry's stances.

o.0... ok Anthony, lol, I really don't know the topic of this debate anymore... but my opinions I hope are in consideration to anyone and everyone. Thankyou Anthony, for truly expressing a great viewpoint on your arguement... the facts i state about Kerry's stances i don't see misleading in any way... could you point out what comments exactly were?

:( I didnt say your statements were misleading. Just saying I think you were mislead because you stated that Kerry didnt war. Implied in:
"Kerry would have defiled this country into nothing. No war???"
Thats the comment u want me to point out. Which I did a few times...including my first post.

Then I went on to explain that he voted for the war, he did in fact want the war. His grief with it now is the way it was conducted not the war itself. He also planned on leaving troops in Iraq and finishing what Bush started. I dont see how thats defiling the country. I think you are mislead if somehow you were told or came to the conclusion that he did not support war or our troops being in Iraq right now.
I'm not explaining ne more, its getting repetative.
Thanks, but I havent debated or expressed any of my viewpoints. I've been trying to clarify my attempt to correct your comment for 4 posts.

Quote from John Kerry:
"So what does he do? He's trying to attack me. He wants you to believe that I can't be president. And he's trying to make you believe it because he wants you to think I change my mind.
Well, let me tell you straight up: I've never changed my mind about Iraq. I do believe Saddam Hussein was a threat. I always believed he was a threat. Believed it in 1998 when Clinton was president. I wanted to give Clinton the power to use force if necessary.
But I would have used that force wisely, I would have used that authority wisely, not rushed to war without a plan to win the peace"

if you still dont get what i'm trying to say...

Clinton was worse than Kerry... no wonder that turned out a bad statement...

I think you missed the point...

I didnt miss the point.. I was just bringing up another one... Kerry supported one of the most immoral presidents weve had in this country... that saying something?

considering clintons re-election, I think alot of people supported one of the most immoral presidents we ever had, no?

also considering that extra-marital affairs are a common fact of American life...I can think of a number of former presidents, both democrat and republican, that have committed attrocious acts much worse than what Clinton did in his personal time. Although he will be remembered for it, his 'immoral acts' did not have an effect on how he ran this nation. Despite being forced to redefine the role of the US in the world abroad, Clinton tactfully and gracefully managed US conflicts abroad and fostered a strong economy at home....something which I can say with certainty that Bush did not accomplish.

Unlike the small majority of Americans, when I voted this past month I did not choose a candidate based on his moral standings

^what he said, aside from his personal affairs, Clinton was a good president. We have all made mistakes in our lives, the president is human like anyone else.

However, if you are going to be in a position of leadership, you are more accountable for your actions. Your actions will influence more people and even if they don't directly influence people in general they will set a bad example. People used to believe that there was such a thing as a role model. You know, where authority figures act how people OUGHT to act so the poor misled impressionable children know what's right and what isn't. wow what a thought.

and will someone please tell me what was so bad about how President Bush conducted the war?!

Hey Tyler: "this country needs the right thing, the right way, and done right by someone who can handle not being a little pansy like John Kerry . . . I would move as far as Timbuck II if I had to be under the watch of a peace loving hippie who cant "aggreee" about how the war was handled! . . . war on terror. It is very much a threat, and Kerry could not handle it, he would be baking pies like i told you before to send over as a present. I do understand Kerry's prespective on voting for it, and not wanting it, I also feel the same way... but Kerry takes that in a way that he ACTUALLY would have not done war. He would have sent some birthday cards." lol! [ad infinitum] you have a unique way of putting things. I love it.

"and will someone please tell me what was so bad about how President Bush conducted the war?! "
Bush rushed the attack with no plan of peace afterwards. A mistake that his father was so cautious about, he chose not to invade. Because of this we have lost a great deal of soldiers and civilians in Iraq, and continue to, even tho the war has been over for quite sometime. Our military is being forced into duty beyond the time that they were supposed to, dying trying to "keep the peace" in a "free" Iraq, all because of Bush's pre-emptive strike.

uuuuuuuuuuummmmm yeah let's just not do preemptive strikes and let them murder thousands of us first that sounds like a gameplan

yeah, lets not do preemptive strikes. lets take the time and create a peace plan, that way when the war is over, so is the death and destruction. you must be ignoring the fact that thousands are still dying, including americans, even after this attack you support.

dont forget, i have always been a supporter of war, and war against Iraq. especially after the 9/11 events. And even I agree that the planning in the invasion of Iraq was lacking.

dont forget, i have always been a supporter of war, and war against Iraq. especially after the 9/11 events. And even I agree that the planning in the invasion of Iraq was lacking.

