Better or worse off after elections?

Do you think we will be better off, worse off or stay the same as a country now that the election is over?

---

› See More: Better or worse off after elections?

I feel better, sh^t is outa control!
Got to get our country back from the money hungry R party.

Watch how the Democrats keep kissing the Neocon ass!
DO NOT BE DECEIVED, the USA is a one-party totalitarian state.
The 'elite' (1% of the population) are nicely served by the fiction of Republican - Democrat opposition.
However, there are laws in place which can convict Bush & all the scum at the top.
Let's hope...

The US is much better off for the time being with Democrat controlled congress, the 1 party monopoly needed to go.

We're definitely better off. Most of the rest of the world feels a lot better too. I was about to throw up an article about that...

I disagree. I think that we will become much weaker as a Nation. The new leadership will give away our freedoms and the country in the form of allowing the ILLEGAL immagrants free reign. They will also fold the "war on terror" so we will be a sitting duck in a few years if someone wants to attack us from within again.

Originally Posted by CellPhoneTimmy

I disagree. I think that we will become much weaker as a Nation. The new leadership will give away our freedoms and the country in the form of allowing the ILLEGAL immagrants free reign. They will also fold the "war on terror" so we will be a sitting duck in a few years if someone wants to attack us from within again.

Amen Brother!!

Originally Posted by CellPhoneTimmy

I disagree. I think that we will become much weaker as a Nation. The new leadership will give away our freedoms and the country in the form of allowing the ILLEGAL immagrants free reign. They will also fold the "war on terror" so we will be a sitting duck in a few years if someone wants to attack us from within again.

A) We will probably give illegal immigrants amnesty. This will not be the first time this has happened. It was done by Reagan, Bush Sr., and Clinton also. Keep in mind that republicans (which Bush obviously is) have done it more than democrats.

B) We were losing the war on terror anyway. I doubt anything will change here, but a change in gameplan was necessary. Nothing good was coming out of the way Bush/Rumsfeld were handling things. Even Rumsfeld said that a new line of thinking was needed when he stepped down.

C) Nothing that the Bush administration has done has prevented anything from happening. He had the opportunity to stop 9/11 and didn't. Why? I don't know. He was probably on vacation. Before 9/11, he vacationed more than any other president in history.

Originally Posted by spum

We're definitely better off. Most of the rest of the world feels a lot better too. I was about to throw up an article about that...

Yep that's exactly what I'm worried about, "THE REST OF THE WORLD" I'll bet all the terrorists are happier now too. The world hates the US not becuase of G. W.(an idiot but at least he thinks he is doing the right thing)or the Reps. but becuase we have what they can't get.....Freedom. In the 90's do you think it was Bush's fault the US Cole was blown up? I'll bet that it was. He probably planned it from Texas.(wink,wink)None of the politicians have a clue both sides only work for their own self betterment. You ask better off? Well we are no better and no worse. Dems want to take my hard earned money(and I mean hard earned) and give it to people who don't deserve it nor do they want to get a job. Reps. want to tell me that I am an immoral idiot(it gets me that reps are supposed to be a party of small govt. but they want to tell you how to live.). Don't get me wrong I love the USA and I hate socialism and comunism and if we were one of those societies I think I would shoot myself. Something needs to be done to control both sides. We are living in times of extremes and both extremes hate each other and don't want to listen to those they are supposed to serve.
Back to the topic as I said no better, no worse.

Quote from spum"B) We were losing the war on terror anyway. I doubt anything will change here, but a change in gameplan was necessary. Nothing good was coming out of the way Bush/Rumsfeld were handling things. Even Rumsfeld said that a new line of thinking was needed when he stepped down."

If people would listen to the Soldiers you would not have this thinking. Also if the Politicians would listen to them they would be able to do what they need to get things done. Political powers heading you off at every corner really suck. Also don't listen to the news about the war it is all propiganda to better the standing of the politicians with the people. Why do you think it is that so many politicians say one thing to one crowd and another to the other crowd. They are two faced and will say anything to get votes and money.

