George Bush

[_Mystical_Night]

I was just wondering ... how many people are going to vote for bush after all the promises hes made and all the chaos hes caused ?

In his first term as president hes managed to

* Crash the Stock Market a few times
* Spend over 180 BILLION U.S. Dollars on war efforts and not managed to find the people hes been looking for
* Make millions of americans lose their jobs due to "weak" economy
* Raise taxes after saying he was going to lower taxes
* Lower the value of the U.S Dollar even more
* Wage War on not only one but two countries and let the main people involved get away (Osama and Hussein).
* Wage War on Iraq and still not managed to find any nuclear missles he claimed they had
* Increase the money spent on military technology and research instead of putting the money somewhere helpful thats getting less funding Ex: education.

[herosrest]

I think it's about time u let us here in UK vote in your elections. lol.

[maje87c]

now, i'm not going to take a side in this, I'm simply going to play devils advocate.

Do you think Al Gore would have done a better job?

[herosrest]

Tony Blair's the man for the job.

[fishybawb]

Originally posted by herosrest
Tony Blair's the man for the job.

Yep, if the job in question is electric chair testing.

[Wonder]

Oh no... another thread for flaming liberals to try and make themselves feel good. :rolleyes:

Please go back and see when the stock market started crashing. Who was in office? uh-huh

Mystical Night, you must be from Mars. Oh wait... I see that your location *is* Mars.

[herosrest]

Originally posted by fishybawb


Yep, if the job in question is electric chair testing.

He is into hair raising experience's at the moment.
Looks like some of his party are trying to scalp him.

If u ain't a liberal u must be commy. :D (duck)

[_Mystical_Night]

*slaps wonder upside the head* :rolleyes::rolleyes:

now, i'm not going to take a side in this, I'm simply going to play devils advocate.

Do you think Al Gore would have done a better job?

Actually ... i kinda thought Al was a little gay the way he acted ... and always nagging like a housewife

Edit: Still tho too bad clintons wife didnt run for office ... everyone liked the clintons and it sure beats bush or gore

[mireland]

oh, cool...a political thread:rolleyes:

I'd vote for Mayor McCheese before I voted for any ****ING politicianhttp://www.fancysplace.com/smileys/smiley_cyclope.gif

[comp_nut]

Originally posted by _Mystical_Night
*slaps wonder upside the head* :rolleyes::rolleyes:



Actually ... i kinda thought Al was a little gay the way he acted ... and always nagging like a housewife

Edit: Still tho too bad clintons wife didnt run for office ... everyone liked the clintons and it sure beats bush or gore


a little s*x does improve ratings

[Bovon]

Originally posted by maje87c
Do you think Al Gore would have done a better job? Not me..and I am a Democrat... Al Gore doesn't have it where it counts to be President.

I liked Clinton at the time, but there has been too much come to light since he has left office that burns my ****. He had the chance to go after bin Laden and flubbed it. He was entirely too preoccupied in reducing the National Debt to see what was happening in the real world..not to mention his off color exploits.

I didn't vote in your poll _Mystical_Night, its too obvious where your views are..biased big time.. you might have considered a little inbetween area for those of us that did vote for Bush even tho we do not completely agree with his methods.

What I do agree with, and applaud his action is going after Bin Laden and to a lesser extent, Saddam Husein. If we were to continue to take those Arabs BS..we would still be the laughing stock of the free world!.

All Republican administrations bring on a recession..its been this way ever since time began in our political system...get used to it.. Bush is not totally responsible for the state we are in...remember 09/11/01?.. that had one he** of a economy shock to the entire world economy..not just America..the "normal" republican recession was just taking hold, but was light in comparison to other Republican recessions that far into the administration..and would have recovered in the next 6 months to a year at most..so, please get your facts in order before blasting the only President we had a choice for that had the guts to take action when the chips were down.

Lord help us if Gore had been driving on 9/11...I suspect we would be teaching those of us not in mass graves somewhere to speak Arabic!

[Zoidberg]

Yeah, Bush has failed about as I had expected, but, lets get a few facts straight. I don't mean to split hairs, mind you.

Bush did not raise taxes; he pushed hard for a tax cut that was completely unnecessary, and did not help the economy whatsoever; it sure as hell helped to line the pockets of those already too wealthy for their own good. Indeed, it could not have come at a worse time, since the government now needs additional revenue to finance the quagmire in Iraq; less income tax revenue is coming in, due to high unemployment.