OH MY GOSH! DO YOU KNOW WHY WE ARE IN THIS WAR! You are dissing our american soldiers even! They are over there for no reason then?? You cannot make a treaty with these guys. Anthony, if we were not there in war "dying" we would have millions more dying here in our country from these al kida threats... Anthony, I respect you ok? But all of your opinions about anything and everything on war, terrorism, anything, has set me off bro... im talkin... it ticks me off how much you REALLY buy into all this crap and the fact that you really will not change your mind... Im done with this forum... i get a frikin adrelaline rush everytime i see one of your crappy remarks on here... have a good day...

"dont forget, i have always been a supporter of war, and war against Iraq. especially after the 9/11 events"
^^ did u read that??

Bullcrap Anthony, youre just like that stupid pansy Kerry, really, do not waste my time in having to trying to explain to you how annoying you can be with your little "I love Kerry" remarks that you give. Youre like Kerry because you change your mind about everything.. you figure... what makes me popular with the majority vote... Since people dont like me voting for war, ill say im against it... because people say this is good, not bad, heck , ill say its good too just so i can get their vote.

My goodness, let us watch our language! Anyway, about an earlier comment, Anthony, that Kerry was for the war? Hmm. quote 'I actually voted for the war before I voted against it.' (I love that.) When you get him in a corner, he tells you who he really is! Anyway, I'm surprised at you. You think the Iraq war is over? Since when? What about the battle at Fallujah? That was part of the war. What about that controversy about the Marine who shot to protect himself? That was still during the war. WE ARE STILL FIGHTING, THE IRAQ WAR IS STILL ON, WE ARE GOING TO AVENGE THOSE WHO DIED ON 9/11 AND PROTECT OUR COUNTRY FROM THOSE WHO WANT WITH THEIR WHOLE SOULS TO DO US HARM!!!! (Phew. By the way, what news station to you watch?)

Also, perhaps you are a personal friend of Bush's and I just don't know, but I don't think Bush went into this without what you call a 'peace plan'. He is going to enact justice upon our enemies for what they have done to us and our allies, and then he is going to do what he has to to help our allies out of the grave that their dictator has dug for them. i don't think you would have heard of a positive 'peace plan' anyway, what with our liberal-biased news media. Bush never gets even an iota of positive coverage. Doubt it? Just try and find something good somebody said about Bush in the media.

But, having said that, there are some things about Bush that I don't agree c..om..pl..ete..ly.. with. Such as campaign finance reform. But that is such a small issue compared to the bigger issue of war, that I am all in his corner.
(And she stepped down from her soapbox with a dignified smile)
Besides, always remember to look and the big picture.(I admit, for most of us it's pixelated and out of focus!)

If by "peace plan" you mean months of constant small scale battles and bombings where american soldiers and innocent children in Iraq are constantly dieing or living in a state of fear. awesome plan.

and I was for the war, always have been. To say that i'm full of crap when I say that I'm for the war is a ridiculous attempt to direct your personal issues with Kerry supporters towards someone. I am for the war and against how it was carried out.

I assume you have not read the discussion Violence to solve violence Where both Paws and I said we were for the war and suggested other ways to go about it.
But its ok, most people dont do their research before making inane, uninformed commentary.

Woah ,guys, chill! There's no need to attack each other like that. So you have different point of views... you don't have to prove your thinking to each other because it's likely that the other person won't get it or won't agree (which is obviously the case). Bottom line is: Bush was re-elected and America is at war with Iraq. There's nothing anyone can do anymore.

I wasnt attacking, until my views were blatently called out as me lying.
perhaps this quote from myself in another discussion no one read will solidify my views

"35 Iraqi children killed by a bomb while waiting in line to get candy from American soldiers - if I was a tear shedder I would have broken down instantly after hearing this.

Who here thinks the people responsible for this shouldnt die?"

