*DAMN R6 Forum

Every 20 years this Nation (the United States) elects a President that has the balls to do things that he feels are right, whether or not everyone else thinks so.  A person that rolls back taxes to help the economy, that increases the military power of the country, and that stands up for America and tells the rest of the world that you better not fuck with us.  In 1960 that person was John F. Kennedy.  In 1980 that person was Ronald Reagan.  In 2000 that person was George W. Bush.  For all the faults that everyone claims George Bush has, I would like to commend him for being a great leader.  He didn't sit back and take a poll when September 11 happened (like Clinton would have done) and he doesn't flip-flop on his convictions of what he BELIEVES is right and wrong (like John F'ing Kerry does).  He actually got up and led a Nation, he did something about it...this is the mark of a real leader.  So, whether you agree with his actions or not, at the very least you cannot say he doesn't stand for anything, because he has shown time and time again that he has the balls to take action on what he thinks is right.

Peace.

-GhostSniper Out.

Here's a fitting article just posted today on the subject:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2096654/

...I have high respect for JFk, and I don't think he was the type of president you paint him out to be.  He seemed to hold back against fanatical opinions wanting to invade and escalate the cold war.  Instead he took careful steps of diplomacy (ie. cuban missile crisis).  It was when he died and another Texan took office, LBJ, that the US began (in summary) the fanatical "don't fuck with us" attitude, which led to the mistakes in Vietnam.  

What happened to Colin Powel Ghost?  I remember a shitload of voters backed voting for bush because of his strong cabinet.  Seems to me that the very people that held all the respect of the Bush vote have little if any influence on the Bush administration.  And it doesn't look as if Condi, or Colin are coming along for the next reelection campaign.  

lol sorry, just for a moment there i though you were refering to those as good things. haha

Actually....dont seem like Bush is in charge of the U.S......to me it seem that Rumsfeldt and they boyz are using Bush as a puppet.....that scares me more...but you know about me and Donald.

Actually, John F. Kennedy got us into Vietnam, not LBJ.  LBJ just happened to be in there when the shit really started hitting the fan after the Gulf of Tonkin incident on August 4, 1964.


Hey, I would be first in line to vote if Colin Powell would just run for President himself.  But there is no way that will happen this election.  I do, however, believe that Powell will remain the Secretary of State for Bush's second term in office.  I think all of the rumors you are hearing about him getting out of the cabinet after this election are just that, rumors.

It just bothers me that when Bush went into office he claimed to be a uniter not a divider, this is the most polarized electorate in some time. This administration is the most "say one thing, do another" administration we've had in 20 years, I agree. I would replace the JFK(Democrat) comparison with a more proper one, Nixon(Republican).

The Bush administration cashed in on a nation tragedy for political gain, and used the resulting fear to confuse and take advantage of the American people. The fact that after 9/11 talking out against the President was not only a taboo, but seen as unpatriotic is sickening. This is not what a democracy is all about.

As far as 20 years, I would say the President has taken this country back a good 20 years when it comes to foreign policy, economy and environmental regulations. And if you want to talk about flip flopping, look a GWB's opinion on gay marriage in 2000, then he said it should be a state decision.

Its all about perspective, there are people who make a living alter the perception of the electorate, and GWB's are the best funded.

Or a christian Fundamentalist... He follows what he believes is right without any regard for reality... he follows what his ideals are without negotiation, without respect to actuality.


Not being funny but thats exactly what Al-Quieda does... Take actions for what it/they believe in. Obvioiusly Binladen believes that what he has done was right - and he took action... What he thinks is right dosn't exactly agree with what i think is right, but then again nor does bush. Just becasue you do somthing you believe in dosn't make it right. Because you act on your believes dosn't give reason to commend anything.

If Acting on your believes is to be commended then do you commend Hitler, Pinocet, Binladen ect... do you commend them for acting on their beliefs?

The similarity between binlarden and Bush is actually rather suprising... Both have 'ideals' that they want to inpose on the rest of the world.. Both appear to believe that god is on their side and theirfore that they are right... Both appear to have no sense of the balence between ideals and reality, or any sense that you have no right to inpose ideas on others to this extent.