Again from Spum"C) Nothing that the Bush administration has done has prevented anything from happening. He had the opportunity to stop 9/11 and didn't. Why? I don't know. He was probably on vacation. Before 9/11, he vacationed more than any other president in history." So from your viewpoint Bush is a traitor and a piece of scum. You probably think that B.C. was the best president in history. Wake up and smell bill's butt it stinks just like G.W.'s. Bill had chances to capture and bomb the terrorists that were involved in 9/11 but he bombed an aspirin factory instead. In my opinion every president all the way back to Carter are to blame. Carter the great peace man(or pansy in his case) negotiated with terrorists back in the 70's and still does today. You think G.W. is a traitor then so is Carter and every president since.

When our enemies (I'm talking terrorists here) become jubilant over the outcome of an election that shifts power away from the status quo, this is not a good sign that things are going to be better for our country.

Originally Posted by spum

A) We will probably give illegal immigrants amnesty. This will not be the first time this has happened. It was done by Reagan, Bush Sr., and Clinton also. Keep in mind that republicans (which Bush obviously is) have done it more than democrats.

B) We were losing the war on terror anyway. I doubt anything will change here, but a change in gameplan was necessary. Nothing good was coming out of the way Bush/Rumsfeld were handling things. Even Rumsfeld said that a new line of thinking was needed when he stepped down.

C) Nothing that the Bush administration has done has prevented anything from happening. He had the opportunity to stop 9/11 and didn't. Why? I don't know. He was probably on vacation. Before 9/11, he vacationed more than any other president in history.

A) Not probably...but definitely

B) The media would have you believe that we were losing the war on terror. We weren't, and it's obvious if you take a non-partisan look at it. I have many friends over there and they are flabbergasted at the coverage this war gets by our own media (who want to see Bush fail as much as the democrats do).

C) This is where you really lose your credibility Spum. The first sentence is blatantly false. Secondly, the Clinton administration had a policy that made it near impossible for our intelligence gathering agencies to share information with each other. Imagine if the different departments at Verizon were not allowed to share information with each other freely, how hard would it be for you to function in your job? Thirdly, this whole vacation thing...you can do better than that...any modern day President, whether physically at the the Ranch or at Camp David or on the golf course or Burger King or Martha's Vineyard, can perform his job the same as at the Oval Office.

Originally Posted by mayford5

Yep that's exactly what I'm worried about, "THE REST OF THE WORLD" I'll bet all the terrorists are happier now too. The world hates the US not becuase of G. W.(an idiot but at least he thinks he is doing the right thing)or the Reps. but becuase we have what they can't get.....Freedom. In the 90's do you think it was Bush's fault the US Cole was blown up? I'll bet that it was. He probably planned it from Texas.(wink,wink)None of the politicians have a clue both sides only work for their own self betterment. You ask better off? Well we are no better and no worse. Dems want to take my hard earned money(and I mean hard earned) and give it to people who don't deserve it nor do they want to get a job. Reps. want to tell me that I am an immoral idiot(it gets me that reps are supposed to be a party of small govt. but they want to tell you how to live.). Don't get me wrong I love the USA and I hate socialism and comunism and if we were one of those societies I think I would shoot myself. Something needs to be done to control both sides. We are living in times of extremes and both extremes hate each other and don't want to listen to those they are supposed to serve.
Back to the topic as I said no better, no worse.

If you had read the article that I posted up, you would see that literally the rest of the world is happy to see democrats back in office. Britain, Japan, and one other country that I can't think of are kicking themselves for ever supporting the war to begin with. Iraqi citizens are happy that the democrats are in office because maybe something will actually come of this cluster **** that we've turned their country into. I do agree with you that this bipartisan system is a problem. I would love to see another party come in so that our government was forced to see things in shades of gray rather than just black and white. Or red and blue if you prefer. Unfortunately, that's not really possible so you have to hope for the next best option: having the whole thing flushed out and starting over. This last election was a pretty big turnover. A lot of people that had been in office for a long time were replaced. It's a step in the right direction.

EDIT: Here is that article I was referring to...
http://cellphoneforums.net/chit-chat...hs-relief.html

Quote from spum"B) We were losing the war on terror anyway. I doubt anything will change here, but a change in gameplan was necessary. Nothing good was coming out of the way Bush/Rumsfeld were handling things. Even Rumsfeld said that a new line of thinking was needed when he stepped down."