"Bullcrap Anthony"
Good call, perhaps you should know what you are talking about before you go disrespecting people on forums.

sorry. I guess I did sound a little nasty. And I didn't mean to call you a liar,Noob.

Oh, and guitar girl, I love politics, and I mostly only talk about them for fun. It's pretty neat to see how many different views people have and it's my hobby to analize their reasons for having them. Not to say that I don't take politics seriously, especially when human life is concerned. But when talking about the past, I agree with you. Rather than get angry over spilled milk, I think I'll just go milk another cow. Which makes me think- in the future, if Hilary runs for President, and the Iraq war isn't over then, I wonder what her plan would be.

I apologize again for sounding condescending and rude. (I'll proof-read my posts after this.)

And, Noob, the things you cited two posts ago, about the small scale battles and everything, that's not Bush's peace plan. If it was, you would be right. Some peace plan. But those battles and deaths are still part of the war. We can't go ahead with peace until the terrorists in Iraq have been subdued. And they haven't yet. Though we are doing as much as we can, establishing schools and hospitals and so forth. Sadly, that's the kind of thing nobody hears on the news. But anyway, there's still a war on everybody! Let's go out and lick 'em clean!

Hey Noob, you haven't answered my questions yet. When did you say the Iraq war ended? And what news station do you watch? Just curious.

it wasnt you hawaii, it was mainly Tyler that my comments about disrespect were directed towards.

on may 1rst bush landed on an aircraft carrier and gave his mission accomplished speech where he stated:
"My fellow Americans, major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed."

after doing some research, I realize that this wasnt an end of war declaration. here is a quote from a reading I found

"GEORGE BUSH: My fellow Americans, major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.

JOHN SHOVELAN: But he didn’t officially declare the war over, nor claim victory. If he had, the United States would be deemed an occupying power under the Geneva convention and would have to hand over all prisoners of war."

So I was wrong, thanks for prompting me to look that up. I think these words by Bush shouldnt have been said. Considering a year and a half later we are still fighting and dying, the major combat operations in Iraq were not over and the US has yet to prevail in the middle east.

Well, I think we are prevailing, seeing as how we are winning. But anyway, Bush's statement, I think, is all right, because he said the 'major' combat operations were over.
Since you're saying that the major operations are not over, how about this-the whole war is a major operation. You'd have to ask Bush personally what his definition of 'major' was, which is kind of silly.(And hearkens back to an unspeakable era, not so long ago.....)

I think Bush meant that the invasion part of the war was successful, just the cleaning house was still a task. It is not insignificant, but it is certainly on a smaller scale, considering that we don't need as many troops over there, and we know what to expect. When we first started, nobody knew whether there was going to be chemical or biological warfare etc. His statement seems to be more one of gaining ground rather than proclaiming victory(though it was in part).

hmm, I guess that would also be your perspective on what is "smaller scale". The "cleanup" has been going on for many months and more have died during this cleanup than during the invasion, no?

Hey Hawaii50 were do you get your news FOX? LOL There are other places to get informed maybe YOU should give the clicker a try?

You know, Anthony, if you are going to look at war realistically, you have to realize that after any war there is the potential for years upon years of cleanup--and that is NOT the fault of President Bush. The reason that there are still scuffles and deaths is that even though the main Iraqi army or whatever has been defeated, for some reason or other there are still people out there trying to resist. You can't blame that on the President because a plan that would eliminate those threats is impossible. He couldn't know who would still try to fight after the main force was defeated. Extended periods of cleanup are not unreasonable and in cases like this are unavoidable. As far as blowing up Iraqi children in line to get candy from American soldiers, think about a few things: 1) President Bush had nothing to do with that situation; as a person such things horrify him and he would do whatever he could to avoid them. 2) If we had not been there, those children would have grown up in a country that would have been a miserable place. They would have been killed or even tortured at some point in their lives in all likelihood--certainly someone would, if not those particular children. 3)"If by "peace plan" you mean months of constant small scale battles and bombings where american soldiers and innocent children in Iraq are constantly dieing or living in a state of fear. awesome plan." That has to be the most disgusting thing I have ever read. Not just because your grammar sucks, either. President Bush has been doing his best to stop such things from happening. You have to take into account that you have the advantage of hindsight. He did not know what was going to happen before it happened, and neither did you. My bet is that you didn't have much to whine about until unexpected, undesirable events occurred. And even if you say "I hated it from the start" then Tyler's right and it's crap because the hindsight bias is something that we can't overcome when we're talking about things we're very opinionated about. That is a scientific fact--straight from my psychology class. You want to have felt a certain way and so your brain cannot clearly recall your thinking at that time.

