If the economy continues to pick up steam, and come election time the job recovery has created a net job increase over bushs term, would you vote for bush?

That is a pretty big stretch because I think we need like 2+ million jobs or something, but I am just curious.

If you ask me if he even comes close then I will think that is one hell of a job. Come into office in a recession, and within 4 years be almost back to pre recession levels seems like a pretty good job to me.

The main reason I am asking is because this seems to be the main gripe I see on here regarding bush, so it makes me wonder if this was fixed if everyone would find something new to gripe about, or actually own up that his economic policies are working.

-Ethan

Personally, I feel the Bush haters will always bash him. In you instance, I would put money down that they say it wasn't him that recovered the economy, yet they will be the first to say he brought it down. There is no way to to change their mind about it, half the time I don't even think they know why they dislike him as a president, they just do, seems to have become quite a fad too.

There are many who will never vote for Bush because they believe he 'stole' the election in 2000. There was a legal fight, sure, but once the votes were counted (with bias on both sides but verified by many sources) he won Florida and that was enough. Bush-haters will say Gore won more votes overall - irrelevant, that's not how our system works, and don't blame Bush for that (but they do).

I believe there are many who still wouldn't vote for Bush if he brought peace to the Middle East, helped the economy to boom, and raised people from the dead. :rolleyes:

how are his policies working, tax cuts are supposed to take IMMEDIATE affect, not a year and half later. his policies have done very little to improve the quality of the economy. the economy has natural upturns and downturns, regardless of who is in office. However those in office can either improve or weaken a trend. Creating a huge budget defecit is not helping our situation. Even at this rate of job growth it will a long time, it is more like that Bush will be the first president since Hoover to have negative job growth during his administration by the time re-election comes.

Take a look at the big picture and you may halt on some of your praise towards the Bush economic policies.

Originally posted by kuruption213
how are his policies working, tax cuts are supposed to take IMMEDIATE affect, not a year and half later. his policies have done very little to improve the quality of the economy. the economy has natural upturns and downturns, regardless of who is in office. However those in office can either improve or weaken a trend. Creating a huge budget defecit is not helping our situation. Even at this rate of job growth it will a long time, it is more like that Bush will be the first president since Hoover to have negative job growth during his administration by the time re-election comes.

Take a look at the big picture and you may halt on some of your praise towards the Bush economic policies.

lol, this is almost humorous. First off, how are the tax cuts suppose to have immediate affects when it takes time for people to realize the change and adjust their income? and how is it taking a year and a half later? It’s only been 6 months.

The big picture is that the economy is turning around, a small part due to tax cuts and a major part due to normal economic growth. The War and ALL the money spent on it makes up less than 1/100 of this country's budget and in turn is just like the Presidents Tax cut. IT DOESN'T REALLY EFFECT OUR ECONOMY as much as democrats would like to make it seem! What does effect our economy though is people faith in our system being shaken, and 9-11 contributed more to that than ANYTHING political decision the President could make (outside of Nuking someone)

I guess by creating a false perception of what’s going on makes you feel like your in control of things..:rolleyes:

Originally posted by 2Lexus430s
lol, this is almost humorous. First off, how are the tax cuts suppose to have immediate affects when it takes time for people to realize the change and adjust their income? and how is it taking a year and a half later? It’s only been 6 months.

The big picture is that the economy is turning around, a small part due to tax cuts and a major part due to normal economic growth. The War and ALL the money spent on it makes up less than 1/100 of this country's budget and in turn is just like the Presidents Tax cut. IT DOESN'T REALLY EFFECT OUR ECONOMY as much as democrats would like to make it seem! What does effect our economy though is people faith in our system being shaken, and 9-11 contributed more to that than ANYTHING political decision the President could make (outside of Nuking someone)

I guess by creating a false perception of what’s going on makes you feel like your in control of things..:rolleyes:

funny i find your quote humorous, the first tax cut bush enacted was in 2001, this latest one is just another one in a series of tax cuts. The one in 2001 was part of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001. Bush's latest cuts are supposed to create 5.5 million new jobs by 12/2004, an average gain of 306,000 a month, so far we are well off of those numbers. Between June and October only 229,000 jobs were created so during that span we are 995,000 short. Basically for the amount of money we are losing, we are not gaining enough jobs to circumvent those losses. Also i disagree with you on how things like the war and the tax cuts don't effect our economy they do in a negative manner over the long term. The long term effects are an estimated 10 year deficit of $4 trillion, you may find that insignificant but i definitely do not.

Regardless of what happens to the economy over the next year, I will not vote for W. I believe that he and his administration were disingenuous in making their case for going to war in Iraq. I do not dispute the assertion that the regime in Iraq was not a good one, but the evidence presented did not support the case that Iraq was an immediate threat to U.S. security. In many cases, Bush himself alluded to a connection between Hussein and the terrorist attack of 9/11/01, which was not supported by any evidence. The alleged Iraqi support for terrorist attacks has to do with support for Hamas. I do not argue that this support is acceptable. I raise the point to make it clear that the allusion to Iraqi support for Al Queda is false.

I don't trust W or his cronies.

Originally posted by link13
Regardless of what happens to the economy over the next year, I will not vote for W. I believe that he and his administration were disingenuous in making their case for going to war in Iraq. I do not dispute the assertion that the regime in Iraq was not a good one, but the evidence presented did not support the case that Iraq was an immediate threat to U.S. security. In many cases, Bush himself alluded to a connection between Hussein and the terrorist attack of 9/11/01, which was not supported by any evidence. The alleged Iraqi support for terrorist attacks has to do with support for Hamas. I do not argue that this support is acceptable. I raise the point to make it clear that the allusion to Iraqi support for Al Queda is false.

I don't trust W or his cronies.

Why do you people keep saying this? BUSH clearly stated several times that "We cannot wait until the threat is imminent". But no, you democrats insist that he said otherwise. I see now why so many people are turning Republican.

And what’s this about the president alluding to a connection between Hussein and 9-11? He never stated this, you made this up. Why would you say that he said this when he did not? This is the approach that many Democrats appear to take; "If I tell people he said it, then it will make him look bad, even though he never said it". Bush actually came out and said HIMSELF that there was no evidence of that link. Stop posting false information.

It’s easy to call someone a liar or speak negatively of their policy when you change the meaning and make false alluding statements about them.

This is the point I was trying to make in another thread: If you hate a person so much, there is nothing they can do that is good because it will always be spun around to make them look bad. Typical Bush Bashers.

Originally posted by link13
Regardless of what happens to the economy over the next year, I will not vote for W. I believe that he and his administration were disingenuous in making their case for going to war in Iraq. I do not dispute the assertion that the regime in Iraq was not a good one, but the evidence presented did not support the case that Iraq was an immediate threat to U.S. security. In many cases, Bush himself alluded to a connection between Hussein and the terrorist attack of 9/11/01, which was not supported by any evidence. The alleged Iraqi support for terrorist attacks has to do with support for Hamas. I do not argue that this support is acceptable. I raise the point to make it clear that the allusion to Iraqi support for Al Queda is false.

I don't trust W or his cronies.


So you think that even though he had a good intention, and a good outcome, and was doing what needed to be done, you think he is bad for how he sold it to Americans. That is plain silly. Who cares if he tried to use whatever means necessary to rally up some support, what he was trying to get support for was the right thing. Even you say what what was going on in Iraq was unacceptable. Really, this is one of the instances where the end justifies the means.

I was going to avoid this thread because of the incidiary and presumptuous nature of its earlier posts, but I felt I had to weigh in on a few things....

Originally posted by 2Lexus430s
Why do you people keep saying this? BUSH clearly stated several times that "We cannot wait until the threat is imminent". But no, you democrats insist that he said otherwise. I see now why so many people are turning Republican.

You see what people becoming Republican?? I question your source of information. I see Newsweek, Time, and Gallop polls every week that show support for the war outcome, the decision of war, and the confidence of the war sliding daily, as well as polls that suggest a growing threat to Bush's 2004 run. Even Republican leaders and seniors in the Congress criticise Bush and his policies. You can even tell the frantic nature of Bush's job security as he points fingers around at everyone in his Administration but himself. The rumors that half his cabinet is resigning or being replaced is another relfection on his situation. I don't convey these polls or interviews as science, even though they come from the lion's mouth or are accurate to within 3% margin of error----yet you are somehow "witnessing" a trend that seems to contradict all these sources. Are you basing this ellusive trend on the isolated Fox News call-ins? I keep telling you, that channel will rot your brain!

Originally posted by 2Lexus430s
And what’s this about the president alluding to a connection between Hussein and 9-11? He never stated this, you made this up. Why would you say that he said this when he did not? This is the approach that many Democrats appear to take; "If I tell people he said it, then it will make him look bad, even though he never said it". Bush actually came out and said HIMSELF that there was no evidence of that link. Stop posting false information.

