NationStates Jolt Archive

I have read some of his "Bushisms", my fav. being "The great thing about books is sometimes there are some fantastic pictures." I believe he is an idiot. I don't agree with the war he started, and I think he needs to actually get an education before running a country. I am proudly Canadian.

I strongly dislike Bush. Not the person Bush... Ah what the heck. Who am I kidding? I guess I'm just another one of the mainstream Europeans that feel that the US of A should get a grip and not elect a former alcoholic/junkie into office.

One more thing I find ironic is that Bush went AWOL for I think it was two years from his military service, and now he's ordering a helluva lot of Americans to go fight a lost war. Iraq is likely going to become Vietnam 2 (bodycount already 1000+ Americans and counting), and it's all thanks to Bush.

Way to go Dubya. [/sarcasm]

Can you point to the speech Please? Can you provide me a link to said speech?

I have never once heard Bush pronounce the "a" in American. Of course, he pronounces terrorism as "turism" too.

I have never once heard Bush pronounce the "a" in American. Of course, he pronounces terrorism as "turism" too.

I guess I'm listening to different speeches because I HAVE always heard him say the A in American and I HAVE always heard him pronounce it terrorism.

I strongly dislike Bush. Not the person Bush... Ah what the heck. Who am I kidding? I guess I'm just another one of the mainstream Europeans that feel that the US of A should get a grip and not elect a former alcoholic/junkie into office.

As opposed to say a lier and a malcontent with no leadership president in the name of Kerry? Or how about a criminal adulter in the name of CLinton?

One more thing I find ironic is that Bush went AWOL for I think it was two years from his military service, and now he's ordering a helluva lot of Americans to go fight a lost war. Iraq is likely going to become Vietnam 2 (bodycount already 1000+ Americans and counting), and it's all thanks to Bush.

He went AWOL? Nope sorry. Been proven that he wasn't care to try again?

I guess I'm listening to different speeches because I HAVE always heard him say the A in American and I HAVE always heard him pronounce it terrorism.

Could be that you're hearing what you want to hear, as the rest of the country apparently hears it differently.

He's a frequent lone speaker on CSPAN. I'm convinced that he's a paranoid schizophrenic.

Could be.

I don't believe for a second that he's an idiot. The Democratic woman he beat in Texas for the Governor's seat said that he is far, far smarter than anyone gives him credit, and that you would have to be a fool to think he's an idiot. She's convinced that it's an incredible, cunning act.

Although they voted for Kerry, the disparity in public image was disheartening to them, and they conclude to this moment that more people were convinced to vote for Bush because of this factor.

Ann Richards, the former Democratic governor of Texas beaten by Bush, thinks that why he kicked her out of office. She warned the Democrats of this very factor.

So to me, he's pretty fucking smart.
I agree. Even by the way he has dramatically turned the political scene in the USA so much in favour of Republicans, surely means he is not an idiot.

I noticed - and I have never heard anyone else comment on this - that Bush really tried hard for the "common man" image on the election campaign. At his rallies he frequently wore just a plain shirt. With Kerry, it was the suit all the time. It really helped the Republican propaganda about the Democrats being the elite party, and the Reps being the populist party.

But why does he want to look stupid?

Bush......Let's see he bankrupted what was it..... 3 oil drilling companies? Bearly get's his degree.........Goes to war in Iraq because of WMDs that don't exist........Screws are economy.........Losses a million or so jobs.....Blames it then on Clinton.......Can't say nuclear correctly.......Gives non-bid contract to Dick's company..........Has bad forieghn policies that are FUBARed and..........Oh yeah laughs like an idiot........Has anyone seen that laugh?

But why does he want to look stupid?

Because most people are intimidated by someone more intelligent than them. They are also unable to discriminate between fine points in a discussion. They wish to hear "THIS IS THE WAY IT IS AND ANYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH ANY DETAIL DISAGREES COMPLETELY AND IS JUST PLAIN WRONG!"

Bush gives that to them, whether it is an act or not.

As opposed to say a lier and a malcontent with no leadership president in the name of Kerry? Or how about a criminal adulter in the name of CLinton?
Umm, most Europeans know (or at least believe) that Bush is a liar, so we don't think Kerry would have been worse in that regard.

We don't like Clinton. Why do you think that. Let me guess. You think that everyone who does not like [insert Republican] must automatically like all Democrats?