If people would listen to the Soldiers you would not have this thinking. Also if the Politicians would listen to them they would be able to do what they need to get things done. Political powers heading you off at every corner really suck. Also don't listen to the news about the war it is all propiganda to better the standing of the politicians with the people. Why do you think it is that so many politicians say one thing to one crowd and another to the other crowd. They are two faced and will say anything to get votes and money.

I DO listen to soldiers. A friend of mine that's over there says that it's pretty much anarchy right now. I've said this in the past as well. He hates the media because it either reports the war as much better than it actually is or it focuses on a narrow spectrum. The war is not nearly as close to being finished as Fox News would have you think. It's not going that well. The downside is that all of the liberal stations are too busy focusing on reporting stories of soldiers killing babies or Abu Graib or whatever that nobody is actually reporting on the status of the war. As of about a week and a half ago, there were three groups fighting for power: the Sunnis, the Shiites, and scattered terrorist cells. The Iraqi police are mostly worthless because 3/4 have allegiance to the Sunnis or Shiites, and the remaining police are too scared to do anything. In the mean time, every time the US soldiers, Sunnis, or Shiites decides to try to kill off terrorist cells, the pack up and move to a different location. It doesn't solve any problems, it just moves them around. The only way to actually WIN this debacle is to send MORE troops over so that we can prevent people from moving around, but the American public will never stand for having more troops sent over if they're even available...which I don't know if they are or not. So now we're in a situation where we can either continue to drag it out the way it's going, or we can pull out and leave the country in a worse state than it was in originally. Saddam was a pretty evil dude, but at least he could control the people. That's better than we're doing.

Again from Spum"C) Nothing that the Bush administration has done has prevented anything from happening. He had the opportunity to stop 9/11 and didn't. Why? I don't know. He was probably on vacation. Before 9/11, he vacationed more than any other president in history." So from your viewpoint Bush is a traitor and a piece of scum. You probably think that B.C. was the best president in history. Wake up and smell bill's butt it stinks just like G.W.'s. Bill had chances to capture and bomb the terrorists that were involved in 9/11 but he bombed an aspirin factory instead. In my opinion every president all the way back to Carter are to blame. Carter the great peace man(or pansy in his case) negotiated with terrorists back in the 70's and still does today. You think G.W. is a traitor then so is Carter and every president since.

Bill Clinton left office with the highest departing approval rating of any president ever. He must have done something right. This is the difference between Bill and George. Bill bombed aspirin factories because he got intelligence that terrorists were there. George got intelligence that planes were going to be hijacked on 9/11 and flown into buildings, and he did nothing. Clinton failed, but at least he tried. Bush didn't try, and he reacted by oppressing his own people.

Originally Posted by Nags

B) The media would have you believe that we were losing the war on terror. We weren't, and it's obvious if you take a non-partisan look at it. I have many friends over there and they are flabbergasted at the coverage this war gets by our own media (who want to see Bush fail as much as the democrats do).

I already responded to this in my response to mayford5. Go ahead and read up. You'll see where I get my information and how I come to my opinion.

C) This is where you really lose your credibility Spum. The first sentence is blatantly false. Secondly, the Clinton administration had a policy that made it near impossible for our intelligence gathering agencies to share information with each other. Imagine if the different departments at Verizon were not allowed to share information with each other freely, how hard would it be for you to function in your job? Thirdly, this whole vacation thing...you can do better than that...any modern day President, whether physically at the the Ranch or at Camp David or on the golf course or Burger King or Martha's Vineyard, can perform his job the same as at the Oval Office.

The first statement isn't false. Try to think of the last time BEFORE 9/11 that there was a significant terrorist attack on US soil. The most recent that I can think of is the OKC bombings, but they were homegrown terrorists. Maybe the unabomber, but again, it's homegrown. Now think about terrorist attacks since. There was the guy that tried to light his shoes on fire, but he was caught. He would have been caught before 9/11 ever happened, but he DID get past the security that Bush set up to prevent airborne terrorist attacks. The other one was the recent story about Britain catching some guys with explosives in their Gatorade...but Bush didn't have anything to do with that. That was all Britain. So tell me...how exactly is my statement false? If someone wants to do something bad enough, no amount of rules or regulations will stop them.