Bush did not directly make all those hundreds of thousands of Americans lose their jobs, but then he and the Congress have done nothing substantial to help curb the rate of unemployment.
But there's no recession; we're in a "jobless recovery", right? :rolleyes:
That means the wealthy have remained wealthy.
A good bit of this can also be blamed on neoliberal trade agreements that make it easier for US-based corporations to move their operations to almost anywhere in the world and pay slave wages to sweatshop workers, rather than pay Americans a decent wage. Neoliberal trade agreements have been supported by Bush, Clinton, Gore, and many of the leaders of both political parties, so the blame cannot fall on one single individual.


Other than that, I couldn't agree with you more _Mystical_Night.
Especially on the education funding issue.

And when can we get some kind of single-payer universal healthcare system going here?

[maje87c]

Originally posted by Bovon

What I do agree with, and applaud his action is going after Bin Laden and to a lesser extent, Saddam Husein. If we were to continue to take those Arabs BS..we would still be the laughing stock of the free world!.


Still playing the devils advocate, are we not already the laughing stock of the world? We have not found either man, or the weapons of mass destruction.

[Billforce]

Bush inherited a rapidly failing economy that been in free fall for 6 months prior to him taking office. Add to this the chaos created by 9/11 and you have an impossible job.
I don't like some of decisions but he is doing a creditable job considering the circumstances.
How easy to sit on the outside and second guess a sitting president, most of would give up in a week.
Irrespective of opinion (like armpits, everyone has a couple), Bush will carry the '04 election by a landslide primarily because the opposition virtually have no acceptable candidate to oppose him. None of the NINE dwarfs has the support of the American public.
In a Washington Post survey conduced one week ago, a full 70% of Americans polled (both parties) stated that Saddam had either a direct or indirect impact on the 9/11 catastrophe. As long as this opinion prevails, the American public will not unseat a sitting president.
This is my opinion, and like previously stated, not worth much.

[maje87c]

I don't know that he will win with a landslide. It will be very close, or a complete landslide, but I think it will be the former.

Who could say though.

[genesound]

Bush inherited a rapidly failing economy that been in free fall for 6 months prior to him taking office. Add to this the chaos created by 9/11 and you have an impossible job.Yeah and the previous office actually didn't have the good sense to treat the huge fradulent boom with caution, in fact they made big political hay on it, even claimed to have invented part of it :eek: and with high level influence pushed it to the limit! Had a good ride, why not, can't even be around to take the blame during the cleanup. That'll be the burden of the next guy.

But, I'm not in favor of either of the 2 parties now. They're like corporate america, mom and pop don't have a chance. A politician owes too much allegiance and favors to make a difference to grass roots concerns, even if one feels compelled to do so. So were left with making a choice between stupid and evil, depending on our views :confused:

[maje87c]

too true

[j.m@talk]

You lot missed out badly when ya all ignored "Ross Perot"

http://www.realchange.org/perot.gif

Still there ya are :t

[_Mystical_Night]

I wonder who would be crazy enough to try to run for president next :p any ideas ?

[Charlie2]

Err, :x let’s see; how does this government work??? One man calls all the shots! No, I don’t think so!!! Billforce, Bovon, and Wonder, I agree.
j.m. I could never understand all those charts and graphs, but I kind of liked R.P.
:-@

[Bovon]

Originally posted by maje87c


Still playing the devils advocate, are we not already the laughing stock of the world? We have not found either man, or the weapons of mass destruction. No..not at all. Nobody wins them all...what matters is, somebody that says "thats enough"!! Somebody...somewhere must say to the world, we...Americans are not willing to take your bull sh** anymore. We will fight..we will die, but you will suffer more than we will..and not on our property..on yours. You, yourselves, your wives and kids will be the examples you have setup. If you are willing to die for your cause..we are willing to die if need be in order that our people will remain free...you will suffer more than we..you..your families will understand that we cannot be underestimated...we have the will to continue..we will win...either that, or the free world dies with us!

[Billforce]

How true Bovon,

The world and even our own citizens have to realize that FREEDOM comes at a price, a price we have paid for 200 years to become the nation we are today. By condemning us, attacking us you only strengthen our resolve.

A nation founded on the principals of freedom and has fought to maintain these freedoms will not perish. If we have to rub a few noses in the dirt to maintain these freedoms, then so be it.....we will prevail, foreign opinions are secondary.

My personal family has fought in EVERY war including the Revolutionary war and continue up to the time of this writing for the express purpose of keeping this country free...........

[capybara]

didnt vote for him last time, but will vote for him next time.
im very impressed by him - he shows alot of leadership-
he was way out ahead of the american public on iraq
at the beginning, but he had the foresight to lead us in the
right direction. i dont see any opponent who can beat
him in 2004 - no one else comes close.