It’s easy to call someone a liar or speak negatively of their policy when you change the meaning and make false alluding statements about them.

And do you know why Bush "said HIMSELF that there was no evidence of that link" ?? It's because he created that misperception in the American public. At one point 80% of America thought Saddam was involved in 9/11 somehow. Like link13 said, Bush "alluded" to it, c-o-n-s-t-a-n-t-l-y. Listen to some of his past soundbytes, I woke up to Presidential Addresses and press conferences every morning for the last year. I heard all the garbage out of the Bush Admin's mouth. Do you remember the Gallop poll released one day after Bush said there was no evidence that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11? The results were an embarassing reflection on the gullibility and ignorance of the American public. He kept calling the Ba'ath a terrorist regime, even though their crimes were 95% domestic, 5% regional, and 0% global. He kept saying things like "we can't afford another 9/11" "secure our freedoms/homeland" and "Saddam is seeking missiles/wmd/etc that are capable of reaching the continental United States". He constantly linked Iraq to the War on Terror, conviniently tossing in references to al Qaeda, which can become associated with Iraq if you aren't familiar with the linguistics of politicians. At one point in the last year, Bush said he had evidence that al Qaeda was operating in Iraq. If you're the average moronic American, you eventually begin to believe what you hear if it's recited enough times. This is what happened. Bush's unfounded popularity accreditted him with the blind trust of Congress and public opinion.

Originally posted by 2Lexus430s
This is the point I was trying to make in another thread: If you hate a person so much, there is nothing they can do that is good because it will always be spun around to make them look bad. Typical Bush Bashers.

Ever stop to consider that there is another side? A side that always spins things around to make Bush look good? A side in constant denial that will think to the very end that the Iraq war was a good idea? It's wiser to question convention and be a skeptic on contraversial issues than to just fall in line and trust in the morality of politicians, especially the dirty ones. There are quite a few Republicans that I respect, but Bush is not one of them. Yes I disagree with every policy he has pushed---but what does that mean? That means I disagree with every policy he has pushed. This does not mean I hate him for the sake of hating him? I'll give you a hint: NO. I'd appreciate it if you didn't make that mistaken connection again. I get really disappointed at your level of thinking when everything becomes democrats vs. republicans, especially when the issue is focused on Bush as his policies.

Originally posted by lex400sc
I was going to avoid this thread because of the incidiary and presumptuous nature of its earlier posts, but I felt I had to weigh in on a few things....

Well, its great to see you again. Thought you moved or something.

Originally posted by lex400sc

You see what people becoming Republican?? I question your source of information. I see Newsweek, Time, and Gallop polls every week that show support for the war outcome, the decision of war, and the confidence of the war sliding daily, as well as polls that suggest a growing threat to Bush's 2004 run. Even Republican leaders and seniors in the Congress criticize Bush and his policies. You can even tell the frantic nature of Bush's job security as he points fingers around at everyone in his Administration but himself. The rumors that half his cabinet is resigning or being replaced is another reflection on his situation. I don't convey these polls or interviews as science, even though they come from the lion's mouth or are accurate to within 3% margin of error----yet you are somehow "witnessing" a trend that seems to contradict all these sources. Are you basing this elusive trend on the isolated Fox News call-ins? I keep telling you, that channel will rot your brain!

WoW, that’s interesting that you would post information regarding polls. Have you even looked at the polls recently? ALL categories are going up, even the war related polls. But no, that’s never good enough for some. I sometimes wonder what this President could do (outside of resigning) that would EVER pass by your constant criticism. It would be a completely different story if he were a Democrat I guarantee.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/stateNation/

Originally posted by lex400sc

And do you know why Bush "said HIMSELF that there was no evidence of that link" ?? It's because he created that misperception in the American public. At one point 80% of America thought Saddam was involved in 9/11 somehow. Like link13 said, Bush "alluded" to it, c-o-n-s-t-a-n-t-l-y. Listen to some of his past soundbytes, I woke up to Presidential Addresses and press conferences every morning for the last year. I heard all the garbage out of the Bush Admin's mouth. Do you remember the Gallop poll released one day after Bush said there was no evidence that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11? The results were an embarassing reflection on the gullibility and ignorance of the American public. He kept calling the Ba'ath a terrorist regime, even though their crimes were 95% domestic, 5% regional, and 0% global. He kept saying things like "we can't afford another 9/11" "secure our freedoms/homeland" and "Saddam is seeking missiles/wmd/etc that are capable of reaching the continental United States". He constantly linked Iraq to the War on Terror, conviniently tossing in references to al Qaeda, which can become associated with Iraq if you aren't familiar with the linguistics of politicians. At one point in the last year, Bush said he had evidence that al Qaeda was operating in Iraq. If you're the average moronic American, you eventually begin to believe what you hear if it's recited enough times. This is what happened. Bush's unfounded popularity accreditted him with the blind trust of Congress and public opinion.

There is no link, prove that he stated there was. How does saying: like "we can't afford another 9/11" "secure our freedoms/homeland" and "Saddam is seeking missiles/wmd/etc that are capable of reaching the continental United States" relating Saddam to 9-11? I think it’s great that he said those things because WE CAN’T AFORD ANOTHER 9-11! And if Saddam did attain the missiles/wmd/ect do you really think he would have hesitated to use them at some point against us? NO he wouldn’t have. Though I sometimes think you don’t believe he would.

Originally posted by lex400sc

Ever stop to consider that there is another side? A side that always spins things around to make Bush look good? A side in constant denial that will think to the very end that the Iraq war was a good idea? It's wiser to question convention and be a skeptic on contraversial issues than to just fall in line and trust in the morality of politicians, especially the dirty ones. There are quite a few Republicans that I respect, but Bush is not one of them. Yes I disagree with every policy he has pushed---but what does that mean? That means I disagree with every policy he has pushed. This does not mean I hate him for the sake of hating him? I'll give you a hint: NO. I'd appreciate it if you didn't make that mistaken connection again. I get really disappointed at your level of thinking when everything becomes democrats vs. republicans, especially when the issue is focused on Bush as his policies.

Funny, I was going to say the same thing about you, DO YOU EVER stop to consider that the President is doing the right thing and considering everything that is going on, he is even doing it well. All I see from you is a person driven by hatred towards a single party solely because it’s not conveyed the exact way you would like to see it.

You are the minority... Read the polls. And fortunately Bush will probably get re-elected. Have you stopped to realize that even at Bush’s worst he still has some of the strongest approval ratings for a President? This probably doesn’t matter to you though. Could be wrong.

Originally posted by SDuquette
So you think that even though he had a good intention, and a good outcome, and was doing what needed to be done, you think he is bad for how he sold it to Americans. That is plain silly. Who cares if he tried to use whatever means necessary to rally up some support, what he was trying to get support for was the right thing. Even you say what what was going on in Iraq was unacceptable. Really, this is one of the instances where the end justifies the means.


So it doesn't matter to you that the commander of the most powerful military in the world lied to everyone in the world in order to pursue a hidden agenda? What kind of precedent does that set for the new millenium of geopolitics? It's okay to lie and deceive---with billions in dollars and thousands in lives in the balance---as long as you can justify it using some other string of logic that is acceptable to a few in the end?? Hmmm, maybe other less noble politicians will take this as a lesson to build false cases to achieve their own motives. What happens when the exact same practice is used for evil means? Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy is exactly what happens. If Bush went to Congress and told the truth:

"Looks guys, I don't like Saddam Hussein and I want to start a war to get rid of him. First of all he tortures his own people, holds political prisoners, over twenty years ago he killed some of them in mass with deadly gas, he is greedy and hoards his wealth, he oppresses women, and his culture is different. So will you guys give me a few hundred thousand soldiers and a few hundred billion dollars to do this thing? I promise I'll try and kill as few thousand people as possible, but I think it'll be worth it anyway. I also realize that there are about two dozen other countries that are actively committing the same atrocities and even worse ones to far greater degrees than Iraq and that these other countries pose an even greater threat to us, but none of them have oil like Iraq. Come on guys!"

Do you think that kind of crap would fly in Congress? Nope, so he had to make up elaborate lies:

"Looks guys, we absolutely cannot afford to let Saddam rule a country. I have proof that he's hiding weapons of mass destruction, I have proof that he is seeking weapons-grade uranium and building fission centrifuges, I have proof he is supporting al Qaeda, I have proof he is looking to develop long range missiles. And some of you might be too young to remember, but over twenty years ago, he gassed 3,000 people to death. Who knows what he'll do twenty years from now! I don't! But if we allow him to sit in power, he might threaten the safety off all Americans, just like all 220 other nations might. We can't afford another 9/11. We must preemtively strike at everyone that blinks at us wrong. Saddam first!"