And there is one thing that you keep overlooking when you are putting down our President. John Kerry would have been a horrible alternative--even outside of the issue of the war. He LIED to a horrible degree about things that happened in the Vietnam War and the Vietnam Veterans as a whole consider him to be a traitor--and that is a very, very serious accusation. I am inclined to believe them because they were there--and maybe Kerry was, but it's his one voice against thousands of others. That isn't to say that the majority is always right--but considering the circumstances I'll take their word before his. Kerry has no business running this country if he did anything anywhere near the idea of treason. He should be in jail. He never should have been a senator or anything else. It's a travesty that people don't realize this. I had a horrible gut-wrenching fear as it got close to the election because of the possibility of such a man becoming the president. Even if some of his stances on some of the issues were better--which I don't agree with--but even if they were, he has no business being in any sort of position of power whatsoever. If the thought of a man who is a traitor becoming the leader of the most powerful country in the world does not scare you . . .

I think you misunderstood my quote. This quote about Iraqi children was made in another discussion long ago in support of the war, not to attack Bush. I wasnt saying I hated it from the start, I was trying to explain that I was FOR the war, just against the methods. If you do get the chance to skim that discussion and the little bit of the one its a continuation from, some other ways that the attack on Iraq could have been carried out were suggested.

I think I was equally scared for this country when Bush was elected along with republican support for him in the other branches of government.

uuuuuumph. i don't know why.

of course not, you are a bush supporter :p
wouldnt u be somewhat scared if Kerry were president, and all other branches were democratic, along with Kerry getting the opportunity to choose Justices?

oh yes very. I get your point. funny. opposite veiwpoints and identical fears. huh.

Hey, we're having a *civil* conversation! And we AGREED on something!!! (in a manner of speaking)

:p I HaTE YOU!!
jk

I think everyone must keep in mind that these are only discussions/debates. No reason to take peoples opinions offensively or personally. I could care less that all of you are DIRTY BUSH SUPPORTERS!!!
(jk i would have voted for bush over gore)

wow... this is STILL going... wow... thought it'd be as extinct as that five word rule, but it's all cool... still kinda freaks me out that people from other countries are smarter than most of us on our Own government... like Canadians... yeesh... yet I know next to Squat on theirs... I know something about a Parliment and something else about a Prime Minister... and "Meese"... don forget about the herd of Meeses... [English is such a stupid language!]

Heck, I'm not surprised. America is THE superpower in the world, and people just can't help knowing about us! But you have one thing wrong there... Europeans don't get all the info that we do about our government. I say that because I know a radio talk show host who went to France and started talking about the Oil for Food scandal, and nobody there-I mean nobody- knew about it. I think that they have to actually put a lot of effort into finding out the truth of our-and even their own-governments, because my pen pal in Germany says that internet isn't the most common thing there. Talk about a significant decrease in information. They probably just watch the 5 or 7 o clock news, which, of course is biased, and that's all they hear of anything. Unless they are smart and have the time to 'check up' on all the political stuff they hear.
Darkaliryn, I just love your posts. I'm really bad at explaining what I know to be true, but you're awesome at it.

Noob, what were you scared of in Bush, just the appointment of justices? I admit it's very important, but I doubt it would destroy the country or take thousands of lives at a time. That's what scared me about Kerry. He would waste time trying to get the U.N. to come to our rescue while we were being annhilated by terrorists on our own soil.

meh, it calms right as i have time to actually put into writing stuff :(

Anyway, Noob, to answer and I guess finish answering you're earlier claim of Bush quoting the major combat over in Iraq. This was true, at that time the war would take a change; we changed from taking an offensive role in trying to take a position to one of trying to defend the new Iraqi gov't. His quote probably should have been a bit more clear but part of the unclearness was to make the American public feel better about the nation (and/or him dependent on how you stand).