GS just got PIZZONED!! Very valid point BFG

oh.. heh ty ;)  what exactly is pizzoned?

What's wrong with being a Christian Fundamentalist?

Under my avatar, if I had the room, it would say:

Militant Right-Wing Conservative Republican Christian Fundamentalist.

But I ran out of room for the whole thing :(

If im not mistaken Bush released a TV commercial recently, If someone knows a link to a online version I'd sure like to see it, thanks.

I'm confused. Are you trying to say that Kennedy, Reagan, and Jr. are the ONLY presidents that have done some bold shit? I would tend to disagree. Every president has the "balls to do things that he feels are right, whether or not anyone else thinks so."

Hell, Clinton banged Lewinsky. Clinton certainly had the balls to do that, and I bet he thought it was right (at the time?and I bet he has no regrets ;) ). But you can bet your ass there were a bunch of people that thought he was wrong.

I think your thesis should be revised to: Every 4 years this Nation (the United States) elects a President that has the balls to do things that he feels are right, whether or not everyone else thinks so.?

Joka, here are the latest Bush-Cheney 04' ads http://www.georgewbush.com/tvads/ (http://www.georgewbush.com/tvads/)  they are good for a laugh beacuse they are so corny. I really wanted to see Bush speaking in spainish, but the Spainish version isnt available on the ad where Bush talks, wonder why...

GS, there is nothing wrong with a Christian fundametalist, as long as they stay out of the White House!

As for similarities between Bush and Bin Laden, both of their families made loads of cash in the Saudi oil business, hmmmmmm.

Fundamentalists have no fucking grip on reality what so fucking ever. You're making yourself look very very bad by saying that GS. I guess in your situation it doesn't change anything though, you already look bad as it is.

Kennedy got us into Vietnam yes, but in a very small and limited way. Much like the military actions Clinton ordered during his presidency.

LBJ is the one that escalated things. There is even evidence that Kennedy wanted to scale down our presense in Vietnam. Don't pin LBJ's war on Kennedy.

And don't even get me started about the lies misrepresentation of facts that is the Gulf of Tonkin. It was a bullshit excuse to get us further involved. I'm not saying we should not have been there, just our reason was bullshit. Hrm, another interesting parallel to the invasion of Iraq....

As far as I am concerned back in the Vietnam era America had three good presidents in a row. All of them had their bad sides (JFK- Bay of Pigs, LBJ- Nam, Nixon-Watergate) yet they changed America overall for the better.

Remember the Voting Rights Act which was passed by LBJ? Also remember LBJ was instrumental in the movement when he was Senate Majority Leader. Do not forget about his whole bundle of Great Society Programs.

Nixon got us to open foreign relations with China and he created the EPA. So I think that whole decade was full of very influential presidents that contributed

Christian fundamentalists are crazy first of all.  They take every idea in the bible to an extreme literal meaning.  An example of this is that in the bible it says that people that are homosexual should be killed.  Christian fundamentalists try and kill these people sometimes....now that is crazy.

As for Bush, what a dumbass.  He is so focused on completing what his father couldn't do it is not even funny.  Here's an interesting fact for you, our school systems are suffering and heres the reason why...456 billion dollars invested in the military, 50 billion in our school system.  Another dumbass thing Bush did is mess up the problem in Israel/Palistein that Clinton was so close to ending.  Good one Bush.  O and our economy, one of the best ever while Clinton was in office..  look at the charts and as soon as Bush gets in the lines start to go down down down.

College Guy

[Just getting rid of the crap related to Golden Shark's post. Ace]

As for this once every 20 years crap ... as Ace says, I call bullshit on you.

For one, I'd never give Reagan or Bush any cred. They don't deserve to be recognised as heroic leaders. They barely register as leaders. Mostly, they are misguided foolish men lead astray by the desire of others, those that misuse their likely sincere desire to Do Good, but use it to benefit the rare few.

That being said, do I think Kerry is going to be the next FDR? No. Do I think he's light years ahead of Bush? Yes.

As for the once in every 20 years: it's more like once in a blue moon.

Washington.