I want you to read this quote. I've posted it before, but I think people breeze over it too often. It's frightening how timeless and relevant it is to today, especially considering the source:


" Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. ... Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country. "

- General Herman Goering, President of German Reichstag & Nazi Party, Commander of Luftwaffe, April 18, 1946


This is textbook: the exact crap Bush was saying over the last six months leading to the Iraq war. Danger danger danger! Everyone be very afraid! Orange alert: Go shopping! Bomb Iraq! Go shopping!


So yes I have a problem with Bush's war. I'm glad Saddam and Ba'ath is gone, but what did we lose to get there? We lost stability in the Middle East, we lost trust in the international community, we lost camradery between our fellow brothers around the world, we lost empathy from 9/11, we lost billions of dollars in revenue, we lost hundreds of American servicemen, we killed thousands of Arabs, we are tied into another quagmire overseas for god knows how long, we lost compassion and acceptance towards Middle-Easterns, and Americans are divided over this contraversial president.

Originally posted by 2Lexus430s
WoW, that’s interesting that you would post information regarding polls. Have you even looked at the polls recently? ALL categories are going up, even the war related polls. But no, that’s never good enough for some. I sometimes wonder what this President could do (outside of resigning) that would EVER pass by your constant criticism. It would be a completely different story if he were a Democrat I guarantee.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/stateNation/

The Gallup polls illustrate my point, check out the Newsweek polls and Time/CNN polls too.


Originally posted by 2Lexus430s
There is no link, prove that he stated there was. How does saying: like "we can't afford another 9/11" "secure our freedoms/homeland" and "Saddam is seeking missiles/wmd/etc that are capable of reaching the continental United States" relating Saddam to 9-11? I think it’s great that he said those things because WE CAN’T AFORD ANOTHER 9-11!

You are once again missing the point. I can't prove that he stated there was a link because he never did state it. He implied and alluded to it many times to give the impression that there was a link. I can imply you are an idiot a thousand ways without actually saying it upfront. Either way I do it, the message comes across.

Originally posted by 2Lexus430s
And if Saddam did attain the missiles/wmd/ect do you really think he would have hesitated to use them at some point against us? NO he wouldn’t have. Though I sometimes think you don’t believe he would.

I don't like to pretend I know someone I don't. You can do that all you want. I do however analyze the cost-benefit of hypotheticals like the one you posed: Saddam nuking the United States. What the hell would he gain? People in power like to remain in power, by any means. That is the only reason Saddam began bowing down to US pressures. He saw the risk around the corner and would have rather stayed in power than do something completely irrational like attacking us. If there is nothing to gain from a course of action, it will not be pursued. No established, recognized sovereign nation would ever commit a one-time hit-and-run attack against the most powerful nation. You're only asked for a world of pain when you do so. I think Afghanistan proved that duely. Saddam would seek WMD only for internal security reasons. The same reason EVERYONE pursues WMD. Do you know how many terrorist-sponsoring nations possess huge, enormous, excessive caches of WMD? Are they shooting them off left and right? Duhhhhh--no! If you want to attempt to assume the mind of a dictator, maybe you should think it through completely using logic, not propaganda and paranoia. And another thing, Saddam, the Ba'ath, and Iraq never had any beef with the United States until we imposed sanctions on them and began bombing them and labelling them evil. I'm sure if we talked enough ***** about Russia, they'd develop a distaste for us as well.

Originally posted by 2Lexus430s
Funny, I was going to say the same thing about you, DO YOU EVER stop to consider that the President is doing the right thing and considering everything that is going on, he is even doing it well. All I see from you is a person driven by hatred towards a single party solely because it’s not conveyed the exact way you would like to see it.

Do you ever stop to internalize what you've just read from others or are you just constantly thinking of how you can turn their argument against them?

Originally posted by 2Lexus430s
You are the minority... Read the polls.

Smart people are also a minority.

Originally posted by 2Lexus430s
And fortunately Bush will probably get re-elected. Have you stopped to realize that even at Bush’s worst he still has some of the strongest approval ratings for a President? This probably doesn’t matter to you though. Could be wrong.

Arrogant and presumptuous, always good traits to live by. I wouldn't dare to call the 2004 election either way, but that's just me.

Originally posted by lex400sc
The Gallup polls illustrate my point, check out the Newsweek polls and Time/CNN polls too.

lol..nice

Originally posted by lex400sc

You are once again missing the point. I can't prove that he stated there was a link because he never did state it. He implied and alluded to it many times to give the impression that there was a link. I can imply you are an idiot a thousand ways without actually saying it upfront. Either way I do it, the message comes across.


Once again you twisted the point. If he never said it directly how could he "imply" that link for so long? Shoot, we had attacked, he can "imply" whatever he wants when it comes to the safety of this country. What I am getting at is: Of course he is going to say things that you could put together, if you tried hard enough, and make a connection. I could say "I want to fight a war against terrorists" and the next day I could say "Iraq had terrorist training camps" and the following day say "Terrorists are responsible for what happened on 9-11" and Democrats would say that I "implied" a link there. Stop twisting words to fit an agenda, its getting old.

I thought we were done with the personal attacks too. so stop "implying" them.

Originally posted by lex400sc

I don't like to pretend I know someone I don't. You can do that all you want. I do however analyze the cost-benefit of hypotheticals like the one you posed: Saddam nuking the United States. What the hell would he gain? People in power like to remain in power, by any means. That is the only reason Saddam began bowing down to US pressures. He saw the risk around the corner and would have rather stayed in power than do something completely irrational like attacking us. If there is nothing to gain from a course of action, it will not be pursued. No established, recognized sovereign nation would ever commit a one-time hit-and-run attack against the most powerful nation. You're only asked for a world of pain when you do so. I think Afghanistan proved that duely. Saddam would seek WMD only for internal security reasons. The same reason EVERYONE pursues WMD. Do you know how many terrorist-sponsoring nations possess huge, enormous, excessive caches of WMD? Are they shooting them off left and right? Duhhhhh--no! If you want to attempt to assume the mind of a dictator, maybe you should think it through completely using logic, not propaganda and paranoia. And another thing, Saddam, the Ba'ath, and Iraq never had any beef with the United States until we imposed sanctions on them and began bombing them and labelling them evil. I'm sure if we talked enough ***** about Russia, they'd develop a distaste for us as well.


LOL. And Saddam would NEVER sell nukes to another country or terrorist faction to use against us. He loves us too much. lol.. As you probably already know, if you are going to attack someone without them knowing who is primary brains behind the attach GET SOMEONE ELSE TO DO IT FOR YOU!...lol

Originally posted by lex400sc

Do you ever stop to internalize what you've just read from others or are you just constantly thinking of how you can turn their argument against them?


great point. Now apply that point to quotes you post of Bush.

Originally posted by lex400sc

Smart people are also a minority.


So are serial killers, rapist, over thrown dictators, and severely retarded people, what’s your point?

Originally posted by lex400sc

Arrogant and presumptuous, always good traits to live by. I wouldn't dare to call the 2004 election either way, but that's just me.

fortunately most of us know which way 04 is likely to go. We’ll see.
BTW: If Bush does get re-elected I will buy your ticket out of the country if you want... As I'm sure you wouldn't want to live under Bush's brutal dictatorship any longer.. lol

Originally posted by 2Lexus430s
So are serial killers, rapist, over thrown dictators, and severely retarded people, what’s your point?
LOL, pretty funny! :D

(I'm not hating on lex400sc, it's just a pretty funny come-back that made me laugh ):)

Originally posted by 93LexoGS300
LOL, pretty funny! :D

(I'm not hating on lex400sc, it's just a pretty funny come-back that made me laugh ):)

Originally posted by 2Lexus430s
LOL. And Saddam would NEVER sell nukes to another country or terrorist faction to use against us. He loves us too much. lol.. As you probably already know, if you are going to attack someone without them knowing who is primary brains behind the attach GET SOMEONE ELSE TO DO IT FOR YOU!...lol

Good idea! Why hasn't North Korea, China, India, Pakistan, Russia, or Israel already done this?!! Because every nuclear explosion leaves a radioactive signature that can be matched with the IAEA or by going to the reactors themselves and matching trace elements. That's about as briliant an idea as killing someone and writing your name and address on their foreheads!

Originally posted by 2Lexus430s
So are serial killers, rapist, over thrown dictators, and severely retarded people, what’s your point?

I thought it was pretty simple, but since you missed it, my point was that smart people are also a minority.


I would reply to the rest of your post, but you so perfectly illustrated the points I was making in every quote you highlighted of mine and replied to.