Both sides have there positives and negatives...
Bush(and neo-conservatives in general)-
+ -> strong on defense, moralistic towards social issues, economically laissez-fairre or at least pro-business
- -> invasion of privacy matters(big brother is watching you), intolerance of certain groups and sometimes outright discrimination, little regulation of business(see Enron and government being in bed with coorperations), and lastly willingness to spend tax money on pork-barrel projects and research that traditional Reps would find 'unnessecary'.

Kerry(or the moderate Dems)-
+ -> no person left behind. (Racism, growing up in a lower class home) not hurting your chances of 'success' later in life; caring about the environment; willingness to wait for a peaceful solution.
- -> giving money to the poor only hurts their opinions of themselves and reinforces the belief that they cannot work on their own; taking money from the rich hurts the economy by giving people less jobs; does the environment take presedence over human life; unable to see peace is not the only answer and sometimes waiting can only cause more problems(see WWI)

personally i hate the mammy-pamby(sp?) ideas of catering to the moderates that goes on in politics especially these days. I'd much rather have a balance of strong liberals and strong conservatives than a balance of weaker parties.

This is ridiculous... Let's just clear things up here... Kerry is no good... Kerry is obviously not the president because, =O, believe it or not, he is NoT a good leader, not a good person, and flat out annoys me... and obviously more than half of this country agrees with me, woudnt you suppose?

Not hate, half just dissagree with Kerry's viewpoint of where the US should be headed.

Kerry is fine; he is welcome to his opinions, just as you are yours. Kerry would have made an okay leader, he may have pushed for things you don't like, but the world wouldn't of ended...you'd cope and get over it...you might even be suprised and like one of his proposals.

I guess.. but Anthony is setting me off on this... his obscene rambling about Kerry having good views or qualities or anything in a positive triat... I dont really find any in the man. lol, i am not coming back, no matter what anyone says... im gonna go insane o.0

its silly to get upset because of someones political views, thats all I'll say on that.

I'll think the country is too divided. almost 50% for kerry, a little over 50% for bush in the popular vote. I'll be glad when we can once again stand united behind one president in (at least nearly) full support. Probably wont happen any time soon, but perhaps within a few elections if we hope for the best.

Steph, I'm the same. I know nothing about foreign governments except that England and Japan have Prime Ministers and England has a parlaiment. And that's ALL. Oh, and China's communist. (I think.) So it's okay.

Thanks, Brandy! It's nice to know that someone else shares my opinions and that what I way actually Makes Sense!!!

Good job of drawing the lines, Brett. It's a bit clearer when you point out the pros/cons like that. Although I might add a few things! ; )

Anthony: Kerry has his opinions just like us? Yeah. Except he might be a taitor. He should be investigated. If you betray your country you forfeit your rights. I have to agree with Tyler on this one.

Are you really not coming back, Tyler? I'll believe it when I see it . . . ; )

United behind one president? I don't think that'll EVER happen. It's called entropy. And it follows the path of other Major World Powers of the Past (eg Greek, Roman Empires) to have us roll downhill from a great high point and crash into smithereens. Maybe it's defeatist, but we're supposed to learn from the past, right? Other countries have lasted for hundreds or even thousands of years but they weren't the Major World Powers that Greece and Rome were. Maybe the US is different from them in that it doesn't really try to dominate all the known world but in pretty much all other ways it's the same. Entropy. And the scary thing is is that the pattern is that the Greek and Roman Empires fell from their best points into pretty much chaotic uselessness (even if they still had power) after approximately two hundred years--which is where the US is at. But my intention wasn't such prophecies of doom--how did I get on this? My mind doesn't follow my orders . . .
Oh yeah. My point was that I doubt so many people with so many conflicting opinions and different interpretations of the same data and opposite ideas of what's important and how to fix things for us to have any kind of majority opinion. I think the only reason that there's a close fifty-fifty split is because people don't think the other little guys like Independents will win so they don't vote for them. Otherwise there'd be fifteen percent here and ten there and twenty-three and a half over there etc etc etc. But there's no way we could whittle down two highly-likelies to one. So many people are so opinionated that they've forgotten to even consider what's REALLY true and if we're going to argue just to argue we'll obviously never unite behind one person. Not everyone is like that but I think some are.
Bottom line: we ARE too divided, and I don't think that'll change.