What is your opinion on Bush? Im not saying that I hate bush, I just want to know what people all over the world think....Thank you

Why must we do this again? Well, I could go on for days, but instead I will focus on the latest atrocity. And this is from Joe Klien and if we all can't agree that he is a reliable, objective journalist, then everything is lost. Ya know Bush's great, hew Social Security plan? C'mon you know the one I'm talking about, right? The one where you get to invest your OWN money and the governmnet will stay totally out of it, thus increasing benfits for the people and relieveing all that stress on the budget?

Funny thing about that. What he's not telling you (once again) is that once it's all said and done, and you, the hard worker who busts your ass all day at work and then goes to all that trouble to invest your money... must give all of your investment returns to the government, who will then re-distribute the money. So lets sum it up: The government is going to make you do all the hard investing work instead of them, then take the money from you, and give you back a smaller benefit than they do now under the current system, and keep the extra money instead of letting you have it.

I know its a shocker... and you're probably wondering why you haven't heard about such a rip-off in the media. Well I've got your answer: the so-called "liberal" media has once again handed Bush another break and is not asking the real questions just like they did with Iraq. They'd rather focus on punditry and pointless issues such as 'Is sponebob gay?'. Yes that's more important than the future of social security. Libeal? Please. More like the lazy media.

As opposed to say a lier and a malcontent with no leadership president in the name of Kerry? Or how about a criminal adulter in the name of CLinton?

First, let me remind you that I'm not American. Unfortunately, as a result, I don't know much about American internal politics. Can you please teach me?

Second, Clinton was found not guilty in the trial. Thus, in the eyes of the Law, he is innocent. I believe you have a nice little thing in the American judicial system that's called "double jeopardy".

He went AWOL? Nope sorry. Been proven that he wasn't care to try again?

Since when? A few supreme court judges bought off by Bush senior ruled he had been there? Anyway, several of the people he alledgedly served with say the complete opposite, including his base commander.

Could be that you're hearing what you want to hear, as the rest of the country apparently hears it differently.

Nope, I have perfect hearing! I know what he says and what he means.

Umm, most Europeans know (or at least believe) that Bush is a liar, so we don't think Kerry would have been worse in that regard.

Where did Bush Lie?

We don't like Clinton. Why do you think that. Let me guess. You think that everyone who does not like [insert Republican] must automatically like all Democrats?

Nope! Not at all. I just didn't care for how he handled the military or foreign Affairs. I also didn't like the fact that he lied to a Federal Grand Jury (Purgery) and tried to Obstruct Justice.

First, let me remind you that I'm not American. Unfortunately, as a result, I don't know much about American internal politics. Can you please teach me?

Not as easy as it sounds. I'm studying political Science and I'm not understanding it all. Believe me, no one will ever understand it. Maybe you should take a class on it if its offered.

Second, Clinton was found not guilty in the trial. Thus, in the eyes of the Law, he is innocent. I believe you have a nice little thing in the American judicial system that's called "double jeopardy".

True! However, he was impeached by the House but the Senate didn't let in all the evidence and if they did let it all in, I'm sure that he would've been tossed out. As for being found Not-Guilty, in reality, he was found guilty but there wasn't enough votes to toss him out of office.

Since when? A few supreme court judges bought off by Bush senior ruled he had been there? Anyway, several of the people he alledgedly served with say the complete opposite, including his base commander.

Hmm the Supreme Court didn't say anything on this case. Your beginning to show yourself to be buying the Democrat line on the buying off thing. Again that is also inaccurate. As for them saying he was AWOL, evidence was provided that he wasn't. I suggest you look for it instead of buying whatever your listening too. Always try to get both sides of the story and not just one. It'll go better for you.

Not as easy as it sounds. I'm studying political Science and I'm not understanding it all. Believe me, no one will ever understand it. Maybe you should take a class on it if its offered.

I don't think they have that kind of stuff intill the University. I'm still in upper secondary school (high school)... I'll check.

True! However, he was impeached by the House but the Senate didn't let in all the evidence and if they did let it all in, I'm sure that he would've been tossed out. As for being found Not-Guilty, in reality, he was found guilty but there wasn't enough votes to toss him out of office.

That's new to me.. I'll take a note of it. Thanks.

Hmm the Supreme Court didn't say anything on this case. Your beginning to show yourself to be buying the Democrat line on the buying off thing. Again that is also inaccurate. As for them saying he was AWOL, evidence was provided that he wasn't. I suggest you look for it instead of buying whatever your listening too. Always try to get both sides of the story and not just one. It'll go better for you.

The supreme court did rule that he was to become president in the first place. Maybe I've read to many Michael Moore books, or listened to a Norwegian-American we have in our class (democrat to the bone), but I'm leaning towards the democratic side in a way. Besides, I'm just showing what I saw/heard/read in the media, Norwegian and foreign (British, German, American) alike.