How cute, you guys are teaming up! :)

Originally posted by lex400sc
How cute, you guys are teaming up! :)
:D ;)

Originally posted by lex400sc
Good idea! Why hasn't North Korea, China, India, Pakistan, Russia, or Israel already done this?!! Because every nuclear explosion leaves a radioactive signature that can be matched with the IAEA or by going to the reactors themselves and matching trace elements. That's about as briliant an idea as killing someone and writing your name and address on their foreheads!

Your about 10% correct here, you are right in that highly enriched plutonium leaves trance radioactive elements that can be match back to its source. How hard would it be for him to purchase the plutonium from another country? It can be moved without being detected, did you watch the Dateline or 60 minutes episode that showed them sneak in the plutonium without being stopped?

BTW: You had a great point there when you said "Because every nuclear explosion leaves a radioactive signature". So your saying, AFTER THEY BLOW US UP then we'll know who did it. Good point.

Originally posted by 2Lexus430s
Your about 10% correct here, you are right in that highly enriched plutonium leaves trance radioactive elements that can be match back to its source. How hard would it be for him to purchase the plutonium from another country? It can be moved without being detected, did you watch the Dateline or 60 minutes episode that showed them sneak in the plutonium without being stopped?

I believe I was 100% correct. You did add another scenario that I didn't eloborate on though. Theoretically Saddam or anyone else could buy a nuke from another country, but who's selling? Nations don't spend trillions developing nuclear bombs so they can sell them. There is no monetary profit in that. Along with that, why would another country want to be held liable for what some nutcase with money wants to do with a nuke? If you had a pistol registered in your name, would you rent it out to an angry stranger who offered you $1000 to borrow it for an hour? I sure as hell wouldn't. Would you loan your car to someone who intends to use it as a getaway car for a federal bank robery? This is why terrorist-sponsoring nations like Syria are able to seperate their WMD from their terrorists, even though they are advocates for both.

Originally posted by 2Lexus430s
BTW: You had a great point there when you said "Because every nuclear explosion leaves a radioactive signature". So your saying, AFTER THEY BLOW US UP then we'll know who did it. Good point.

The point is, what is the benefit to blowing up New York City when you will eventually have to reap the whirlwind? If I were Saddam, I'd much rather wave a nuke in front of America's face at the bargaining table and tell them to back off, then to put it under their pillow for no reason and piss a whole lot of people off, pretty much guaranteeing my head on a plate in the near future. Let's weigh the two: do I want to be (A) the wealthy, ostentacious ruler of a nuclear power, or (B) the most wanted international fugitive on the run with no ability to enjoy the remainder of my unfrozen assets, constantly looking over my back, and compared to Hitler by historians? Which sounds like a more satisfying lifestyle to a egotistic hedonist like Saddam?

Originally posted by 2Lexus430s
Why do you people keep saying this? BUSH clearly stated several times that "We cannot wait until the threat is imminent". But no, you democrats insist that he said otherwise. I see now why so many people are turning Republican.

And what’s this about the president alluding to a connection between Hussein and 9-11? He never stated this, you made this up. Why would you say that he said this when he did not? This is the approach that many Democrats appear to take; "If I tell people he said it, then it will make him look bad, even though he never said it". Bush actually came out and said HIMSELF that there was no evidence of that link. Stop posting false information.

It’s easy to call someone a liar or speak negatively of their policy when you change the meaning and make false alluding statements about them.

This is the point I was trying to make in another thread: If you hate a person so much, there is nothing they can do that is good because it will always be spun around to make them look bad. Typical Bush Bashers.


I very clearly said that he alluded to a connection. That means that he implied a connection between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein. Did you watch the news at all before military action commenced? I did not post anything false or make anything up.

Originally posted by SDuquette
So you think that even though he had a good intention, and a good outcome, and was doing what needed to be done, you think he is bad for how he sold it to Americans. That is plain silly. Who cares if he tried to use whatever means necessary to rally up some support, what he was trying to get support for was the right thing. Even you say what what was going on in Iraq was unacceptable. Really, this is one of the instances where the end justifies the means.


It quite honestly frightens me that Americans don't mind that the US military was called upon to invade another country based upon lies. This is a case or propaganda being used to whip everyone up into a frenzy and get behind the effort to invade a foreign country. That is plain frightening. I do not agree that the end justifies the means. Also, it is far to early to call the situation in Iraq " a good outcome." I feel terribly sad for the soldiers who are getting attacked and killed there every day and for their families. I understand that military service is voluntary, but that does not take the sting out of it when these guys get killed. Just to clarify before you attack these comments, I am 100% behind the US troops in Iraq. I just have issues with the policies and decisions that put them there.

Originally posted by link13
I very clearly said that he alluded to a connection. That means that he implied a connection between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein. Did you watch the news at all before military action commenced? I did not post anything false or make anything up.

lol.. As a matter of fact I watched the news EVERYDAY for about 4 hours a day (if not more).. Please let me know of 1 instance where the connection was made between 9-11 and Saddam. I saw nothing stated linking the 2 and I'm suprised you could make this assumption and not provide ANY proof of it.

Just because he said "Iraq harbors and supports terrorists" (which they do) does not mean "I believe Hussan and the 9-11 terrorists were working together....

Originally posted by link13
It quite honestly frightens me that Americans don't mind that the US military was called upon to invade another country based upon lies.

Please remind me what lies your refering too. Based on the information the U.N. and the U.S. had, Iraq had and was still seeking to develop WND.... Its not a lie on our part, I guess you could say "the US military was called upon to liberate a terrorist supporting country that has the intentions of building and maintaining a strong stockpile of WMD". but this wasn't an issue when Clinton made those aligations, only when Bush does.. Why the double standard?

Originally posted by link13

This is a case or propaganda being used to whip everyone up into a frenzy and get behind the effort to invade a foreign country. That is plain frightening. I do not agree that the end justifies the means.

Well, I guess Saddam would have had to kill more people and invade another country to justify this to you right? naaaa, you probably would still think Saddams a good guy..:rolleyes:

Originally posted by link13

Also, it is far to early to call the situation in Iraq " a good outcome." I feel terribly sad for the soldiers who are getting attacked and killed there every day and for their families. I understand that military service is voluntary, but that does not take the sting out of it when these guys get killed. Just to clarify before you attack these comments, I am 100% behind the US troops in Iraq. I just have issues with the policies and decisions that put them there.

You know what? Everyone in here probably supports the troops, but war is war, I feel sad about the thousands of troops that dies in all the other wars we have gone through.

Do you feel sorry for the millions on innocent people who die everyday because of evil people like Saddam?

Originally posted by 2Lexus430s
lol.. As a matter of fact I watched the news EVERYDAY for about 4 hours a day (if not more).. Please let me know of 1 instance where the connection was made between 9-11 and Saddam. I saw nothing stated linking the 2 and I'm suprised you could make this assumption and not provide ANY proof of it.

Just because he said "Iraq harbors and supports terrorists" (which they do) does not mean "I believe Hussan and the 9-11 terrorists were working together....


It seems like you just ignore words in order to make your point. The words "alluded to" and "implied" in my posts were not window dressing and were not used by accident. As lex400sc correctly posted, Bush implied a connection between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein and he did so many, many times. Implied. He implied it. He implied that there was a connection. He did not say there was. He did not attempt to provide any evidence of a connection between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein. Instead, George W. Bush implied that a connection between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein existed.

Why did he do this?

I'm not sure. Maybe it was to use the power of emotions connected with 9/11 to get people riled up and ready to support action in Iraq.

Please read the BBC article at your leisure. It clearly emphasizes my point that Bush and his administration have associated Iraq and 9/11 repeatedly in keynote addresses.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3119676.stm

I guess at this point we'll have to agree to disagree. Your assumption and implication that I think Saddam Hussein was a good guy is baseless and ludicrous. You keep on conjuring up your assumptions about what I believe. I hope you have fun with it. We will not change each other's minds on this issue. Of that, I am certain. There is a place for constructive debate between reasonable individuals and once that becomes marred by labeling others and making baseless assumptions, the purpose of the debate ceases to exist.

Please label me a democrat (false) and and Saddam supporter (false) as you wish. The world and it's complex issues of national security and international relations is not so cut and dry.

Also, since you asked, the article below gives a good summary of what I referred to as lies. It shows that the evidence used to make the case for war was outdated and misrepresented. You can find similar articles in a variety of sources, but I chose the Financial Times because it is well-respected. I am posting the article and not a link because ft.com requires you to subscribe before reading.