[mireland]

If I vote this year, I'd have to put in a write in canadate: MY DOG!

http://www.fancysplace.com/smileys/smiley_crush.gif

[Aznmask]

One question.. If Bush didn't got elected on the 2000. Does it mean the Twin Tower wont got destroy? or it doesn't really matter who become the president?

I think Bush have a freaking bad luck, also didn't he cheat on his presidency in Florida vote.

[Junker]

The weight of deciding public opinion has been lifted from our shoulders
by the mouthpieces of the neocon liars and theives.
We are drowning in the shallow channels of mainstream media...

[Zoidberg]

Junker,
keep speaking the truth, friend.
The really disturbing aspect of the situation is that many people actually believe Hussein was somehow responsible for the attacks in New York, when there has never been a shred of credible evidence to corroborate this irrational belief. All the result of the "liberal" (as if) news media serving as a mouthpiece for the "president".
Sure, Saddam deserved to be removed from power for any number of reasons, not including the invisible weapons of mass destruction...but I must suspect that the fostering of democracy was not the true objective of the invasion. Nor do I believe it was merely a way to take control of Iraq's oil supply. There's something else behind it.

And in regards to dubya's show of leadership--Maybe I'm missing something here:confused:
Is there a certain resonance to his speeches? He pays a lot of lip service to freedom, liberty, and the nobility of self-sacrifice, but the words seem hollow. That is, if you're willing to endure it; I get frustrated hearing someone always having to pause after speaking a maximun of 3 consecutive words:) As governor of Texas, he showed great mediocrity, which isn't unusual for the job. Acquiring that office requires neither experience nor talent, just a fat campaign fund.
Its sad to see national politics following the trend of my home state.

[Greymon]

Sure, Saddam deserved to be removed from power for any number of reasons, not including the invisible weapons of mass destruction...but I must suspect that the fostering of democracy was not the true objective of the invasion. Nor do I believe it was merely a way to take control of Iraq's oil supply. There's something else behind it.

That's what I've been thinking. Rumors out of DC seem to confirm that the Administration knew that Iraq had no WMD and that they had no link to terrorism. Those where the two public reasons for invasion. So if it was something else...but what? We may never know.

I had thought Bush was different, but it seems he's a liar like the rest of them up there. We deserve government we can trust.

[gibsinep]

We deserve government we can trust.


There is no such thing :rolleyes:

[causticVapor]

I think Bush is doing a **** good job, considering the circumstances.

I don't agree with all of the decisions, and I must admit that Bush is not the best in public, but still, I'd vote for him again. After all, many of the things that he is taking the blame for now were actually started by the Clinton administration.

And anybody who blames a president for the state of the economy doesn't know how the economy works. :p

[Bovon]

Originally posted by Zoidberg
Junker,
keep speaking the truth, friend.
The really disturbing aspect of the situation is that many people actually believe Hussein was somehow responsible for the attacks in New York, when there has never been a shred of credible evidence to corroborate this irrational belief.

Realizing this is a forum of opinions, and I respect everybody's. And I'm sure you will allow me to express my thoughts and concerns too.

Yes there are many people who believe Hussein had his fingers in the attacks in N.Y., whether he did or not, is pretty irrelevant..he was aiding and abetting those that did..offering comfort to our enemy made him our enemy as well. We may never know just how deep his efforts went into Al Quada and Bin Laden..and since you have said there is no credible evidence to corroborate this belief..I would ask you to prove otherwise. Unless you or I have some hard proof, It really boils down to personal opinions...doesn't it?..


Originally posted by Greymon
We deserve government we can trust.

Replied by gibsinep
There is no such thing

You are correct..of course..but we can dream can't we?..


Originally posted by causticVapor
I think Bush is doing a **** good job, considering the circumstances.

I don't agree with all of the decisions, and I must admit that Bush is not the best in public, but still, I'd vote for him again. After all, many of the things that he is taking the blame for now were actually started by the Clinton administration.

And anybody who blames a president for the state of the economy doesn't know how the economy works. :p

Bush has many downfalls.. speaking in public is not one of his strong points. Many politicians live in the House and Senate all of their lives, and never really learn to be attention getting, forceful speakers. I have often thought I would like to see someone like John Wayne run for public office..then, I realize just being a strong person in voice and manner, will not make that person a strong-mannered politician.

I personally believe Bush is a good leader..he simply does not "relate" to the public..and, of course..he will never please everybody..no one person can..Democrat, Republican or Independent..there will always be the nay-sayers.

Whether it is Iraqi oil, or something else that is on his agenda..I think the bottom line is America for Americans..."We the People" are his primary objectives...and if we cannot back him on that point, we really need to relocate to France or Germany and watch.

