NationStates Jolt Archive

I am a pro Bush kinda guy. I think that he has done a superior job over the last couple of years to bring stability to our nation. If you disagree please have evidence to back up your disagreement. If you agree please have evidence to support your agreement.

The United States is more divisive today than at almost any time since the Civil War.

The United States is more divisive today than at almost any time since the Civil War.
What evidence do you bring to the table?

What evidence do you bring to the table?

The fact that people started fleeing the country when Bush was re-elected.

The fact that people started fleeing the country when Bush was re-elected.
That people did not wish to serve in the military so they fled fearing a draft, only shows that they are cowards, not that bush did anything wrong.

I am a pro Bush kinda guy. I think that he has done a superior job over the last couple of years to bring stability to our nation.

i always kind of thought we were stable enough without indefinite detentions without charges or trials, and without a worldwide network of torture and murder camps, without increasing the scope of the already scary police state even further, etc. ymmv, i suppose.

on the other hand, this administration has had a continuous stream of scandals, each one of which would probably have brought down significant portions of lesser administrations. so that's stability of a sort i guess.

That people did not wish to serve in the military so they fled fearing a draft, only shows that they are cowards, not that bush did anything wrong.

You have no idea why they fled. Many fled because they feared things like an overturned Roe v. Wade or a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

I am a pro Bush kinda guy. I think that he has done a superior job over the last couple of years to bring stability to our nation. If you disagree please have evidence to back up your disagreement. If you agree please have evidence to support your agreement.

Actually, you're the one claiming Bush is the best President ever. Where's YOUR proof?

Ummm how about that he cheated in the election(s?) and continually lies to the American public?

OK Face it Bush is the best but the people suck!

i always kind of thought we were stable enough without indefinite detentions without charges or trials, and without a worldwide network of torture and murder camps, without increasing the scope of the already scary police state even further, etc. ymmv, i suppose.

on the other hand, this administration has had a continuous stream of scandals, each one of which would probably have brought down significant portions of lesser administrations. so that's stability of a sort i guess.
As to the first part proof, not just your word on it.
For the rest, there is nothing wrong with a little scandal.

What kind of stability do we have? The stability of two unresolved foreign wars? The stability of unrivaled foreign animosity? The stability of rapidly rising oil prices? The stability of an uncertain economic future? I put forward that Bush has presided over unmatched instability.

You have no idea why they fled. Many fled because they feared things like an overturned Roe v. Wade or a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
So rather than stay and fight they fled?

Ummm how about that he cheated in the election(s?) and continually lies to the American public?
He didnt cheat!Others cheated for him.

The Democrats cheated as well they just arent good at it.

Actually, you're the one claiming Bush is the best President ever. Where's YOUR proof?

Excellent point, and one that I was about to bring up as well.

Ummm how about that he cheated in the election(s?) and continually lies to the American public?
Oooh he cheated, what has that got to do with how he runs the nation?

So rather than stay and fight they fled?

Fight how?

Oooh he cheated, what has that got to do with how he runs the nation?

He cheated to win the election, but he's entirely trustworthy to handle our tax dollars or our military or to insure our rights.

We have a troll.

I am a pro Bush kinda guy. I think that he has done a superior job over the last couple of years to bring stability to our nation. If you disagree please have evidence to back up your disagreement. If you agree please have evidence to support your agreement.

I don't live in the US, so I should probably not even comment on this. However, I think it's a bit pointless to discuss this here...(what isn't pointless to discuss here?!), since evidence, one way or another, is not very objective or waterproof.

Having said this, I'd say that he has done a fairly good job in fooling people to believe that what he does is alright.

Actually, you're the one claiming Bush is the best President ever. Where's YOUR proof?
I did not create this thread so that I could go on about the glories of the president. I just want proof as to why so many people seem to think that he is wrong or a bad president, or why other people think as highly of him as i do.

As a European, reading this post is very entertaining. Please continue.

He cheated to win the election, but he's entirely trustworthy to handle our tax dollars or our military or to insure our rights.

We have a troll.
A troll?

Fight how?
Rallys, demonstrations, power of the vote, you know all thse rights to express themselves.

I don't live in the US, so I should probably not even comment on this. However, I think it's a bit pointless to discuss this here...(what isn't pointless to discuss here?!), since evidence, one way or another, is not very objective or waterproof.

Having said this, I'd say that he has done a fairly good job in fooling people to believe that what he does is alright.

He is doing a good job. Feel fre to add if you have something to add.

A troll?
Troll! (http://redwing.hutman.net/%7Emreed/warriorshtm/troller.htm)

"The best president in history"

Yeah, only if you're completely ignorant of history before the year 2000. Which wouldn't be all too surprising for a Bushite, I suppose. :\

"How often do we ask ourselves: Is our children learning" Quote courtesy of George. W. Bush.

We have a man who cheated to get into office, who quite possibly defected from the military, yep, that's right, fled like all those other people you were talking about, makes himself look like an idiot on global TV, is the only government head other than that of SOMALIA to sign the Human Rights of the Child bill...

I mean, it used to be "Hey, the US. They're OK. Saved our butts in WW2"

Now it's "Get the hell away from me you dirty son of the USA! I mean, you elected BUSH! What exactly does that say for the possibility of your average IQ being a negative sum!"