U.S. 'Had No New Evidence of WMD' in Iraq
By Edward Alden
Financial Times

Sunday 28 September 2003

The US launched its war with Iraq despite having no fresh intelligence evidence that the regime of Saddam Hussein was developing mass destruction weapons or forging ties with terrorists, the leaders of the House of Representatives intelligence committee have concluded.

The findings by the Republican and Democratic heads of the committee have again forced the US administration to defend its decision to go to war - at a time when it must persuade Congress to back an unpopular $87bn (€76bn, £52bn) request for funds to maintain security and reconstruct Iraq.

Condoleezza Rice, White House national security adviser, said on Sunday on Fox News that there was "enrichment of intelligence" between 1998 and 2003 and that "nothing pointed to a reversal of Saddam Hussein's very active efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction".

But the heads of the House intelligence committee - normally strong backers of the Central Intelligence Agency, said in a letter to George Tenet, CIA director, that the agency's conclusions about Iraq's weapons programmes were based largely on outdated assessments.

"The absence of proof that chemical and biological weapons and their related development programs had been destroyed was considered proof that they continued to exist," said the letter, sent last Thursday and published at the weekend by Reuters and the Washington Post.

It said the US had little specific intelligence after 1998, when United Nations weapons inspectors left Iraq, nor did it have better information about Iraq's ties to terrorists. This inadequate intelligence was passed on to CIA analysts who prepared assessments for policymakers, "providing ample room for vagary to intrude".

The conclusions, based on a four-month assessment of classified documents by the committee, have increased pressure on the administration to demonstrate that the threat from Iraq justified the decision to go to war.

David Kay, the former UN weapons inspector who has been scouring Iraq for evidence of mass destruction weapons, will issue an interim report this week. Mr. Kay hinted in June that he had uncovered "some surprises" that would demonstrate Iraq's chemical and biological weapons programmes. But Ms Rice said on Sunday the report was "not likely to draw any major conclusions".

In the run-up to the war, top administration officials repeatedly cited the threat of Mr. Hussein's mass destruction weapons, with **** Cheney, vice-president, claiming Iraq had "reconstituted nuclear weapons". But with the administration forced to back away from prewar claims, it is arguing instead that the elimination of a brutal regime in an unstable region was sufficient justification for war.

The Washington Post reported on Sunday that Mr. Tenet had requested a Justice Department investigation into whether White House officials illegally leaked the name of a CIA operative to reporters.

The operative, Valerie Plame, is married to Joseph Wilson, an ambassador sent by the CIA last year to investigate claims that Iraq had tried to purchase uranium yellowcake from Niger. Mr. Wilson concluded the claims were false.

One official told the Post Ms Plame's name was made public "purely for revenge". The CIA declined to comment on Sunday.

some i believe are truely living in a dream world if they don't think that the bush administration didn't play games to turn saddam hussein into osama bin laden. yes he never said directly "hussein was part of 9/11" but basically he just fell short of that with every action that he took. do you think it is coincidence that only 3% of the american public polled right after 9/11 believed Hussein had something to do with the 9/11 attacks. that number shot up to 69% in August 2003, right before Bush finally closed the connection that he been implying for well over a year. Yes I said imply because that is what he did. I wonder what startling new evidence came out for Bush to say Hussein was not involved with the attacks in September 2003, maybe it was just the fact that it had been 4 months since the war officially "ended". Instead before when he was asked about Hussein's role in 9/11 he would say such comments like "There is no question that Saddam Hussein had al-Qaida ties." Or how about Rumsfeld saying that one of the 9/11attackers had met with an Iraqi official in Eastern Europe at a time when the CIA clearly put that hijacker in the U.S. at the time. Or using fake documents as evidence that Iraq tried to purchase materials to make a nuclear weapon from Niger. This administration uses blatantly false and misleading information to try and justify their position.

I would not have dignified 2Lex's request to dig up proof on Bush, since it's clearly a cop out argument used to disuade us from burying his baseless opinions (I certainly would not have dug through 18 months of new archieves only to have 2Lexus breeze over it anyway), but I commend you link13, for taking the time to and effort to debunk his disinformation as well as calling him out on his libelous remarks toward you and I.

On the troops, it depresses me to hear every night that more and more people (Iraqis, Italians, Americans) are dying in greater numbers with greater voracity every day. The CIA yesterday released a report that said the climate of Iraq is expected to worsen in the near future. Did we stop terrorism in Iraq? Nope, we brought it there. And we brought it to Saudi Arabia as well. And we reignited it (indirectly) in Israel. The world is in growing turmoil since Bush enacted his War on Terror. Before Bush, were we inintaded DAILY with NEW terrorist attacks around the world? Under Clinton I remember only about three or four. Under Bush 1, none. Under Reagan, maybe two. What has Baby Bush done then? He's tried to kill bees by throwing rocks at the beehive, and look what's come of it.... I can't even count with all of your and my fingers and toes how many anti-West terrorist attacks have occurred due to Bush policy (and this is not including 9/11). His hardliner approach has bred on one end a culture of fear, and on the other a culture of hate.

Originally posted by kuruption213
Or how about Rumsfeld saying that one of the 9/11attackers had met with an Iraqi official in Eastern Europe at a time when the CIA clearly put that hijacker in the U.S. at the time. Or using fake documents as evidence that Iraq tried to purchase materials to make a nuclear weapon from Niger. This administration uses blatantly false and misleading information to try and justify their position.

And what about Colin Powell addressing the UN citing Saddam's WMD program with a high school essay printed off the internet? Or using CIA intelligence that was older than most people's oldest television sets as smoking-gun evidence? I loved the aerial and satallite photos of pharmaceutical plants labelled as WMD factories too.

Originally posted by lex400sc
I would not have dignified 2Lex's request to dig up proof on Bush, since it's clearly a cop out argument used to disuade us from burying his baseless opinions (I certainly would not have dug through 18 months of new archieves only to have 2Lexus breeze over it anyway), but I commend you link13, for taking the time to and effort to debunk his disinformation as well as calling him out on his libelous remarks toward you and I.

Thanks for the nice comment. I was also not inclined to dig up the evidence at first, but the deafening silence after I posted the BBC and Financial Times articles speak volumes. I have to say that there is a glimmer of hope in knowing that you and kuruption213 are also troubled by the deceit practiced by this administration. There don't seem to be too many of us, but that number is growing on a daily basis as facts about the "long, hard slog" are brought to light.

Originally posted by link13
Thanks for the nice comment. I was also not inclined to dig up the evidence at first, but the deafening silence after I posted the BBC and Financial Times articles speak volumes. I have to say that there is a glimmer of hope in knowing that you and kuruption213 are also troubled by the deceit practiced by this administration. There don't seem to be too many of us, but that number is growing on a daily basis as facts about the "long, hard slog" are brought to light.


So what you’re saying is that it’s Solely the Presidents fault that he was given outdated information by the CIA related information based on long search years ago from Weapons inspectors in Iraq? Remember he had the weapons then? What did he do with them? Remember the President going over all of that?

My point is, how are you suppose to get current information on a country’s weapons when they are hesitant (as best) to let inspectors look for them. How many inspectors were in Iraq before the war? Exactly. All they had was outdated information that had not been proven false. Saddam was given several opportunities to provide the information needed to prevent the war.

If you believe in black helicopter watching your every move then it’s easy to make everything a conspiracy theory.

Another misinformed post by 2Lexus. Bush encouraged any type of evidence, no mater how remote or far-fetched it was, that would support his war. He wanted war in Iraq more than anything. The Director of the CIA and all the CIA analysts were critical of Bush's use of CIA intelligence throughout the war build-up.

Read here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2315967.stm

And here: http://www.latimes.com/la-na-cia11oct11,0,2360915.story

Pertaining to the weapons inspectors, when they were kicked out of Iraq in 1999, they had inventoried and estimated about 93% of Saddam's weapons arsenal disarmed. In fact Iraq was one of three of the most defenseless and disarmed nations in the world in 1999.

I think you wish there was a "black helicopter" so that you could associate the cold hard truth with it whenever it hits you in the face.

Originally posted by 2Lexus430s
So what you’re saying is that it’s Solely the Presidents fault that he was given outdated information by the CIA related information based on long search years ago from Weapons inspectors in Iraq? Remember he had the weapons then? What did he do with them? Remember the President going over all of that?

I am not saying anything of the kind. You are reading into things and making your own conclusions again. You asked for evidence of the lies that I mentioned and I provided evidence. The Bush Administration spoke on several occasions indicating that they had very compelling evidence of a WMD program in Iraq. It seems hard to believe that five year old evidence could be very compelling.