Just my two cents , I live in Fresno, California, USA.
I am a registered Republican and a member of the NRA , I voted for Bush twice , I think on most issues he is fine.
Lastly , Clinton :sniper: was the biggest POS excuse for a Presdient we have ever had.
Todd

i don't think Bush has the intellectual capacity to fulfil the highly responsible role of President. sure, he's a nice guy (apparently) but i dont want a nice guy running my country - i'd rather have a responsible and intelligent leader.
Well that voids Kerry as president then.

Well that voids Kerry as president then.

Why didn't you just place Nader in office then? :P

Now that the world has met him, admissions officers at Harvard will be recruiting the likes of Homer Simpson.

I don't think they have that kind of stuff intill the University. I'm still in upper secondary school (high school)... I'll check.

If not then try to see if it is offered at the university. It might help you understand American politics some. If not, then look into global politics. Better yet, consider Political Science as a major.

That's new to me.. I'll take a note of it. Thanks.

Glad I could be of help. Your welcome.

The supreme court did rule that he was to become president in the first place. Maybe I've read to many Michael Moore books, or listened to a Norwegian-American we have in our class (democrat to the bone), but I'm leaning towards the democratic side in a way. Besides, I'm just showing what I saw/heard/read in the media, Norwegian and foreign (British, German, American) alike.

That does explain some of your viewpoints. Remember, not everything is as black and white. The truth is in the middle between the Democrat view point and the Republican View Point. Yes I am a Republican, however, I do try to get to the truth and I do investigate what both sides say. As for the Supreme Court saying that Bush is President, what they ruled was that there was inconsistencies in the way Florida was doing their recount. What they found was that there was no state standard in recounting them and because there were different standards, had to halt the recount. If there was one set standard, then I think that the recounts would've continued. Then again, that is my opinion.

Why didn't you just place Nader in office then? :P

Nader would've been impeached on day one :p

Just my two cents , I live in Fresno, California, USA.
I am a registered Republican and a member of the NRA , I voted for Bush twice , I think on most issues he is fine.
Lastly , Clinton :sniper: was the biggest POS excuse for a Presdient we have ever had.
Todd
Jimmy Carter.

Why didn't you just place Nader in office then? :P
He makes Bush and Kerry look sane by comparison. I'd say Badnarik, but the LP's foreign policy is nonexistant which just won't work in today's world.

cliton has more political savy than god. And I'd gladly let him sleep with any member of my family.

As for bush. Im just concerned when cheney starts running for president.

Where did Bush Lie?

Nope! Not at all. I just didn't care for how he handled the military or foreign Affairs. I also didn't like the fact that he lied to a Federal Grand Jury (Purgery) and tried to Obstruct Justice.
We believe that Bush lied about the reasons for going to war in Iraq. Even Bush has admitted defeat on finding the non-existent WMDs, and Saddam had no ties to al-Qaeda.

I don't know how Clinton handled the US military, and I don't really care about anything to do with his impeachment, the corrupt bastard. His foreign policy was pretty similar to Reagan's - you know, bomb an African country here, intervene in Eastern Europe there...

The truth is in the middle between the Democrat view point and the Republican View Point.
I disagree. The truth may be (and in my opinion, usually is) outside both their viewpoints.

Just my two cents , I live in Fresno, California, USA.
I am a registered Republican and a member of the NRA , I voted for Bush twice , I think on most issues he is fine.
Lastly , Clinton :sniper: was the biggest POS excuse for a Presdient we have ever had.
Todd
cliton has more political savy than god. And I'd gladly let him sleep with any member of my family.

As for bush. Im just concerned when cheney starts running for president.
You guys were made for each other!

He has a good grasp of economics in the same sense that a butcher keeps a good grasp of the chicken he's cutting up. To a similar end.

Assuming he is trying to make economics work better he clearly does not understand it. Our debts are skyrocketing and even Walmarts sales are dropping.

If he's trying to drive the middle and working classes into poverty so that he can reduce the expenses of his friends businesses... well he still isn't demonstrating a good understanding of economics because businesses won't function if the people in the richest country in the world can't afford to pay for those services. Like I said, even Walmart is loosing buinsess.

And his foreign policy is terrible. WOULD HAVE gone to hell in a hand basket?!
You aren't telling us that you think that what's been going on in the middle east and Sudan are merely at a simmer are you? North Korea was supposed to quadruple its nuclear stockpile?


