<p>Give me a break, patlees88 - Bush knew Iraq didn’t have weapons of mass destruction. And, even if he really thought they did, Bush’s strategy in Iraq was a total failure. He still won’t admit that (but some of his Republican colleagues will). Clinton and Kerry criticize Bush because of that, not because he invaded Iraq in the first place.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is news to me. If that is proven to be true, he would be in danger of being impeached, immediately.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh, I agree with you, completely. Bush did a terrible job of running the war, not establishing proper generals and leadership at the war front, and not controlling the troop numbers. But, that is not what I was pointing out before. Many democrats, politicians, and the general public blame Bush solely for invading Iraq in the first place. And, to be honest, the democrats weren’t much better handling this issue, either. We had a overwhelmingly democrat Congress for a while now, and I fail to see any progress that the Congress helped make in regards to the war, economy, foreign policy, etc.</p>
<p>Two things:</p>
<p>1st: Christianity uses the Old Testament (OT) as the basis for religion. Yes, Jesus was a nice guy and all, but the OT God is the most insane being to ever exist. He flooded the entire Earth b/c of sin and he’s actually lauded for this. He kills people for simply not believing in him. Here’s a great list of God mudering people and the petty reason he does so: [Dwindling</a> In Unbelief: How many has God killed?](<a href=“http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2006/08/how-many-has-god-killed.html]Dwindling”>Dwindling In Unbelief: How many has God killed?) . So patlees, if you actually want to argue that God, not Jesus, is a great, non-violent being, then please reconsider. Also, Christianity, before the 1980’s probably, was easily the most violent religion in history. I won’t repeat everything everyone else says. </p>
<p>2nd: Everyone saying Islam gets a bad rap solely due to the fundamentalism of a few fanatics completely ignored the link I provided which completely discounts that. In truth, violent, oppressive, and backwards views are held by a majority of Islamic followers. In Islamic countries, you can be killed for writing a book, drawing a cartoon, or simply off of the accusations of your husband. Women are forced to cover their entire bodies or be in constant fear of violence. Maybe American Muslims are more moderate, but just because they exist, doesn’t mean the core of the Arab Muslims doesn’t. </p>
<p>I’ll provide the link again so maybe you all won’t ignore it this time and continue talking out of your asses about how great and tolerant Arab Muslims are: [One</a> third of British Muslim students say it’s acceptable to kill for Islam | Mail Online](<a href=“One third of British Muslim students say it's acceptable to kill for Islam | Daily Mail Online”>One third of British Muslim students say it's acceptable to kill for Islam | Daily Mail Online)</p>
<p>It states nearly 1/3 of BRITISH Muslim STUDENTS believe killing in the name of religion is justified. Two things of note: That’s in Britain where I imagine the views to be far less fundamentalist as those of Arab Muslims. Second, these are educated people, who I imagine to be less fundamentalist than Arab Muslims. But it’s gets better. For British students involved in Islamic societies, acceptance of religious killings goes up to 60%.</p>
<p>The survey about British Muslims was based on a poll of 1400 students. Of these 1400 students, only 600 were Muslim. The study seems pretty flawed to me, and I will continue to assume its flawed until I can see more of its methodology- the fact that only 600 of the 1400 students surveyed were Muslim seems like a pretty big flaw to me.</p>
<p>“And, to be honest, the democrats weren’t much better handling this issue, either. We had a overwhelmingly democrat Congress for a while now, and I fail to see any progress that the Congress helped make in regards to the war, economy, foreign policy, etc.”</p>
<p>HAHAHHA u must be joking right? Are you an idiot!? There is one more democrate than republican in the Senate…and that’s the trader Joe L so it’s hardly a majority. If u think a deadlocked Senate can pass bills u have ur head in a hole. The Republicans are blocking Democratic actions so that they can say the Dems aren’t doing anything. But unless they have a 60/40 majority the Republicans can block anything they want. Cmon where the hell have u been…this is why I worry about the nation…ppl just think that since there is one more “Democrat [Joe L]” in the Senate than Republicans, the Senate can get things done. Guess what, THEY CAN’T! Especially with Bush having veto power.</p>