I would never vote for Bush - not because of the way he handled the situation in Iraq, not because of the economy, but because of this - http://www.freevibe.com :mad: :mad:

I don't care how much someone can raise the economy, make peace, etc. To shove this kind of false propaganda down the American Public's throat is a downright slap in the face. :thumbdn: :thumbdn: :thumbdn: :angry:

I'm just thankful to live in a state with medical laws enacted :cool:

Freevibe is a laugh. They are just like the Ad Council's moronic public service announcements. Every time they play a 'smoking kills' commercials, I think "hey, that's a good idea, I think I'll have a cigarette". Or when they play those 'weed makes you do irrational things' commericial, I think "hey, now there's a good idea, I should pack a bowl". Such idiots. It only takes from heir credbility when they spread lies and misconceptions about drugs. People that have done them can see they are full of ***** and continue to ignore all their messages, even if one of them one day happens to be true fact.

Originally posted by lex400sc
Freevibe is a laugh. They are just like the Ad Council's moronic public service announcements. Every time they play a 'smoking kills' commercials, I think "hey, that's a good idea, I think I'll have a cigarette". Or when they play those 'weed makes you do irrational things' commericial, I think "hey, now there's a good idea, I should pack a bowl". Such idiots. It only takes from heir credbility when they spread lies and misconceptions about drugs. People that have done them can see they are full of ***** and continue to ignore all their messages, even if one of them one day happens to be true fact.

While I'm glad you can see through the propaganda about MJ, the amount of people who take these things seriously is shocking. I have met people who take these commercials with 100% seriousness and truly think that it came straight out of the devil's garden. The American public isn't as smart as you'd hope they would be, which is why I try my best to educate any misinformed person that I run into.

As I said before, I lost all respect for Bush when he launched the War on Drugs, and there is no way he's getting my vote, no matter what he does in the future (unless of course, he legalizes it ;) , but i doubt that'll happen anytime soon)

I am still wating for some weapons of mass destruction to show up since that is one of the main reasons we went over to Iraq. That Sadaam had nukes. We can't find them, him or Osoma. Now we will be charged 87 billion (which will rise to 200 billion easy) to clean up our mess.


So are we gonna go bomb every country b/c their citizens don't have the best? Hell since there is hella cocaine in Columbia, why don't we go down there, bomb them to hell, take over and rebuild. Why not Angola? Hell India needs help too, 4.5 million people with Aids. Why stop at Iraq?

Originally posted by 1SICKLEX
I am still wating for some weapons of mass destruction to show up since that is one of the main reasons we went over to Iraq. That Sadaam had nukes. We can't find them, him or Osoma. Now we will be charged 87 billion (which will rise to 200 billion easy) to clean up our mess.


So are we gonna go bomb every country b/c their citizens don't have the best? Hell since there is hella cocaine in Columbia, why don't we go down there, bomb them to hell, take over and rebuild. Why not Angola? Hell India needs help too, 4.5 million people with Aids. Why stop at Iraq?

Why? Because cocaine doesn't make our cars move ;)

Originally posted by lex400sc
Why? Because cocaine doesn't make our cars move ;)

Besides, if it wasn't for cocaine, people using government services wouldn't be able to afford their Timbalands and Rockawear, heaven forbid we deprive them of that

Originally posted by SDuquette
Besides, if it wasn't for cocaine, people using government services wouldn't be able to afford their Timbalands and Rockawear, heaven forbid we deprive them of that


Uhh perhaps you didn't know this, but cocaine is the rich man's drug. You're probably referring to crack and it'd probably please you to know that there are racist laws that punish crack offenders more severely than cocaine offenders. Nice try though.

Originally posted by lex400sc
Uhh perhaps you didn't know this, but cocaine is the rich man's drug. You're probably referring to crack and it'd probably please you to know that there are racist laws that punish crack offenders more severely than cocaine offenders. Nice try though.

We just fired a guy who was stealing from us, he had 3 kids at home, a wife that didn't work and a healthy coke habit, believe me, I work with poor people, and they get cocaine too.

Originally posted by SDuquette
We just fired a guy who was stealing from us, he had 3 kids at home, a wife that didn't work and a healthy coke habit, believe me, I work with poor people, and they get cocaine too.

if it was up to the liberals it would all be legal though.. People talk about DUI's , imagine if someone is driving down the road thinking rats are eating their eyes out.:eek2:

Originally posted by 2Lexus430s
if it was up to the liberals it would all be legal though.. People talk about DUI's , imagine if someone is driving down the road thinking rats are eating their eyes out.:eek2:

LOL, the ignorance of this statement amazes me! Bluepiz, I guess, is right; those anti-drug misinformercials do get to the general public pretty easily!!

It's clear that you don't know that cocaine does not impair your ability to drive and you don't hallucinate or have dellusions on it ever.

"We're all anxious enough about how we look without having to worry about the stained fingertips and teeth, stinking breath, and bloodshot eyes that come with smoking pot. People who smoke dope can look a little-well, skeazy. They might lose interest in their appearance. They can also get the munchies when they're high-and it's not exactly health food they binge on. They don't call that tire-shaped ring of flab around the middle of a pothead the "stoner's spare" for nothing."

LOL.

"Teens who use drugs are 5 times more likely to have sex than are those teens who do not use drugs."

Just what I've been waiting for, an aphrodisiac that will give me five times more sex!!! :egads:

Originally posted by lex400sc
LOL, the ignorance of this statement amazes me! Bluepiz, I guess, is right; those anti-drug misinformercials do get to the general public pretty easily!!

It's clear that you don't know that cocaine does not impair your ability to drive and you don't hallucinate or have dellusions on it ever.

Well tell that to a good friend of mine who was stuck on coke for over 5 years. He would do and say some of the strangest things, he also flipped his Camry over into a ditch to avoid hitting someone in the road that he "saw" then later admitted probably wasn't there.

BTW: do you do coke? you seem to know so much about the effects of it. You really think that just because I don't do coke nore condone it that I don'tknow anyone whos does use it?

You really have a ignorance stance on Drugs if you think they are "ok" and don't cause adverse reactions and side effects.

I know people who are addicted to Crystal and Coke and see exactly what it does to them.

I had to fire 4 employees that thought it would be great to go to the club after snorting some coke, well then they hit a man crossing the road with a company truck and said that they thought he was going to attack them, when everyone that saw what happened said the guy didn't even look at them.

Originally posted by 2Lexus430s
Well tell that to a good friend of mine who was stuck on coke for over 5 years. He would do and say some of the strangest things, he also flipped his Camry over into a ditch to avoid hitting someone in the road that he "saw" then later admitted probably wasn't there.

BTW: do you do coke? you seem to know so much about the effects of it. You really think that just because I don't do coke nore condone it that I don'tknow anyone whos does use it?

You really have a ignorance stance on Drugs if you think they are "ok" and don't cause adverse reactions and side effects.

I know people who are addicted to Crystal and Coke and see exactly what it does to them.

I had to fire 4 employees that thought it would be great to go to the club after snorting some coke, well then they hit a man crossing the road with a company truck and said that they thought he was going to attack them, when everyone that saw what happened said the guy didn't even look at them.


The fact that drugs are illegal really didn't seem to do much to help your friend out. I'm not sure it's helping out all of those guys serving lengthy prison sentences for using and dealing either.

Originally posted by link13
The fact that drugs are illegal really didn't seem to do much to help your friend out. I'm not sure it's helping out all of those guys serving lengthy prison sentences for using and dealing either.

Actually it did, He went to Prison for 18 months and he got out promised "I will never go back" and "going to jail changed my life and put things into perspective" he has been clean for almost 3 years now. He speaks out against drugs to youths and is a better person.

He is still a great friend, and actually I put up $350,000.00 to help him start a recording studio that is doing well. He is very free of drugs now and is also a active part of his Baptist Church.

Originally posted by 2Lexus430s
Well tell that to a good friend of mine who was stuck on coke for over 5 years. He would do and say some of the strangest things, he also flipped his Camry over into a ditch to avoid hitting someone in the road that he "saw" then later admitted probably wasn't there.

I don't know the guy myself, but this much I do know: him saying strange things and him getting in an accident is not necessarily related to his use of cocaine. It could just be that he's a man that says strange things, and he's just a man that got caught in an accident. If he was hallucinating in that accident, it wasn't the cocaine. Maybe your friend is into psychadelic drugs too? But I guess you would blame all his human faults on cocaine just because it's a convinient ploy, even though there may not be any factual basis to it.

Originally posted by 2Lexus430s
BTW: do you do coke? you seem to know so much about the effects of it.

I don't see the relevance of this question to anything other than you trying to characterize me negatively. But just so you and everyone know that I don't care, yes I have. I know exactly what coke does to you, first-hand. And all the crap disinformation you describe it to do to people, it doesn't do.

Originally posted by 2Lexus430s
You really think that just because I don't do coke nore condone it that I don'tknow anyone whos does use it?

