So let me get this straight, StongRad. You've seen how easy it was to rig the vote, and you've seen testimony regarding how it was done and who ordered it. But you still think that it was all done fairly and nobody cheated. I suppose you won't believe it untill you see it on the news, for as you pointed out, the internet is inherently unreliable.
:rolls eyes:

So they went to all that trouble to create a system that's easy to hack, and then they didn't use it to rig the election? I find that a little hard to believe. Usualy, when people spend that kind of money to build something that has a specif purpose to it, they intend to use it for that purpose.

"don't ever mistake me being docile for contentment
don't ever mistake my anger for resentment"

from a Spearhead song, it's just what i think of. people often think that people who are pi**** off about stuff in America hate it. i can't speak for sarge, but a lot of the time people onl bother getting mad because they like America and want it to be better.

...and a lot of thowse "angry" people seem to be too wrapped up in themselves to realize that the majority of voters (or majority of people who voted) don't share the same political views as them. To them, if the candidate they don't like wins, then he/she "obviously" cheated.
There's nothing wrong with wanting your country to be better. I've never said anyone who is upset at the way things are "hates America", unless they say something like "it's obvious that Americans are too stupid to pick a leader" or something similarly anti-American.
My problem isn't with people who disagree with the way things are because I'm not entirely happy with how things are running. I'm not going to blindly bash those in charge, though. Not everything they're doing is wrong. When you see through raw hatred, based on their political alliances, you can realize that.
I really think that was the whole point of this thread and the first post in it.

Truthfully, if anyone should really hate Bush, it should be Republicans.
If you're a fan of Democrats, you should love George Bush. It's sounds counter-intuitive, but think about this for a second: How has your opinion of the Republican party changed since George Bush took office?

Seems that he's the best recruiting tool the Democrats could ever have. Every Republican candidate from now on is going to have to counter his opponent's "He's republican, that means he's in the same party as Bush. We all know what Bush did."

Personally, I don't think he's the worst president ever. He's nowhere near the top, though.
I DID like his stance on terrorism (the whole "take the fight to them before they bring it to you" thing), but he should come out and say that instead of coming up with all these other reasons that don't seem to pan out.

So, if I don't agree with the way the government does things, I should just shut my face, is that it?

You neocons make me sick.

There's nothing wrong with wanting your country to be better. I've never said anyone who is upset at the way things are "hates America", unless they say something like "it's obvious that Americans are too stupid to pick a leader" or something similarly anti-American.
My problem isn't with people who disagree with the way things are because I'm not entirely happy with how things are running. I'm not going to blindly bash those in charge, though.

the only reason i would ever make fun of bush is because he acts like a retard. he can not public speak. but thats really fun, because you can listen to his speaches without getting too bored. haha.

the only reason i would ever make fun of bush is because he acts like a retard. he can not public speak. but thats really fun, because you can listen to his speaches without getting too bored. haha.

So you're saying that he's retarded because he's not all that good at public speaking? That doesn't sound too much like a sound theory. I mean, I suck at public speaking, so does that make me a retard?

Bush's case, the lie continuously kills people halfway around the work for nearly six years.)

Bush lied, thinking he was telling the truth. He was told Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Had he NOT acted on that, the same people accusing him of killing their kids (kids that volunteered to join the military, God bless them) would be accusing him of sitting on his hands and doing nothing while a madman plays with his stockpile of weapons (weapons he agreed to not have, and agreed to allow the UN to inspect for).

There's only three flaws in your argument, Strong Rad:
1) It's only a lie if one knows that what one is saying is not the truth, so your "Bush lied, thinking he was telling the truth" statement is totaly illogical. Make up your mind, please: Did he lie or didn't he?

2) In light of the facts that have come out surronding the WMDs, it seems quite likely that Bush either orderd the fabrication of "evidence" and then used that as a pretext for war, or that he didn't want to know if the intelegence was bad or not becasue it fit so convieniently into his plans. (I belive the former scenario is the more likely one)

3) Nobody's found any WMDs in Iraq, so you can't say there there ever were any there in the first place. Every proper investigation and commision of inquiry that has looked at the facts has concluded that Saddam was telling the truth when he said he didn't have any WMDs.

Of course, Bush insisted that there were WMDs there, and aparantly you still believe him. I would submit to you, sir, that you need to be a little less trusting and a bit more questioning.

Ya know, If I was a Republican (or just a support of Bush) I would probably be tired of people insulting a person who I believe runs are country correctly. But, I would like to ask you guys to name one president who wasn't criticized for his actions. It's just a part of society. Authority figures will all ways be the butt of jokes and insults. You just can't stop it.

Exactly. I have a question to the Bush supporters that are sick of the Bush insults. Where you kind to Clinton and Carter? Can you say that you never made a joke about them? That you never insulted them? If you did, and you're still sick of the bashing against Bush, then I suggest that you look up something called Double Standard.

The point is that the media is apparently unable to say anything positive about Bush whatsoever.

You have to find something positive he has done since his re-election, first.

He is a very good diplomat and able to relate to a lot of people. This is a skill I wish Bush had. He's bad at selling his viewpoints and ideas, and as a result, his approval rating stinks.

Case in point, I saw a bumper sticker that said "January 20, 2009. Goodbye Republinazis".. I swear, it's like a liberal Ann Coulter made that thing.

Some people seem to believe that Republicans have a corner on the "mean-spirited hate-filled argument" market.

crit·i·cal adj.
1 inclined to judge severely and find fault.
2 Characterized by careful, exact evaluation and judgment: a critical reading.

These people that are saying that they don't like anyone saying things that "insult Bush" are laughable: You can't help but insult Bush if you're critical of him. He takes insult from considered criticism if it in any way isn't locked in goose-step with the "talking points" his propagandists distribute.

If you point out that emperor has no clothes, apparently that's an insult now. Just ask the editors of the New York Times.

Actually, you CAN be critical of someone without insulting them.
There's nothing wrong with "Bush should have done a little more fact checking before he came out and said "Iraq has WMDs". That's an intelligent criticism, and probably one both sides agree with. Saying something like "I think this 'war on terror' is undermining national security by angering those who might be swayed to attack us" is also an intelligent, non-insulting criticism.
Saying "Bush is a baby killer" or "Bush lied, innocents died" is not.