Lincoln.

FDR.

In my mind, there is no one else worth mentioning in the same breath.

To compare Reagan to JFK is to be ridiculous at best. One brokered, luckily, an incredible peace despite the hawks who sought Armageddon. The other spent gobs and gobs of the people's money, driving up our deficit and presiding over gluttonously irresponsible military spending, constantly shoving Russia in a deadly game of economic (and worse, nuclear) brinkmanship.


In either case, that we have survived these two is largely due to luck. In my opinion, humble tho it ain't, neither truly deserves the credit they are given.

As for Bush's own Churchill comparisons, they offend me, not least because I am half-brit, but mostly because Bush has been an incompetent war leader whereas Churchill is one of the icons of wartime competence.

And as for fundamentalism ... I think all fundamenalists are crazy. But clearly they make good soldiers.


At last, this: Ghost:

"He (Bush) doesn't flip-flop on his convictions of what he BELIEVES is right and wrong."

I quote The Daily KOS:

>>>
So Bush has a site somewhere that tracks Kerry's "flip-flops". Reader TK probably spent three seconds coming up with this list of Bush flip flops. It's not like they're hard to find:

Bush is against campaign finance reform; then he's for it.

Bush is against a Homeland Security Department; then he's for it.

Bush is against a 9/11 commission; then he's for it.

Bush is against an Iraq WMD investigation; then he's for it.

Bush is against nation building; then he's for it.

Bush is against deficits; then he's for them.

Bush is for free trade; then he's for tariffs on steel; then he's against them again.

Bush is against the U.S. taking a role in the Israeli Palestinian conflict; then he pushes for a "road map" and a Palestinian State.

Bush is for states right to decide on gay marriage, then he is for changing the constitution.

Bush first says he'll provide money for first responders (fire, police, emergency), then he doesn't.

Bush first says that 'help is on the way' to the military ... then he cuts benefits

Bush-"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. Bush-"I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care.

Bush claims to be in favor of the environment and then secretly starts drilling on Padre Island.

Bush talks about helping education and increases mandates while cutting funding.

Bush first says the U.S. won't negotiate with North Korea. Now he will

Bush goes to Bob Jones University. Then say's he shouldn't have.

Bush said he would demand a U.N. Security Council vote on whether to sanction military action against Iraq. Later Bush announced he would not call for a vote

Bush said the "mission accomplished" banner was put up by the sailors.? Bush later admits it was his advance team.

Bush was for fingerprinting and photographing Mexicans who enter the US. Bush after meeting with Pres. Fox, he's against it.
<<<

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/3/7/213753/1954 (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/3/7/213753/1954)

Flippity, floppity, flo! And this is a short list.

oh you dirty liberal talking points goon you. flip, then flop, then next round....all 30 of them

http://www.gop.com/kerryvskerry/

Cutter, you always bring a grin to my face!

Here's a fun piece from the Daily Show. It's a little old, but fun.

http://www.comedycentral.com/tv_shows/thedailyshowwithjonstewart/videos_corr.jhtml?startIndex=13&p=stewart (http://www.comedycentral.com/tv_shows/thedailyshowwithjonstewart/videos_corr.jhtml?startIndex=13&p=stewart)

Grab the "Bush vs Bush" video.

Pres Bush v Gov/Candidate Bush

It makes a very clear point: Bush is the flipperest of them all.


:-)

No, I didn't say they are the ONLY Presidents, I was just referring to the 20 year paradox that happens when a President is elected in a year ending in 0.  Those three Presidents had something in common that they all lowered taxes, which boosted the economy, they all faught against downsizing the military, and they all boldly stood up for this country when the shit hit the fan (Cuban Missile Crisis for Kennedy, Out-Spending the Soviets by Reagan which ended the Cold War, and the War on Terrorism for Bush).