<p>Fine fair enough. I also found that methodology odd. (Although if anything it makes the Muslims students look better because they’re presumably fundamentalist views are counteracted by moderate views of non-Muslims.) But look at the chart at the bottom, it states that 60% of students active in Islamic societies (I assume they’re Muslim) think religious killings are justified. Explain away that one.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Dude, lighten up. I have noticed how you bring up childish insults and all other crap to infuriate other posters on this forum. Learn to develop a better and more civilized command of language. And, I am no idiot and I don’t have my head in a hole. I am afraid that the insults that you poured down onto me and others may describe your own problem. I have a 3.92 GPA and very likely scored much higher on SATs than you did. </p>
<p>Second, the Congress is made up of two bodies. Let me dumb it down for you: Senate and the House of Representatives. True, Democrats only have a slightly heavier representation in Senate, yet, they still hold the momentum of the Congress, overall, due to the fact that they have much more commanding presence in House of Representatives as they have a noticeably more representation compared to Republicans. So, in total, Democratic party is in noticeable advantage in excercising the power through Congress because they are technically in charge of the House of the Representatives and for the Senate, it still favors Democrats even by a slight margin.</p>
<p>Actually, in reference to my post #306, I take back what I said. The methodology of the study I linked to in post #303 is fine. Yes, the study asked 1400 students about their religious views, 600 of which were Muslims. Then, the article I linked to only reported the results of the Muslim students that took part in the study. So there’s no problem there.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is something that is impossible to prove, although many people believe he did know, and purposely misled America. And, with the Republican Congress for most of his presidency, there was no chance he would be impeached (and at this point it’s too late to impeach him, as the process takes time and his term ends pretty soon).</p>
<p>And as far as Congress fixing Bushes mess, it’s much easier said than done. It’s hard to get much done with a Republican president, and any bill Congress sends to the White House that Bush disagrees with, he vetoes it. The Democrats do not have a large enough representation in either Congressional body to overthrow his veto.</p>
<ol>
<li> Bush could be impeached immediately. There is ample evidence - including interviews from numerous people within the White House in 2002-2003 that explicitly state that the data came back inconclusive about Iraq’s weapon’s situation and the Bush administration forced them to manipulate the data in order to justify invasion. The people who did the manipulating have made these statements. Frontline did a story on it.<br></li>
</ol>
<p>The Bush administration was pushing hard to invade Iraq long before they found public traction with the weapons of mass destruction angle. I was paying extremely close attention (since I was considering joining the military) and they were shopping around any idea they could to try to find one that would stick. The entire war was created on lies and manipulation. </p>
<p>Bush could very legitimately be tried for treason and murder. They knew what they were doing. The only problem was that they thought they would get in, secure the oil reserves, and get out quickly. There is actually a book that lays the case out entitled “The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder” by Vincent Bugliosi. </p>
<p>These are criminals of the highest order. If they worked for Enron, they would be in jail or have committed suicide by now. The only reason he has not been put on trial is because it is not politically expedient for the Democrats to rock the boat that much.</p>
<ol>
<li> The reason Congress has failed to make progress is definitely due to the fact that it’s a slim majority. Even if Democrats set the tone (which they undoubtedly do now), they can propose a great deal more legislation but it is consistently blocked.</li>
</ol>
<p>Holy thread drift batman! I go to California for a Cornellian wedding and all of sudden you guys are arguing religion.</p>
<p>California, coincidentally, is succumbing to fires and earthquakes everywhere I look. Even more reason to love Ithaca.</p>
<p>Yeah, but it doesn’t take much for a discussion about Obama to draw out some strong opinions on race and religion. </p>
<p>Actually, this broad discussion pretty much covers the bases of why people both love and fear Obama.</p>
<p>lol sry I like to provoke, don’t b insulted. Bills have to pass both houses of Congress and then not get vetoed by Bush. How can Dems make real change when many things they are trying to change are hugely defended by the Republicans and Bush. There needs to be at least 60 dems in the Senate to have an anti-filibuster majority so now all they do is debate, debate, debate and try to just make bills that cant pass so that the public at least sees where they all stand. The dems can’t do anything “big” because they aren’t allowed to be big at this point. Maybe we’ll b able to see this type of change if more Dems get into Congress and Obama wins.</p>