I'm sorry, did I say anything of that nature? No, but keep trying...

Originally posted by 2Lexus430s
You really have a ignorance stance on Drugs if you think they are "ok" and don't cause adverse reactions and side effects.

Funny, I was thinking the same thing of you. You are the self-proclaimed drug expert because you have a "friend this" and a "friend that". Your personal anecdotes may be great for dinner conversation, but don't try to pass off one-man's version of an experience as fact of the matter.

Thusfar, nothing that I've said implies I "think they are 'ok' and don't cause adverse reactions and side effects". Maybe if you asked what my opinion on drug abuse was, you'd actually have the facts instead of inventing what sounds bests to you.

Any time I debunk your misconceptions about an issue, I'm automatically a sympathizer or pro-drug abuse, pro-terrorist, pro-communist, etc. It gets rather annoying for me to waste half my posts correcting your libel. If you want to label me anything, label me the debunker of popular mythologies and the bruiser of the story-teller's ego.

Originally posted by 2Lexus430s
I know people who are addicted to Crystal and Coke and see exactly what it does to them.

Good for you. Maybe you should frame a degree in drug pathology on your wall now that you have these outstanding credentials.

Originally posted by 2Lexus430s
I had to fire 4 employees that thought it would be great to go to the club after snorting some coke, well then they hit a man crossing the road with a company truck and said that they thought he was going to attack them, when everyone that saw what happened said the guy didn't even look at them.

Has it ever occured to you that these are four employees caught doing something stupid who then made a lie about it to try and get out of trouble? Is it revealing enough about human nature that whenever two drivers are involved in a car accident, there is often two conflicting sides to the story? People will make stuff up to get the blame off themselves.

I'll tell you something about cocaine that you can add to your infinite wisdom on it. I've partied on yay on a number of occassions with a dozen to a few hundred other coke heads around me. Never has anyone flipped out and attacked someone out of paranoia. Never has anyone expressed hallucinations or enacted upon hallucinations. Never has anyone hit another person with their car or dodged ghosts in the street because of it.

It's funny that you mention the above story, because I too have driven my buddy's company truck at night forty miles home on yay, in the rain, on a curvy, hilly one-lane highway extension (Vasco Road). And that same night I threw my other buddy the keys to my Lex to drive the same distance home on coke. And just to add to that, I've driven over 2000 miles of road high as a kite on marijuana and never had anything close to an accident or an avoided accident occur. So you can shove all those stories of yours because I have dozens of my own that prove otherwise. And as aware as I am that you will all probably use this information against me in the future, I really don't care because it's nothing new here.

Does everyone that uses Scoop go into a coma? NO

Does everyone that drives under the influence get a DUI? NO

Does everyone that drives under the influence get into an accident? NO

Does everything that "could" happen to someone actually happen? NO

You are 1 in millions, so I take your experiences as added knowledge that proves my point.

Why does someone that is allergenic to pickles react differently than someone who is not? You might be able to eat 20 pickles and only have a stomach pain where as it only takes the person with allergic reaction to only eat one and get ill or die. Should everyone get tested at birth to see if they can use ilegal drugs without side effects?

So, to put this into perspective for you: You might be able to take every drug in the world and not have a problem where as it only takes 1 person to have a negative reaction too die from it.

BTW: How old you feel a person should be before they can snort coke? Or smoke weed? Or inject themselves in crack?

"BTW: How old you feel a person should be before they can snort coke? Or smoke weed? Or inject themselves in crack?"

By the age 10, most american kids are ready.

Originally posted by jpa2400
"BTW: How old you feel a person should be before they can snort coke? Or smoke weed? Or inject themselves in crack?"

By the age 10, most american kids are ready.


Sad but true:egads: :(

was trying to toss some humor into this debate, but your right, it is kind of true still, laugh

Originally posted by jpa2400
was trying to toss some humor into this debate, but your right, it is kind of true still, laugh

Kids are giving BJ's in classrooms and on buses these days IN MIDDLE SCHOOL!......
i'm sure they are smoking weed, snorting coke, and injecting themselves as well.:egads:

Originally posted by 2Lexus430s
Why does someone that is allergenic to pickles react differently than someone who is not? You might be able to eat 20 pickles and only have a stomach pain where as it only takes the person with allergic reaction to only eat one and get ill or die. Should everyone get tested at birth to see if they can use ilegal drugs without side effects?

So, to put this into perspective for you: You might be able to take every drug in the world and not have a problem where as it only takes 1 person to have a negative reaction too die from it.

On the contrary, you have a pair of isolated misfortunes that potentially can be attributed with cocaine use. I have numerous instances, almost every weekend, in which I've seen cocaine do absolutely nothing dangerous or erratic to anyone. I've been exposed to recreational coke usage since I was 18, never tried it myself until I was 21.

Originally posted by 2Lexus430s
BTW: How old you feel a person should be before they can snort coke?

Ask George Bush.

Originally posted by 2Lexus430s
Or smoke weed?

Ask Bill Clinton.

In my opinion, drug use is a victimless crime just like gun ownage is a victimless crime. The fact that a minority of people that own guns or use drugs commit crimes with them doesn't mean we should enact a drug war or gun control laws. Furthermore, we are all aware that the drug war is a gigantic government business that empowers and creates criminals, crowds our prisons, and is not really much of a war at all. I find it sadly ironic that marijuana is an common unsightly garden weed, yet because it is illegal, it's worth more than its weight that gold here.

If *some* drugs were legalized and regulated, a lot of dirty dirty stuff would be taken off the streets, overdose deaths would be non-existant, the government would have more power to tax, punish, and monitor drug activity, cartels would fade, prices would drop, and drug-related crime would diminish. Instead, the opposite is occurring. I doubt you were being sincere when you asked me how old a person should be, but nevertheless I'll answer you. Some people should never touch drugs in their lives, some people can handle them at different ages that others, some people have higher tolerances than others. It's highly dependant on your personality, genetics, inhibitions, mental strength, and even your state of mind. There is no clear cut answer.

Of course we should still punish the idiots who hit pedestrians while on cocaine, or shoot up a bank with guns, and we should do so severely, but to prohibit everyone just because of a few is too much government IMO, especially when it comes to telling me what I can't do in a private residence. Just look at the hypocracy with weed and alcohol. Alcohol is legal, it impairs your judgment more than marijuana or cocaine COMBINED would, it's an actual biological poison, and it is more destructive to your brain and body than weed, yet it is perfectly legal at a certain age, and you can still be charged for being stupid while drunk. Why not the same with weed? And why are cigarettes legal when nicotine is the most addicitve substance on earth and cigarettes are the most poisonous substance you can recreationally inhale? I mean it's made of cyanide, arsenic, and ammonia for godsakes and more than half a cigarette's ingredients are carcinogenic!

I agree with you on many of those points. I don't drink, yet some very close friends of mine drink very heavely. I don't think that weed is a bad drug, I personally don't think it should be illegal. I do see how coke differs from weed in the reactions people have when using and should be illegal.

I understand you point, and at the same time understand that there needs to be changes on both sides. There needs to be some drugs that are illegal that currently are not, where as there should be some drugs that are illegal now and should not be. All in all, telling people to stay off drugs in not a bad idea, they do more harm than good.

Originally posted by lex400sc

In my opinion, drug use is a victimless crime just like gun ownage is a victimless crime.

That is not true, I grew up without a father because of drug use. He was a very intelligent young man, but the drugs got the best of him and landed him in correctional facilities for most of his life. Now he is 48 years old, and suffers from emphasema, extremely high blood pressure and poor circulation, a number of social and mental disorders, and many other problems. Now he is dying and will leave behind a teenage daughter and wife. There were many victims affected by his drug use throughout his entire life. And another instance some people extremely close to me are divocing partly over drug use. He is leaving behind a teenage daughter to run around with drug using *****s half his age. They own a rather successful business together and quite a bit of investments, and it will be a very nasty division. Now tell me, that drug use is a victimless in any matter. If anything, the drug users are victimizing themselves at the least, and ones who support them are no better. IMO, every employee at every job should be drug tested, every recipient of any welfare type program should be tested, and possession, use, sales, you name it should be punishable with extreme mandatory sentences.

On a side note, I request drug testing within our comapny, and suprise suprise, the ones with the poor performance and who steal from the company never show up to their drug tests, I wonder why?