Also, there is a neat little paradox for Presidents elected in years ending in 0.  For instance, nearly every President elected in a year ending in 0 has either been assasinated, or has had an attempted assasination that nearly succeeded.  Of those who were not assasinated, all others died in office.  The first instance of this was William Henry Harrison who was elected in 1840 and died in office of pneumonia and bilious pleurisy. Abraham Lincoln was elected in 1860...and was assasinated in 1865.  Then James Garfield was elected in 1880 and was assasinated the next year.  In 1900 William McKinley was elected President and was later assasinated.  In 1920 Warren Harding was elected President.  He died in office from ptomaine poisoning and then pneumonia.  The next President in this list is Franklin Roosevelt who was elected in 1940 and died in office in 1945.  Then there is John F. Kennedy elected in 1960 and assasinated in 1963.  Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980 and was nearly killed by an assasins bullet.  George W. Bush was elected in 2000.  Many astrologers believe that he will follow the trend.

I don't believe in astrology.

Peace.

-GhostSniper the Aries Out.

i saw that episode six, it was great! did you watch the bill maher show this week? apparantly john kerry thinks he's black.  he actually said this..."President Clinton was often known as the first black president. I wouldn't be upset if I could earn the right to be the second."  

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/03/08/politics2044EST0776.DTL

and after seeing that pic you linked us too...

I'm not crazy.  They do not take every idea in the bible to an extreme literal meaning.  Show me where in the Bible it says that people that are homosexual should be killed?  I've been studying the Bible probably since before you were born.  I've memorized much of 6 different versions of the Bible.  In those different interpretations, I cannot for the life of me recall the Bible saying to kill homosexuals.


lol....problem in Israel/Palistein that Clinton was  so close to ending?  You mean the problem that has been going on since Biblical Times?  Sorry, but I think you need to read the book of Revelation and realize that the Israel/Palistein problem wont end until the world does.

As for all the money that the U.S. spends on the military and not on education....would you like to keep being able to use the education system that we have?  Because if you stop spending on the military just who the hell is going to defend your freedom to go to school.

You need to drop out of school.  You are an idiot and college really isn't going to help that.

-GhostSniper Out.

What really ticks me off about Bush is that He says the all popular quote "United we stand" He dose a pretty shitty job of that. pretty much half the nation hates him and half likes him..Thus creating tension between the 2 parties.  George has also done wonders to the eduacational system..not to mention the enviornment..I have to stop or else ill start punching things.

If george keeps running things the way he is it wont be his choice to drop out or not...

One point I actually agree with you about .

Heheh. Yah, Kerry wants to be the second black president.

Wft, Kerry?

I guess no one speaks perfectly ...

You sure?


;-)


Just picking on ya.

Oh BFG....

How I wub you now.
I could not have spoken with a clearer voice =)
I think Bush and Bin Laden might actually be brothers.
But its not confirmed just yet.
But just you wait and see.

Does anyone here use newgrounds.com they have a cool site.

Its times like these that I must say thank god for being born in Australia not the USA.

Having said that Australia is being quite a good lap dog to the USA at the moment, but I wont go into that here.

As an outsider looking in, I see a country that is prepared to ignore its own values for what I can only guess are internal political reasons.

A good example is what is happening to the detainees in Cuba. They are being held outside American law, and being held without the benefit of international law. Even the lawyers acting on behalf of the detainees (US Military lawyers this is) say that the detainees will not get justice.

Now is this a President standing up and doing things or is this a country that is prepared to thumb its nose to the world because they are the only superpower left?

Me, I just am happy that I live in a small little country down the ass end of the world.

Gs, if there was a lot more invested in education, ppl would get better education, wich makes 'em better negotiaters. It seams to me violence is your only solution. But violence only creates more violence. Look at palestina.

In belgium (that's the little dot somewhere near the UK and france) we invest in our military, but we invest more in our education (still not enough though). The main reason we don't get threads from other country's is because we try to stay friends with most of the surrounding countrys by negotiating.
I know you guys negotiate too, but the fact you use your military as your flag towards the rest of the world isn't gonna help your image get better.

To me violence is only good to defend in extreme matters, other conflicts should be handled by negotiating.

Heeyee, heeyee. You go girl

Oh damn, and all this time I thought Sentinel was a MAN!    ;)

I am, but Joka and I are just good friends (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~damnr6/yabbse/YaBBImages/beer.gif)

 ;D

You know Belgium is worlds biggest beer exporting country in the world since last week! Now that is something to be proud of!

