Civil Arguements

Also, the economy would have dropped no matter who was president during the 2000-04 term. Clinton (who I liked btw) did have it easy because the economy boomed due to the ".com" era. That had nothing to do with Clinton. The internet is what made the economy sky rocket and after a while, the weaker ".com" businesses naturally went under which would have happened no matter who was president. Plus, the 9/11 situation was a major issue that effected the economy and Bush handled that situation well IMO. If Gore was president, the US would have ended up looking like cowarding pussies.

^(wipes tear, beautiful)^

aw if i could b bofad readin that im sure it would b very sweet!

Myth likes his political science (the study of Government and Community). 😛

Originally posted by Myth
If Gore was president, the US would have ended up looking like cowarding pussies.

I liked Clinton to , but they give him too much credit as you have pointed out. Myth

you make good points but saddamm was obviously bluffing.....bush went to war stictly to overthrow saddam the WMDs are just smoke and mirrors my point is that bush lied about why we went to war if you guys think that he actully had bio and chemical weapons than thats your opinion my opinon is that he went to war to overthrow saddam coz everyone knows the history between the bushes and saddam, but we didnt find anything....even Powell said we didnt find anything....and i dont think we lost any soldiers on the airstrike clinton ordered....were losing 500,000 and counting with bush

Well, I said that there was 2 reasons with 1 being to overthrow Saddam and Bush admitted that. As to Bush's real intentions for going over there? Well, I guess we'll never know. But just because it is possible that WMDs weren't his real reason, doesn't mean he is a liar because nothing proves that those weren't his intentions. So you are assuming that he lied about his intentions and I am assuming that he didn't. But nothing proves it one way or the other because the only way to know if he is lying is if he admits it or we look into his mind somehow.

700 dude... in vietnam we lost like a 100 a day.
he could have lied and said we did find them. That would be the easy way out... since it hasn;t happened why would someone sacrifice themselves on a notion that they lied about yet could have easily countered?

Simply he's telling the truth.

Originally posted by Myth
Well, I said that there was 2 reasons with 1 being to overthrow Saddam and Bush admitted that. As to Bush's real intentions for going over there? Well, I guess we'll never know. But just because it is possible that WMDs weren't his real reason, doesn't mean he is a liar because nothing proves that those weren't his intentions. So you are assuming that he lied about his intentions and I am assuming that he didn't. But nothing proves it one way or the other because the only way to know if he is lying is if he admits it or we look into his mind somehow.

exactly...thats why i say my opionion and your opinion

But it still doesn't prove him to be a liar, and thats my point.

ok...you gotta good point....but on the flip side we dont exactly know if he's tellin the truth either

Thats correct. We don't know if he is telling the truth. But you can say that about anybody.

See. This is nice. We have gone 93 posts without bashing. I'm happy.

hey myth.....ima prob not gon come back on kmc again i know but my dad caught me an he might check it out on his comp....ill try pop in occasionaly when me dads not home!
pm me if ya want my email!
xxoo misha

you cant say that about people who backup there claims with facts and proof

But you can always question somebodies intentions. Intentions can't be proved.

good point....we need a new subject...i'm sick of talkin about bush....we need a new civil argument

Sounds good to me. Um... topic anybody?

Censorship maybe..