George Bush is a good president.

What are you, like, 12? You scream, insult, and speculate too much. You preoccupy yourself with smashing specific points without concerning the resto of the statement. And you claim victory. Arrogant, to say the least. You can't even argue in a coherent manner. You ask for proof, but offer none yourself back to me. 1.He conceeds the NCLB debate, for whatever reasons he sees fit. -Whatever. I'll give you SOMETHING that you can claim any amount of victory over. Even if it is won by the apathy of the opponent. 2.If they had WMDs, they would have used them. -This is not explicitly true. Though Saddam was dictator, he wasn't supid. He made the mistake of launching Scuds against Israel and Saudi Arabia in the First Gulf War, and he recieved a large amount of condemnation for it. It isn't safe for you to reckon with his intentions like you did. Perhaps he believed his chances were better if he simply hid and gave away the weapons rather than used them? He did expect to be tried in the World Court rather than by the Iraqi government, where he knew his chances would be far better in the World Court. Saddam may not have had time. Perhaps we hit him so quickly that he didn't fire anything and just went straight into hiding? Who knows? All we know is that we found plenty of chemical agents in artillery shells and documents confirming he tried to aquire yellowcake from Africa. If you'd look you'd find. Unlike you, I prefer not to get my news from CNN. 3.IM NOT SAYING THAT YOU SPECULATED THAT SYRIA HAD WEAPONS. I'M SAYING THAT THERE IS NO PROOF OF A LINK BETWEEN SYRIA AND IRAQ'S WEAPON SYSTEM!!! You did not even argue that so I win on that there is no correlation between Iraq and Syria's WMD system. If Iraq supposedly had WMDs, which there is no proof for. -Did you even go to the link I suggested? Maybe you could have capied and pasted, but maybe that was too much work for a slacker. UN inspectors knew there was something going on, it was ever present in the way documents were passed and the confusion the Iraqi diplomats created. If the UN inspectors say something was up, they're telling the truth. Here, I'll even repost the link for you, your Highness. I did argue this point, then and now. Maybe you skipped it, you slacker. http://www.2la.org... 4.You accuse me of speculation and little research but I noticed that you did not put any websites to support the claim that Iraq tried to use nuclear weapons. Even if any judge thinks they tried to use them, why have not they used them in the 16 year gap from 1991, when they allegedly tried to use them, and now? Because they are not/ were not going to use them. -This would be a useful argument if I said the Iraqis HAD nuclear weapons. Of course, I didn't, but you wouldn't know that. Seems that you like to skip parts you don't like. The reason Saddam never used them is because we never let his program ssit long enough to get them. For the third time, the Israelis blew up his reactor in '83, and we did again in '91, and thwarted his plans again in '03. I hate repeating myself. I wouldn't have to if you'd read. 5.Once again, there is no proven threat. -No proof that weapons of mass destruction are a threat. Sorry, but nukes scare me a little. Suffocating over poison gas scares me. Being cut down by anthrax or some other deadly disease scares me. Know why? Because it can KILL me. There's a threat, since he promised to use them against Israel if they caught his attention, but he knew that we would come to Israel's defense, so I believe he was smart enough to pick his opportunities. And didn't I just say the things about his reactors? That can supply nuclear weapons? Ring a bell? No? You must be 12, beacause only children make people repeat themselves for fun. 6.You have read the Koran? Really? Surprises the heck out of me! You'll read that, but you won't read your opponent's argument? I'm insulted. Did you think it was peaceful? I particularly like Sura 9, Verse 29. It's my absolute favorite. "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." Sounds like a marching order to me. Oh, and don't the terrorists use this as one? I'm not calling for killing off Muslims or anything. I simply want to show up Islam for the imperialist political ideology it thinks it is. Denial really is a river in Egypt. 7.There is no basis for that statement! The dollar weakened during Bush's term significantly. -I said that. Why do you feel the need to echo me? What you forgot is that that is supposed to happen in the free market cycle. perhaps you'd know that if you knew anything about economics. Why do you think you won since I said the dollar is weakening? Who it happens under isn't necessarily the cause of it. Childish.... 8.Clinton took steps to save the prices of gasoline and tapped into the emergency oil reserve. Bush did...NOTHING!!! And Americans are expected to be paying $2 more in gasoline in 2 years. Nice job, Bush. -What does that have to do with Bush not setting price controls? And didn't I explain why price controls are bad? And why Bush didn't set them? And why it's not his fault? Remember, the Middle East supplies most of the world's oil, and OPEC runs most of these countries. They have a political and economic agenda of their own. They are at full liberty to tweak prices however they want. What, would you like Bush to do it just so he could say he did something? As if it would do anything but give a false sense of security. 9.If you are willing to sacrifice the ONLY thing that has kept America what it is today, the Constitution, then let Bush destroy the constitution. The document GETS RID OF TRIALS!!! You failed to answer that. They also dont need warrants anymore!!! These are the principals of America thrown away. Next, why don't we get a dictator to outlaw baseball and apple pie. -Actually, I'm not into destroying the Constitution. I'm quite partial to the piece of parchment. Personally, I don't see what's so enlightened about giving terrorists a trial. If they're terrorists, obviously we'd know it. So let's make a mockery the rule of law and give the terrorists a free trial, since they gave it to no one else. Remember Moussaoui's case? They have him life imprisonment because he had been "abused as a child." But he was the 20th 9/11 hijacker! his words upon his sentance were, 'America, you lose." He wouldn't be far from right, according to you. And they do need warrants for people like you and me who aren't terrorists. They don't for suspected terrorists. Which I'm fine with, but you seem to have a problem. I suppose that's fine, too. 10.This is ineffiecient b/c there are white and black terrorists as well. Are you conceeding to allow all non-Arabic terrorists free of search? -Well, like I said, the MAJORITY match this profile. The other's, well, have to be left up to chance. because a terrorist is hard to spot. But not who he looks like. Some chances can't be taken. Obviously, you'd like to. Nothing racist about it, only practicality. If it were white men, then, by God, profile who look like him. I'm sure you'd have no objections. 11.More racism!!! My oppoent is racist and his view is obviously skewed for that reason!!! -Fine. I'm racist because I like the rule of law and oppose criminals coming to this country and stealing our money and destroying our culture. So, that means you're for it, hmmm, Mr.Bigotspotterdeluxe? 12.Anyway, I crush you on economy. -Can't do that unless you know something about economics. Sorry, nice try, though. Here's the link AGAIN: http://www.cato.org... Maybe you just didn't look at the link? It worked for me. You wouldn't lie to me, would you?