OMG we are? yay I am proud now.
And ghostsniper whats is the importants thing that you know how to use a gun or that you know how to read and write?
In the first part you will have people killing everybody because they dont know better and in the 2nd one you will be drinking belgian beer with your ennemies.
Many say keep your ennemies close not wipe them out.

People like you create only more war and are a dangere to everybody
making weapons to avoid war is the most stupid thing ever.
I dont think the cold war stopped because both countries are still trying to have more weapons then the other one.

And you say you are a christian fundamentlist... well islam fundamentlists blow themself up so he what do you do? I dont think you are a fundamentlist you just want to think you are one. You go to church every week? You never use condoms? You support everything the church says? Bush is no fundamentlist either he just says like every american president "god save america" and thinks he is better then the rest of the world

Ghost please tell me why you feel that America needs the largest military force in the world to *cough* protect your freedom *cough* so you can be eductated? Funny but last time i looked there isn't a single country in the rest of the world with a Military force even half the power.... Yet they don't seem to have this amazing need to "defend your freedom to education".....

This thread is rated PG for Patriotic Garbage.

What more can I say, whenever I see "United we stand" or "Protect your freedom" in a thread, I tend to become a bit nauseous.

Hmm, let's see, so the next time that Europe breaks out into war, and all you guys over there want to call on the United States to be your peacekeeper, we could just say no, sorry, we don't have the military power to support such an endeaver.  Boy, World War II would have really sucked for you guys if America had taken that attitude on.  Seems to me, Europe wants to bitch about America's power all the time, but when the shit really hits the fan over there you sure are glad we have a large military.

Peace.

-GhostSniper Out.

Holy shit guys, careful you don't step in the bull-shit. Ghost, I thought you had a history degree or something. If you do, I'd seriously start to doubt it's validity.

The united states DID NOT have a large military prior to WWII, like your post implies. In fact, I think we were ranked 13th as far as size and it was one of the most outdated in the world.

The absolute most amazing thing about the US involvement in WWII is the speed at which our economy was able to switch into war production and take us from a tiny military to the largest, most powerful military the world has ever seen.

So you see, it's entirely possible to keep a small peacetime military and STILL be able to bail out the euros the next time they have a domestic. ;D

Or you Euros can always turn to us Russians to be your liberators.

Actually, that isn't exactly true alaric...

The United States began building up its military into a powerhouse 2 years before we got into the war.  When Japan bombed Pearl Harbor in 1941, we had already switched production of many of our automobile factories (among others) into factories to make airplanes, tanks, and other military equipment.  So although we didn't have the huge military in 1941 that we had, in say, 1944, we still had already reached triple our normal peacetime military strength by 1941.

Now, of course, we see the error of our ways in not ALWAYS having a large well-trained military, so we keep one going on a permanent basis.  I prefer it this way.  I just sleep better.

Peace.

-GhostSniper Out.

well, WW2 started in 1938, and Ford made a fortune out of selling Nazi-Germany it's trucks.

Elan

Actually, WWII started on September 1, 1939, when Germany invaded Poland.  But you are correct, Ford did make a fortune selling the Germans their trucks.  A little known piece of history is that during WWII, Adolf Hitler kept a picture of Henry Ford on his desk, and Henry Ford kept a picture of Adolf Hitler on his desk.  But Ford wasn't the only one making money on the Nazi's....IBM sold Nazi Germany specialized computers that allowed the Nazi's to accurately track how many Jews they had killed.  How disgusting is that?

These are just two of the American companies that did such things....the list of contributors to the Nazi regime is quite long.  German scientists also got a head start in their rocketry skills from an American named Robert Goddard.  Without Goddard's research the Germans would never have been able to build a V-1 or V-2 during the war.  Ironically, the U.S. Government didn't want to invest in Goddard's research and he died in 1945 without anyone knowing how important he was to modern rocketry.  When the U.S. started questioning the German rocket scientists after the war, they were stunned to learn that Robert Goddard was the inspiration they had used to make the mighty V-1 and V-2 that were sent into London as terror weapons during the war.