Voting should be a Privilege, not a Right

And what good (or bad) does having the media's support for 2 or 3 months give you? I'd buy more into "There's oil underneath the WTC. The city's not allowing us to demolish them. I guess we'll have to do it ourselves." by some greedy oil company, and that's pretty outlandish.

Really, if they did plan it, it's because of:
1. A vendetta b/w the Bushes and Saddam Huessain (yeah couldn't get the name. xD)
2. There's a lot of oil in Iraq. Saddam won't let the US drill, so install a democracy that will let them.

Now tell me there isn't some truth in the second one.

Im not rly sure where your even coming from. So I'm gonna leave that one alone.



Media actually tends to be more on the side of the population. *pist* thats how they attract to their viewers.

He was placed in difficult situations. The last major attack on the US was Pearl Harbor, and the extent of getting involved in that was much greater. Iraq was needed, by the american people to make themselves feel better and the Iraqis who were at the will of a corrupt dictator. Bush had something like 70% support to go to war following Sept 11, 40% after the first month in war, and the last poll 5 yrs after Sept 11, he had only 10% support. Americans can't make up their minds. So the media has opposed Bush since the American populous found out war was bad.

As credible as that sound's I would like a source for that. As much as I would love to disagree with your statement for my own sanity I wouldn't like to defend the idea that Americans were stupid enough to go into a pointless war to console themselves, especially at the expense of young Americans. edit: now greedy selfish profits and personal gain a little better

What ever the case no war is exactly "needed" there are many possible solutions with war being the last resort, I'm at least grateful that McCain is aware of that.

Major Network stations played 393 interviews about the war before Congress declared it.
3 were anti-war.
Bush controls the media.
Bush's administration planned 9/11, Iraq had nothing to do with it.

As for the first part, I've already addressed that. The second part about controlling media none sense, I'm just gonna let you continue to live your life in idiocy.

As credible as that sound's I would like a source for that. As much as I would love to disagree with your statement for my own sanity I wouldn't like to defend the idea that Americans were stupid enough to go into a pointless war to console themselves, especially at the expense of young Americans.

What ever the case no war is exactly "needed" there are many possible solutions with war being the last resort, I'm at least grateful that McCain is aware of that.

By saying needed I was taking on the position of the American population after the September attacks.

I have no real position on the war, seeing as it doesnt directly affect me.

As for the first part, I've already addressed that. The second part about controlling media none sense, I'm just gonna let you continue to live your life in idiocy.

So you can say with complete confidence as well as lack of proof that the Bush administration did NOT plan 9/11?
Really?

gota ask ya bean you think getting rid of the electoral college would be a better shot? I mean your vote is still significant because it is one vote closer to getting majority which is the entire state, so in some point a single vote can have the power of an entire state however unlikely and why not take a couple hours out of your day if your being paid for it (if your working), and to the OP .[SIZE="7"]NO. HELL. pineappleING. NO[/SIZE]

I don't think you understand how the electoral college works.

If I vote for a candidate and my chosen candidate doesn't win the state, my vote is meaningless. If I don't vote Republican or Democrat, I have 0 chance pf my vote meaning a thing where it really counts. Didn't you notice in 2000 where Gore won the popular vote, but Bush got the electoral votes to win anyway? What of all the people who voted for Gore? Their candidate got the most votes, but he still lost. Tell me the system isn't broken.

He was placed in difficult situations. The last major attack on the US was Pearl Harbor, and the extent of getting involved in that was much greater. Iraq was needed, by the american people to make themselves feel better and the Iraqis who were at the will of a corrupt dictator. Bush had something like 70% support to go to war following Sept 11, 40% after the first month in war, and the last poll 5 yrs after Sept 11, he had only 10% support. Americans can't make up their minds. So the media has opposed Bush since the American populous found out war was bad.

Going into Afghanistan was justified. That's why there was support there. Going into Iraq was also justified, but it was a lie, so that's why the support fizzled out.

So you can say with complete confidence as well as lack of proof that the Bush administration did NOT plan 9/11?
Really?

Absence of proof is not proof of absence. This is the same logical fallacy a person might use to "prove" religious things: "can you PROVE that God doesn't exist in some intangible, immeasurable way? You can't? I guess he must definitely exist then." No. Just because a person cannot prove that Bush did not do 9/11 (see: Negative Proof)does not mean that HE DEFINITELY DID. All it indicates is that there is a small chance that it is possible, but by the same regard, I could say that "there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit... [and it] is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes."

Really, guys, you don't have to take a college course on logic to understand this stuff. Most of it is pretty simple.

As credible as that sound's I would like a source for that. As much as I would love to disagree with your statement for my own sanity I wouldn't like to defend the idea that Americans were stupid enough to go into a pointless war to console themselves, especially at the expense of young Americans. edit: now greedy selfish profits and personal gain a little better.

There are dozens of articles online with poll data. Here are some of them if you are interested: 2002/before invasion, 2003/After the invasion started, and finally the wikipedia article lol. (This is copied from another post of mine.) The war stopped being popular because it stopped being successful, not because Iraq didn't have anything to do with the attacks.

not because Iraq didn't have anything to do with the attacks.

So you don't think the support for the Iraq war had anything to do with the fact that the original justifications for invasion were proven to not be true?

What then do you think of the surge? Things took a turn for the better when they poured more troops in, but did Bush's approval ratings go up accordingly? Even if they did go up, did they go up to the points they were at before the invasion of Iraq?

People being upset about how the war was handled is understandable, but I would say that people are more upset about the false pretenses the war was started on.

So you don't think the support for the Iraq war had anything to do with the fact that the original justifications for invasion were proven to not be true?

What then do you think of the surge? Things took a turn for the better when they poured more troops in, but did Bush's approval ratings go up accordingly? Even if they did go up, did they go up to the points they were at before the invasion of Iraq?

People being upset about how the war was handled is understandable, but I would say that people are more upset about the false pretenses the war was started on.

Yes, that is what I think. I don't have any real evidence for it, but based on what I remember of people talking about it while it was going on, people were perfectly happy about it until it started going downhill, even after we found that there weren't any WMDs. While it was still going well we were just happy to have liberated a suffering people from a genocidal dictatorship even though there wasn't anything in it for us. After it started going badly, people started remembering that we'd gone in on false pretenses, and now I think they just don't want to believe it's going well. People have decided that they hate Bush and they don't want to give him credit for anything, even though all the evidence points to things going a lot better in Iraq.

But what do I know? I'm just a poor college student.

How did we go from Voting restrictions to Iraq? :f6:

Back to the main topic, how about a more practical solution? Raise the voting, and Draft, age to 21 or higher? Yea, it'll piss off everyone that's between 14 and 18 this year, but I really doubt the average 21 year old is less informed than the average 18 year old.