Originally posted by SDuquette
That is not true, I grew up without a father because of drug use. He was a very intelligent young man, but the drugs got the best of him and landed him in correctional facilities for most of his life. Now he is 48 years old, and suffers from emphasema, extremely high blood pressure and poor circulation, a number of social and mental disorders, and many other problems. Now he is dying and will leave behind a teenage daughter and wife. There were many victims affected by his drug use throughout his entire life. And another instance some people extremely close to me are divocing partly over drug use. He is leaving behind a teenage daughter to run around with drug using *****s half his age. They own a rather successful business together and quite a bit of investments, and it will be a very nasty division. Now tell me, that drug use is a victimless in any matter. If anything, the drug users are victimizing themselves at the least, and ones who support them are no better. IMO, every employee at every job should be drug tested, every recipient of any welfare type program should be tested, and possession, use, sales, you name it should be punishable with extreme mandatory sentences.

Alcohol could very easily be the perpetrator of the above tragedy, though I somehow think you're referring to other substances. My point is that alcohol is a destructive mind-altering substance that is not only legal, but celebrated at every occassion, even White House banquets.

This is expressly why I said that some people can handle their drugs and some people can't. My former boss, a store manager at the Good Guys, came to work every day on coke and did it in his back office during work too. Everyone knew it and no one cared because he did his job well even on coke. This guy could walk into a big ticket sale and sell the hell out of warranties and accessories. And, no exaggeration, but about 80% of the workers at Good Guys smoked weed. A couple of us went to work high and managed not only to interact with customers, but build enough rapport to sell them things they didn't even come in to buy. I've been pulled over by cops for speeding at least three times while I was high on on GHB and I was let off every time with no infraction, not even a warning. I arrived at my destination safe and sound on every occassaion too. Some of my friends rip a few lines right before a motocross race or wakeboard competition and they do pretty damn good in the end.

Originally posted by SDuquette
On a side note, I request drug testing within our comapny, and suprise suprise, the ones with the poor performance and who steal from the company never show up to their drug tests, I wonder why?

Shady people come in all shapes and sizes. The guys that don't show up for tests are morons, because you can buy detox kits anywhere and everywhere that work for every drug. I've used a detox kit twice and was subsequently hired both times. I'll bet that even though your routine drug tests weed out the druggies at your company, you still incur employee theft.

Originally posted by lex400sc

Shady people come in all shapes and sizes. The guys that don't show up for tests are morons, because you can buy detox kits anywhere and everywhere that work for every drug. I've used a detox kit twice and was subsequently hired both times. I'll bet that even though your routine drug tests weed out the druggies at your company, you still incur employee theft.

There is very little theft, except for those that have a problem, not to mention, we have extremely tight inventory and money control, so we can usually tell who is stealing and what they are stealing. The way we conduct our drug tests is if we suspect someone, or need to get rid of someone, another employee drives them to the lab in the middle of work. We've actually had people run out of the waiting room at the lab never to return. I have a good isea of who does what, and when they are doing it, to someone who is into that lifestyle, it might not stand out as much, since you might be desensitized to it. I've never done so much as smoke a little weed in my early teens, and have left behind many friends who were involved in such activities. I will give you a few things to look for if you care. People who snort tend to have nasal problems and terrible dental problems. They also tend to have irrational behavior when put into high-stress situations, not to mention have a lot of digestion problems causing them to use the bathroom more than an ordinary person would. Now, alone, these are all little things that anyone might have, but when they show up in groups, you know there is a problem. It's not hard to tell who is on drugs, just like it's not hard to fire their worthless butts. Hell, in the second instance in my previous post, I've suspected the guy to be into drugs for 3-4 years now, and it all came out in the open in the last month. He's threatened my life over meaningless crap, is constantly lying, makes off the wall business decisions, and like I said about the teeth, he has a mouth full of implants. Drugs of any kinds are not good, and alcohol is almost just as bad. I will admit I might have a beer a week, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if something makes your body feel bad, it's probably not good for you, and wasn't meant to be consumed.

Originally posted by SDuquette
I will admit I might have a beer a week, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if something makes your body feel bad, it's probably not good for you, and wasn't meant to be consumed.

Beer and alcohol in general makes me ralph when I consume it in 'party amounts', (which is enough for me to get a head change and have a good time). Since I dislike smelling like vomit in front of girls, I quit drinking a while ago. Unfortunately for me, my body rejects alcohol half the time I drink it, so I've quit drinking for a while now. I do enjoy a glass of red wine every once in a while though. For some reason my body doesn't reject wine. Marijuana doesn't effect me negatively in any way, except for the smoke effecting my throat and lungs, but I take everything I do in moderation. I feel better smoking weed than cigarettes or drinking alcohol, since it is less destructive to your health than either of the other two. Coke is something that I've tried a few times for a good time, but I don't fiend for it and I don't do it with any regularity or frequency. I've never bought the stuff and wouldn't know where to beggin to look for it anyway. It was always offered up in every instance. I don't rub blow on my gums like some people do, so my teeth will be just fine. I'm perfectly confident in my judgment when it comes to serious stuff when I'm on either of the two substances. The way you feel about drugs is the way I feel about alcohol. the way you feel about alcohol is the way I feel about drugs. Again, it all boils down to individual tolerances and reactions to both. The fact that my substance of choice is illegal and yours is not probably reflects quite negatively on me, but cultural backlash was never something I concerned myself with.

If you feel so negatively about weed and cocaine, how do you feel about our past two presidents known to have used both and ending up with the prestigious positions they enjoy today?

Originally posted by lex400sc


If you feel so negatively about weed and cocaine, how do you feel about our past two presidents known to have used both and ending up with the prestigious positions they enjoy today?

If they were doing it now, by all means, throw them in jail, but I seriously doubt either of them do, or have done it in any recent years. What either of them did was probably 25-30 years ago, and in their younger, dumber college years. It is not something that I would redily go around bragging if I were them, but opposition feels the need to drag up any indescretion that one might have when you attain a position of power. Both instances I have always felt were rather irrelevant, yet, had they been caught at the time, they should have been punished. I understand that not everyone is expecting to run forpresident, but I feel that if you intend to succeed in life, you have to prepare for it your entire life, incase you are on the other end of the finger. I could go bawould almost garuntee that if they ck and do it again, they would not. They are both very lucky that is didn't lead into a life down the darker side of human nature. I understand that Bush was an alcoholic at one point in his life, which is not something very admirable, but the fact that he managed to clean up and become a president is. It does show a great amount of will power and strength to overcome something like that, believe me, I've only personally know two who have done it my entire life, my uncles, and one is a very strong individual, and the other always looked up to the other for his strength. I have a good feeling that Bush is a different person than his times as an alcoholic, and I would imagine the strength that got him through his recovery is the same strength that is getting him through this presidency with a relative amount of success. I know others disagree, so be it, maybe all the alcoholics they know are still alcoholics.

Anyhow, I really think the world would be a better place without drugs, and rather than legalize it, there should be a push to eliminate them all together. If you need to relax, meditate, if you are religious, pray, if you need energy, excercise, eat right, if you need a good time, just think about the good in your life, it always works for me. I don't see where drugs could enhance my life in anyway, but then again, I am strong, intelligent and personable guy, all I need for a good time is to be around people I like.

Originally posted by SDuquette
Anyhow, I really think the world would be a better place without drugs, and rather than legalize it, there should be a push to eliminate them all together.

While sounding great in theory, it would never work, due to the fact that most of Europe and Canda are very pro-marijuana, and no matter how hard the USA tries, they're not going to rid the world of weed (not even in America, unless there's a camera in every room of every house and on every square inch of the world monitoring you, in which case this would no longer be America as we knew it).

Another difficulty would be shutting down all the alcohol companies (Anheiser-Busch, etc.). They have too much power and influence, and would be hard to put out of business. There will always be a drug in the world called Alcohol, no matter where you go.

I suppose, just like there will always be weak people who soccumb to the use of them, and those that allow themselves to become addicted. Sort of sad that people know what happens to their bodies when you put toxins in it, yet they still do it because they are not strong enough to resist the temptation, but then again, neither could Adam.

Originally posted by SDuquette
I suppose, just like there will always be weak people who soccumb to the use of them, and those that allow themselves to become addicted. Sort of sad that people know what happens to their bodies when you put toxins in it, yet they still do it because they are not strong enough to resist the temptation, but then again, neither could Adam.

We are chemical beings. We have affinity for certain chemicals. And I'm not just talking about illegal ones like cocaine. I'm also talking about SUGAR, caffeine, fat, etc. We are also genetically predisposed to do things to excess because our ancient predecessors would gorge themselves not knowing when they would be able to eat again! Now most of us have little to worry about not eating, yet we still gorge or consume one or another thing to huge excess.

Personally I think drugs should all be legalized because having them be illegal is pointless and the government wastes about $100 Billion a year in a futile attempt to curtail the supply. Now we could still have SERIOUS penalties for people being caught having caused someone else harm while under the influence of a strongly 'altering' substance.