Ok, on to your second point. Bush's failure to recognize the terrorist attacks on 9/11 had nothing to do with Clinton's policy for intelligence agencies sharing information, and this is why. Bush had a document on his desk that explained in detail that planes were going to be hijacked on 9/11 and used to destroy some buildings. Condoleeza Rice explained that in the 9/11 hearings. She said the title of the document (which I can't remember exactly off the top of my head) which was something to the effect of, "Terrorists planning attack on 9/11." So the problem was not the intelligence gathering. The problem was the Bush blew off the warning as nothing and continued on his day. He had access to the information and did nothing about it. There are thousands of reported terrorist attacks that don't mean anything, and he probably thought that it was another false report. On the other hand, Bush's failure to prevent 9/11 had absolutely nothing to do with Clinton's information policies.

From spum:
If you had read the article that I posted up, you would see that literally the rest of the world is happy to see democrats back in office. Britain, Japan, and one other country that I can't think of are kicking themselves for ever supporting the war to begin with. Iraqi citizens are happy that the democrats are in office because maybe something will actually come of this cluster **** that we've turned their country into. I do agree with you that this bipartisan system is a problem. I would love to see another party come in so that our government was forced to see things in shades of gray rather than just black and white. Or red and blue if you prefer. Unfortunately, that's not really possible so you have to hope for the next best option: having the whole thing flushed out and starting over. This last election was a pretty big turnover. A lot of people that had been in office for a long time were replaced. It's a step in the right direction."

I'm not arguing that the rest of the world isn't happy about the elections. I am trying to tell you screw the rest of the world. Who really cares what the rest of the world thinks. Blah blah blah we need to keep relations on good terms.... blah blah blah. If you consider that the rest of the world for the most part is controlled by extreme leftist you will understand why I say this. The world will never like us no matter how hard the liberals try to get them to.

I DO listen to soldiers. A friend of mine that's over there says that it's pretty much anarchy right now. I've said this in the past as well.

I really was not saying this towards you. In general the people who have the power to make sure things are the way they need to be do not listen. Please understand that the people in charge are blocking most of the advances that are needed to complete the mission. My brother who just came back from Q-west in the north says the same thing about the anarchy in some places but, he also said that not a day went by that someone didn't come up and hold up an American Flag to say thankyou. You see there are hot spots that have few defense forces(this is where the Iraqi police are) so terrorists have control there. The quote that all the Iraqis don't want us over there is a huge liberal talking point and I don't trust the liberal or conservative media. As I stated before it is all just propaganda. The media only shows us what they want us to see. Example: CNN showing us terrorists with sniper rifles shooting our troops. I believe this to be a traitorous act even if the video was faked. And by the way the AP is one of the more biased liberal news organizations in the country. Read this carefully can you not hear the glee in the writers words. So as far as your proof goes, it isn't proof. Thats all for now got to go to bed. More comments to make but later.

Originally Posted by mayford5

I'm not arguing that the rest of the world isn't happy about the elections. I am trying to tell you screw the rest of the world. Who really cares what the rest of the world thinks. Blah blah blah we need to keep relations on good terms.... blah blah blah. If you consider that the rest of the world for the most part is controlled by extreme leftist you will understand why I say this. The world will never like us no matter how hard the liberals try to get them to.

Telling the rest of the world to screw off is a bad idea. It will cut trade lines and cause the United States to fall from power faster. The US won't be a world power for the rest of time; it simply won't happen. It's never happened in history before, and if you compare the United States to other world powers from the past, we're still a really young country. The fact of the matter is that if we start pissing off other countries and alienating ourselves from the rest of the world now, the rest of the world isn't going to give a rat's ass when it becomes our turn to need aid. We need to tread carefully for our children if not for ourselves. I'm fairly convinced that the US is on a crash course after what the Bush administration has done to it (alienation, increasing the debt, etc).