  REPLY by Liberal Also, a couple more things to research and consider on your own: Bush is fighting a war on terrorism. Bush heavily supports the use of fossil fuels over establishing renewable energies as a fuel source. Because of his energy policies, American is by FAR the largest consumer of fossil fuels (oil) in the world. Where does the U.S. get it's oil? Countries in the Middle-East like Saudi Arabia who have state-sponsored terrorism (research that if you don't believe me). Breaking all of that down simply results in this: George Bush's energy policies, which are heavily supported by the majority of Republicans, have made American the largest funder of terrorism in the world.
Another tidbit is this: Bush has raised our national debt to the highest it's ever been (even after being given a huge budget surplus). This debt is REAL debt; it's not some vague number that means nothing like Cheney believes. So, where does the money the government use to buy everything come from if we have such a large debt? The answer is foreigners. Republicans are selling off American land, businesses, and anything else they can to foreigners to get the money our government uses. Do you think this is a good thing?
Do you think this fits in with George Bush's foreign policies? Ian REPLY by Conservative And isn't it true the only reason we can't tap the incredible oil sources that are located IN this country (Texas, for example) is because the leftist environmentalist wackos won't let us, and have passed laws forbidding the refining here? Where are we to go for oil? Bush had a surplus and cut taxes, because, as Reaganomics proves, a lower tax rate can create higher revenues for the government. It's an economic principle I am familiar with -- I can draw the graph for you. Then, September 11th happened.
No one could be prepared for that. The onslaught that came afterwards has put us into debt. Looking back, the war was a mistake. Bush was given incorrect information that he acted on in the best way he knew how. He had to protect us from another terrorist attack, which even now they are saying could still happen. You may not believe al-Qaida and Saddam and North Korea are linked, but I see the same evil in all of them.
I don't support going to war, it sucks. My friend who works at KPFF went to Cornell with Nick Berg. We talked about the war once, and she started crying. War hurts -- but I believe it makes us stronger. We are not weaker because of this, terrorism is. Like I told Gilbert, and I don't know if you heard this or not, but the Iraqi Interim President and some civilians (I believe), in conjunction with the handover, held a press conference at the beginning of the week thanking the Bush administration for the risk it took liberating Iraq and the lives it sacrificed.
Only one media outlet, FoxNews if I am correct, covered the press conference. No one else did. No one else wanted to see Bush get any CREDIT for the war. We can't THANK him, that would be preposterous! Those doing the thanking had to take out -- pay for -- a full page AD in USA Today to get their message across. No reporters would write the story.
Some media is right and some media is left. You oppose the war, I support the president (for other reasons we haven't even got in to). We think differently, and I can live with that. I realize nothing I say can change your mind, and nothing you say can change mine. I agree we need to get as much information as we can, but where are we to get NEUTRAL information from? It's a matter of deciding your news source.
Are we going to be pessimistic about what's happening, or look to the future and accent the positives? The war happened -- it's over by the way, we won -- but struggles still occur. All the struggles that HAVEN'T HAPPENED because of Bush or anyone else for that matter, we can't complain about, can we? Nor can the "optimist" hoot and holler that "hey, we prevented something! " Who's to know what could have happened. Anyway, it's interesting to talk about this, but I don't think it's good for us to get all fired up inside at work.
I appreciate your questions, but I don't feel I'm in any position to debate. The minority, Conservative REPLY by Liberal You're missing the point. Oil is not the only energy source around; it's merely the cheapest to tap, that is, if you disregard the costs of public health, pollution, and damage to our environments by using fossil fuels. Did you know even if we ravaged the entire American wilderness and sucked up every last bit of oil in the U.S. we would only be able to use that oil to sustain our use for at MOST 30 years. Where do we go after that? The vast majority of oil is located in the Middle East.
The point is that oil is NON-renewable. We are going to run out of it at our current rate of use within our lifetimes, even if we tapped every oil well in the world. Instead of investing and promoting other renewable energies and thereby strengthening the U.S. in the long-term, Bush is bent on using up all our non-renewable energy as quickly as possible without regard for the environment, pollution, or public health, which the use of fossil- fuels significantly effect. Our current debt is not because of 9/11. It is because Bush used that surplus to give an enormous tax cut to the ultra- wealthy (his professed political base), because he started a war that is costing billions, and because he cut taxes. Do you agree with Reagan's view that making the wealthy wealthier benefits the poor because it will "trickle-down"?