The data quite clearly confirms a growing economy.
Whether it will sustain itself is another question, but suffice to say, if the workers were not forced to support those who believe they have the right to retire, we would not be in such a heavy predicament.
But, I wonder, how in the world can one argue with the cutting of middle class and poor class tax rates, the lowering of capital gains limits, a decent inflationary policy(set up by Greenspan), and cutting of corporate tax rates?
Perhaps the lowering of (most) tariffs bothered some?
Bush is not aiming for everyone to have a decent life right now. He is trying to give the oppurtinity for people to work now and save up big time for retirement...
Why?
Those that don't work are sucking up resources and contributing anything back. Any economic policy must be based on making the younger work harder and focusing on building up funds for retirement, through business investments(so business has the means to increase supply). That means privatized stock, IRAs, lower taxes, etc.
This is called "marcoeconomics"
This is not "Bush is stealing from the poor and giving to his rich oil buddies!!1!1111!!!1!!11!"



Also, no, the world is not going to hell in a handbasket.
The US is doing nothing different now than it has ever done.
The only difference is that Europe won't help because we used to attack Soviet supporters, who Europe was directly threatened by.

Nope, I have perfect hearing! I know what he says and what he means.

Everyone knows what he says and what he means - that doesn't mean it is pronounced in a normal manner.

Again that is also inaccurate. As for them saying he was AWOL, evidence was provided that he wasn't. I suggest you look for it instead of buying whatever your listening too. Always try to get both sides of the story and not just one. It'll go better for you.

From what I've read, there was no evidence other than Bush's word that he didn't go AWOL. All the records were burnt in a fire.

We believe that Bush lied about the reasons for going to war in Iraq. Even Bush has admitted defeat on finding the non-existent WMDs, and Saddam had no ties to al-Qaeda.

Doesn't mean he lied. It means that our intelligence was bad. So can you show me where he lied?

I don't know how Clinton handled the US military, and I don't really care about anything to do with his impeachment, the corrupt bastard. His foreign policy was pretty similar to Reagan's - you know, bomb an African country here, intervene in Eastern Europe there...

Yep he did do that however, he botched up Sudan when he bombed that aspirin factory due to the fact that he thought it was being used to manufacture *cough*WMD*Cough*

"I have opinions of my own -- strong opinions --but I don't always agree with them."

"Arbolist....look up the word. I don't know; Maybe I made it up. Anyway, it's an arbo-tree-ist, somebody who knows about trees".
Hmm. An idiot? No, just realling confused and probably a tad mentally unhealthy/unstable.

What is your opinion on Bush? Im not saying that I hate bush, I just want to know what people all over the world think....Thank you
He's not an idiot, but he's also not a very shrewd leader. He's easily manipulated. What we've witnessed over the past four years is the implementation of a published neocon agenda (PNAC, the "mothership" of the neocon movement, actually published it on their website). If you check out PNAC (Project for the New American Century) and what their goals are, it may not be shocking to find that among those who signed their mission statement are Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush, and Paul Wolfowitz. These people are scary! And they found the perfect patsy in George W. Bush, someone they can manipulate to their will with ease. He's not stupid, but he's not strong, and that makes him putty in their hands.

Doesn't mean he lied. It means that our intelligence was bad. So can you show me where he lied?
I don't believe our intelligence was as bad as the administration claims. I believe the intelligence community is being forced to play the fall guy. On more than one occasion, the CIA has warned Bush and the administration against making specific inferences from data they considered vague or questionable, only for Bush to go around them and make the inferences and references anyway, because it fit his agenda. Two instances that immediately come to mind:

1. The State of the Union fiasco, where Bush claimed that the British had learned that Iraq was trying to procure yellow cake uranium from Niger (technically this qualifies as passing the buck, since he claimed it was Britain who made the determination, but he clearly was trying to pass it off as reliable and a foregone conclusion). In that case, the CIA had prevented him from using the same information in a speech three months earlier, because they knew as early as that that the information was questionable. Now, nobody wants to take responsibility for inserting that reference into the speech, and all the editors have claimed that it was not in the draft that they approved for the President. That's all available from the Washington Post, by the way, but I can no longer find the article. I'm sure they have it archived somewhere. Nevertheless, it was really funny that the CIA told Bush not to say it, told him it was unreliable, then a few months later took the blame for it?

2. The satellite photos of trucks in the desert. Members of the administration immediately claimed they had found evidence of mobile biochemical laboratories, despite the fact that the CIA had told them not to jump to any conclusions, because the only thing they knew was that they were trucks -- could have been water trucks, for all they knew. Again, the CIA was later handed the blame.

I'm sure those are not the only instances where the intelligence community actually did its job then had to play the fall guy when Bush refused to listen to them.