"Anthony: Kerry has his opinions just like us?"
this was a statement from brett, not me :p

We've been for the most part united behind one president in the past, even if the election was split.

Sorry, Anthony. I was having a conversation about quantum physics while I was reading/writing for that post. A thousand apologies.

And yes, that's how it's been in the past, but it's been going downhill.

no problem. and I agree. But just think, the separation is a result of our population being more opinionated because the public is generally more informed and cares more about politics and what happens in our world. I guess the good comes with the bad.

Dividedness results in debate and argument about measures that are put into effect by our nation...Debate is a key staple for a healthy democracy and so dividedness is not at all a bad thing. However, if you look at the last election, both of the parties had a very similar agenda(Bush->stay the course in Iraq; Kerry-> ...stay the course in Iraq(but try to get 'our boys' back as soon as possible; Bush->against gay marriage and abortion; Kerry-> we shouldn't make that that much of an issue). The only true division between the two parties was do you 'hate' Bush or 'hate' Kerry, which isn't much of a way to base who should win a presidency.
The only thing that really needs to change is the Bush hating, Kerry hating, and Gore/Kerry denial of who won the presidency(among their supporters). THAT is not healthy for the country.

You're right--both of you. Thumbs up on all your points--that's all I'm saying for now because I feel lazy. Behold the American Ideal: Pajamas till three pm on a Sunday in front of the pc with a movie blaring and junk food trash littering the desk.

well like I said Brett, we've had divided elections in the past. I would assume most of them were pretty divided. But we've still managed to have a united country after the presidency was decided. Which is what we are lacking now.

Wow!!!! Ya'll guys really know how to get on each other thru my post. I am not saying whose opinions I agree with the most, but I will say this ya'll have really turned this into the debate that I wanted it to be. I did not want it to get to much in other's faces like it started to do for awhile, but ya'll really state your opinions quite well. Anthony great debate leader. Brett great ideas. Liz great job in everything. See ya'll around and dear friends of mine I'm back.

Rar

is that a roar, Anthony? frustrated or triumphant?

Yeah Anthony waz up with rar?

it was completely random, have you all discussed nothing juicy in the 5 days i've been gone? I'm almost dissapointed :-p

I don't know about everyone else, but I have finals coming up . . .

I have hundreds of tests!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

i want clinton back

YES! That's what I'm saying. Canada had no problem with us, our economy was stronger, we were focused on Americans.

ha, 12 yr terms, interesting...

it could be another FDR-like period...

seriously, Canada?...since when has Canada hated us, and when did Canada love us?
also the nation(America) is, and has always been focused on Americans; the only thing that's changed is where the administration feels that America should be headed.

lol, I dont like Canada... I dont know why... maybe not... dang, you guys lured me back in >_< Rar, lol, rar, thats so funny... like... windows RAR <--Program, hehe, what a nerd.

I'm basing that on conversations I've had with Canadians in the past. They are very open about it; they don't like Bush but they loved Clinton. Go figure...

I dunno about that. A canadian could talk to 10 americans who love Kerry and assume that "Americans" love Kerry. So I dunno if those people represent Canada as a whole. BUT
If they do, it would make complete sense considering Bush's legislation on canadian made medicine and Canada's war stance.

I considered that, true about the people. I'm comfortable with my knowledge to believe the general statement about Canadians and our last two presidents, however. lol

You know guys ya'll both pretty much have a point, but you know where in the world do Canadians come into the election. I mean i know it would be really cool to see what Canadians think. In fact i have a couple of friends who live in Canada and who are from Canada. I have talked to them in person and I did not meet them from the web. There awesome people in fact one of them had a grandfather who was in the war over there a long time ago. Around the WWII time. They live in Prince Edward Island. I miss them alot it would be awesome to see them sometime. I would love to see them this Christmas or get to see them as a Christmas present. I have not seen them for awhile. They were not doing good financially either since I talked to them last. I am sorry guys, but everytime I hear the word Canada, I always think of my good friend in Canada, somwhere, hopefully, in a good place. I wish, I could talk to them soon. That would make me really happy. Anyways, talking about Canadians, that is what I have to put in. See ya'll later.

Flames, nice story. They are nice people I have met a few which is why I was interested in their viewpoint. It sounds like you really miss your friend, hope you see them soon.