That is exactly what Bush is doing, just like Reagan did and history has proven that it does NOT work. On a side-note, what is your opinion on strict, longer jail sentences and the death sentence? Bush is famous for his love of the death penalty and he executed more prisoners than any other souvenir in history, but studies have conclusively and repeated shown that the death penalty and stricter prison terms for crime does NOT deter crime. Do you support his policy on this issue? Why do you think what we're doing hurts terrorism? The effect of Bush's foreign policy and war in Iraq and Afghanistan has only destabilized the countries making it possible for terrorism to flourish.
Statistics show since Bush started his war on Terrorism, terrorism has significantly gone UP. His war is not working. How do you explain this? What is this common evil you see in North Korea and al-Qaida? Have you considered that the reason no one (in the world) is thanking Bush for the war is because it's a bad thing and Bush messed it up? Why do you think he had to force the U.S. to start this war alone?
Go look at a list of Bush's supposed supporter of the war. You'll be amazed at the countries on that list as well as the actual amount of support they've given to the war. Specialty groups put out full page ads in the major newspapers all the time; it's not an extreme thing to do, as if all the liberals were trying to shut those joyful Iraqis up. Take a look at polls done regarding Iraqi's and their opinion of Bush and the war. The majority of them don't support Bush, the war, or the occupation. At most they admit that they are glad Saddam is gone, but those who profess that also say they are in worse shape then they were in before.
I haven't heard you comment on the number of Iraqi civilians (10,000) that have died in the war. Do you consider that an acceptable number? It doesn't seem large for a war that is supposed to be helping the Iraqi population? How can you say the war is over and we won? What do you base this on? Are basing this on the same info that led Bush to declare "all major combat has ended"?
"Mission accomplished"? More than 700 U.S. soldiers have died since he publicly stated those two phrases. You might have a hard time changing my mind about Bush, but the feeling I get from what you've said is that you haven't heavily researched what Bush has done in office, in America and overseas. It sounds like most of the sources you get news from are heavily biased and that you're just voting for your team. I don't just naturally disagree with conservatives and side with liberals; I get informed and make my own decision with listening to extremists voice their own wild agendas. You might feel like conservatives are being unfairly ganged up on right now, but look at world opinion polls.
The majority of the WORLD doesn't agree with what Bush is doing or has done. It isn't logical to dismiss the rest of the world as a bunch of wacko liberals; so that only leaves the option that there is a good amount of sense to what everyone is saying. Taking a defensive position against what you discern as a liberal agenda will only hurt yourself and your ability to form your own opinion about what is happening right now. Don't worry about talking about politics at work. I'm not judging you or getting angry; I enjoy talking politics because it is important to do so. Ian Additional REPLY to coworker by Conservative: That's so funny you ask that!!
The DUI and the drug use is a big reason I support Bush. People make mistakes and do stupid illegal things, but it takes a strong person to realize he doesn't have control of his life and take the responsible steps to stop it. Did you know George Bush doesn't drink alcohol at all? He had problems (obviously a DUI, which he has lived up to) and knows his limits and what it does to him, so he avoids it. That to me is a strength I greatly respect. I think Rush makes some good points.
He's not my favorite person, but I enjoy listening to him. He makes things seem like such common sense. I'm a traditional conservative person -- I believe in responsibility, keeping yourself out of trouble, paying your own health care, not sucking off the government and doing it for yourself. I like what Rush says, because he thinks the same way. I hadn't heard the "frat boy pranks" thing, but my thought is, and I haven't gotten this from anyone but me, that yes it was wrong, but they would have done the same thing to us. I don't support it, but I accept that it happened and I would have only assumed something like it would happen.
It's the world we live in. Does that mean Donald Rumsfeld was ok in keeping the info to himself and letting it slide? No. I remember during Hurricane Isabel watching FoxNews (I was glued to the TV, seeing how I'm from MD and love the OBX) and absolutely HATING this one blonde bushy haired squeaky voiced reporter. She was so annoying! It left a sour taste in my mouth regarding FoxNews.
I do read the NyTimes headlines, yahoo headlines, and the Seattle Times. I'm more of a written article girl than a broadcast journalism girl. Broadcast is all about the disturbing image... writing is a talent. That's just my opinion. Anyway :-) Conservative 