[Billforce]

Originally posted by Aznmask
One question.. If Bush didn't got elected on the 2000. Does it mean the Twin Tower wont got destroy? or it doesn't really matter who become the president?

I think Bush have a freaking bad luck, also didn't he cheat on his presidency in Florida vote.

The Twin Towers had absolutely NO bearing on who was president at the time. This incident had been planned for about four years prior to the act.

Bush and the Republican Party DID NOT CHEAT in the election. Bush won on every re-count of the popular vote in Florida, hanging chads and all. He even won on the re-count conducted by the opposition. This is simply partisan political propoganda by the opposing party.

The office of President of the United States of America is an open office, the only major restriction is you must be a natural born citizen to run for office. NO party has a franchise or a predetermined right to hold the office as some would like to treat it, this is precisely why we have an election every four years.

[capybara]

quote from Bovon:
Whether it is Iraqi oil, or something else that is on his agenda..I think the bottom line is America for Americans..."We the People" are his primary objectives...and if we cannot back him on that point, we really need to relocate to France or Germany and watch.
=========================================
Xactly right.
to those who are unhappy with Dubya, ask
yourself, name one person who is in the running
to be Prez , who can do a better job?
i cant think of anybody........

[Rugor]

I will start by saying I think the 2000 election proved the US needs major electoral reform. George W. Bush won the election, note I said won not stole, despite having less of the popular vote than his opponent.

I don't like that part of the electoral college system because it invalidates the democratic principle of who gets the most votes wins. But within the system he won fair and square.

My own problems with him are that he seems to be perfectly comfortable with eroding rights and freedoms. Democracy requires dissent and he and his administration don't deal well with that. They tend to view it as treason

Then there is Homeland Security, also known as Osama's biggest victory. Terrorists love to get people scared and change the laws in order to deal with them. When you do that, they win

Bush seems to have missed that

[genesound]

Indeed :(

[Bovon]

Originally posted by Rugor
Then there is Homeland Security, also known as Osama's biggest victory. Terrorists love to get people scared and change the laws in order to deal with them. When you do that, they win

Bush seems to have missed that Ahhhhh....well....maybe!

Remember, we the people were screaming bloody murder (literally) to insure the safety of Americans as we travel. Our economy requires much travel..if the people didn't feel safe to fly again (and they didn't for awhile) that in itself would have helped kill the world economy..which BTW, was another of the terrorists goals.

So..change the laws and hopefully protect the public?, or play it cool, and do nothing..then, when they hijacked another plane, we the citizens would want to impeach him...it was a real no-win situation as far as Bush and his political people were concerned.

[Billforce]

It's simply common sense to protect yourselves from harm...if we have to give up a tiny portion of our so-called freedoms to guarantee safety so be it....the only ones really complaining are those that it directly effects or have something to be concerned about such as terrorist themselves. The general public will sacrifice a few tiny freedoms for the overall benefit of the masses.
The entire legal system, social standards were created (including the Constitution) for the overall benefit of the majority of our citizens. There is NOTHING written in the Constitution prohibiting changes within the document for the benefit of the citizenry.

[Rugor]

The question always comes up as to which rights are more important.

The Soviet Union used to blame the US for human rights abuses because the Soviets gave people substantive rights like medical care, rather than procedural rights like free speech and assembly. Which rights are more important?

The real question is not should more have been done to protect the citizenry, because that is an obvious yes. The question is where to draw the line, and when does protecting freedoms reach the point of destroying the very freedoms it's meant to protect?

The US has taken the first steps in the direction of a police state. The question is how far do we want to go down that path? And how far does the current administration want to take us?

[gibsinep]

I have to agree with Rugor on this one, even though I like George ( and we must relize it isn't just him taking freedoms away, its the entire government)

I mean just read through the Patriot act, there is some pretty scary stuff in there. And then there are other laws like no routers or firewalls in certian states, which is claimed to hide terriorists on the net. :rolleyes:


Change is part of life, sometimes for the good, somtimes for the bad, at the moment I don't think we have really had enough time to say for a 100% what is good and what isn't as far as some of these laws that take rights away. But thats just my opinion.

[Bovon]

gibsinep and Rugor, I agree with your concept and you may very well be 100% correct. Like Billforce, We will need to change and allow some personal 'freedoms' slide.. we do not live in an isolated country anymore...so..what we have come to rely on as our own granted freedoms will necessarily change..but, like you.. I am more than aware of what can happen if certain guidelines are not setup...and soon. Personally, I do not feel that we have started down that road towards a police state such as has been seen in Europe in the 40s..but it could happen..so, if we are to relinquish some of our freedoms, then we need guidelines to set the boundaries.