<p>If the Dems maintain their majority in both houses of Congress AND Obama wins, we will start to see some large (and long-overdue) changes in America.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes like being in a socialist state where qualified people are passed over. I’d also love to have a President with a severe identity crisis who used hard drugs to get over it (read his books, they’re enlightening).</p>
<p>^^
Nah. We already tried that with Bush - from a socialist state to the daddy identity crisis to the hard drugs. </p>
<p>I’d much prefer someone like Obama who actually searched philosophically and spiritually to make sense of his complex background and emerged with a clear understanding of both the necessity to balance free market forces and government assistance as well as of himself in a world that demands people fit a stereotype.</p>
<p>I’m glad we agree.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Obama’s own history and words completely contradict that. He’s a stone-cold socialist: [Today</a> in Investor’s Business Daily stock analysis and business news](<a href=“http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=302137342405551]Today”>http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=302137342405551)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Obama, according to his autobiography, clearly defines himself as “black” and not what he is: biracial. Here’s a quote: “I ceased to advertise my mother’s race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites.” Sounds like a great guy. Or how about him referring to his grandmother as a “typical white person”. Yes, he sure has transcended race. The guy has been trying his entire life to distance himself from his white family because he desperately wants to be black, but knows he’s not authentic. </p>
<p>I’m not faulting you for agreeing with his politics. But don’t try to paint the guy as something he isn’t.</p>
<p>I’m incredibly apathetic about both candidates. McCain is a grumpy, stubborn old dude and Mr. “Where’s the Beef?” Obama has about as many credentials as myself, and I wouldn’t vote for myself. Seriously, McCain looks more senile and obsolete with every passing day, and I would think that the most powerful office in the country (eh scratch that, Ben Bernanke will own both of their souls regardless) requires more substance than Obama’s rhetoric. Good thing I’m not even a citizen so I don’t have to decide. LOL, Americans.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t understand why people keep posting opinion pieces to shore up their arguments. That link is one of the most biased pieces I’ve ever read - labeling any form of government involvement as “socialist”.</p>
<p>The whole “socialist” slander is interesting in this country. We have socialized fire protection, law enforcement, libraries, and military, yet no one ever complains about those. Conservatives actually take a great pride in these socialized programs. Yet try to protect people from disease rather than fires and you’re an evil dictator.</p>
<p>His health care plan, for one, is market-based with government filling in the holes. Your radical op-ed piece makes it sound like it’s imported from Cuba. </p>
<p>What Obama promotes is a political model that has provided European countries the highest overall quality of life in the world and a Euro far stronger than our own: Social Democracy. </p>
<p>Wikipedia defines it as: </p>
<p>…the formation of a democratic welfare state that incorporates both capitalist and socialist practices.[2] This is unlike socialism in the traditional sense, which aims to end the predominance of the capitalist system, or in the Marxist sense which aims to replace it entirely. Instead, social democrats aim to reform capitalism democratically through state regulation and the creation of programs and organizations which work to ameliorate or remove injustices they see in the capitalist market system. </p>
<p>If you disagree with that political model, that’s great. I do too in many ways. But to dismiss Obama as a pure “socialist” is just hyperbolic fearmongering and false.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As to your other point - I know he defines himself as “black”. He still has a very complex background and took years of introspection to come to terms with it. Whether he made the best decision is really something only he can know. I was just saying that I am comforted by a potential president with a history of self-analysis.</p>
<p>dontno, get over yourself why don’t you? And get over the fact that Obama’s a Black man. Why would a Black person desperately try to be Black? What would he gain by doing that? Affirmative action? Why can’t you just wait til November, when Obama becomes the first BLACK president to show how sore a loser you are?</p>