I have friends, family, people in the newspaper, people on TV, I mean, the short and simple of it is, Bush has induced more racism toward Americans n my country, than any other President of the US, and someone with an American accent is more shunned than black people back in the slave age. Note the fact that my country supported Bush in the Iraq war, simply because we've always believed that the US was a great country and someone we should always help out.

If you can't see that Bush has alienated more non-US citizens than any other president, I really don't see the point in debating this with you. (Note: Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe Bush has done wonderful things for the US people. Maybe Godzilla is real, and can morph into 122 different breeds of cat.)

What kind of stability do we have? The stability of two unresolved foreign wars? The stability of unrivaled foreign animosity? The stability of rapidly rising oil prices? The stability of an uncertain economic future? I put forward that Bush has presided over unmatched instability.
And yet here we are. I can't deny the oil prices I do not agree with his view on oil. Wars need to be fought when they need to be fought, if it is two in a life time or none for generations wars just happen, it is the human condition to fight.

OK Face it Bush is the best but the people suck!
Do you have a way to back this up.

rock on fellow bush supporter!

And yet here we are. I can't deny the oil prices I do not agree with his view on oil. Wars need to be fought when they need to be fought, if it is two in a life time or none for generations wars just happen, it is the human condition to fight.

Then how can you maintain that Bush has brought stability to this country when his actions have directly and indirectly done the exact opposite?

He didnt cheat!Others cheated for him.

The Democrats cheated as well they just arent good at it.
thank you.

Troll! (http://redwing.hutman.net/%7Emreed/warriorshtm/troller.htm)
What is a troll in the way you are using it?

I'm sorry, I don't live in the US so this might be wrong, but didn't he turn a billion dollar surplus into a trillion dollar defecit?

Plus, a relative of mine who lives in the US is now too scared to reveal his nationality (malaysian) because he used to be accused of being a terrorist. What kind of world is that?

And I completely agree with Hyperspatial Travel.

Right, here we go. I'm British, so I don't know extensive amounts about George, nor do I have to live with the effects of his policies. But from what I get, he isn't a bad President. He is however, a neo-Christain, which also makes him a homophobe, anti-abortion and anti-stem cell. I don't agree with these views, but each to their own. He hasn't done a brilliant job on the US economy, but neither has he ruined it. He isn't a good orator or public speaker, and that gives the impression that he is stupid, but I don't believe he is. He does genuinely believe that he was right to invade Iraq and Afghanistan, but he didn't think out the consequences before hand (rebuilding process and such). But he can't be blamed entirely for that, since it is up to his foreign and war offices. He won the election, because he played it right (he campaigned on the War on Terror) and because John Kerry was boring, unanimated and changed his policies every day. Bush is nowhere near the best President ever, but he isn't exactly the worst either. And there we go. My opinion.

As to the first part proof, not just your word on it.

proof of what exactly? that we are holding people, including american citizens, without charges or trials or release dates? that we have a worldwide network of camps where prisoners are threatened with, and sometimes recieve, bodily harm from dogs and electrical probes and being chained down and beaten? that the police now have even more sweeping powers than the already scary powers they had before? where have you been?

"How often do we ask ourselves: Is our children learning" Quote courtesy of George. W. Bush.

We have a man who cheated to get into office, who quite possibly defected from the military, yep, that's right, fled like all those other people you were talking about, makes himself look like an idiot on global TV, is the only government head other than that of SOMALIA to sign the Human Rights of the Child bill...

I mean, it used to be "Hey, the US. They're OK. Saved our butts in WW2"

Now it's "Get the hell away from me you dirty son of the USA! I mean, you elected BUSH! What exactly does that say for the possibility of your average IQ being a negative sum!"

I have friends, family, people in the newspaper, people on TV, I mean, the short and simple of it is, Bush has induced more racism toward Americans n my country, than any other President of the US, and someone with an American accent is more shunned than black people back in the slave age. Note the fact that my country supported Bush in the Iraq war, simply because we've always believed that the US was a great country and someone we should always help out.

If you can't see that Bush has alienated more non-US citizens than any other president, I really don't see the point in debating this with you. (Note: Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe Bush has done wonderful things for the US people. Maybe Godzilla is real, and can morph into 122 different breeds of cat.)
So if he is so hated in other countries, then why is there no resolve in those countries to stand up to him and say; "enough".

Bush is a corporatist authoritarian who doesn’t have the political balls to defend the boarders. Apparently starting a pointless war is easier.

Then how can you maintain that Bush has brought stability to this country when his actions have directly and indirectly done the exact opposite?
How is persuing freedom, and freedom from terror actions which cause instability?

I think he is just sloppy and a little gun-ho with his Christian ideology and thus has made errors in judgement. E.g. the whole calling Iran, Iraq and North Korea the Axis of Evil despite A) the courties having little to do with each other (in fact, Iran and Iraq are bitter enemies) and B) there were arguably more "evil" and dangerous (terrorist friendly, oppressive, etc.) courties. He isn't a bad guy, just a little over-zealous and thoughtless at times in achieving his goals. I am Australian, by the way.

How you view Bush's proficiency in office is - I feel - impossible to separate from how you view his administration's proficiency in office: Although the rumo(u)rs regarding his dependence on others in office may be exaggerated, as a democratically-elected (at least the last time anyway) leader of a party, the other ministers are responsible too.

So do you judge the administration's neo-conservatives' agenda as something by which to judge him? After all, he does say 'yes' to the ideas...and how far do you judge him for his agreement to policies that plainly benefit businesses to which a good few people in the White House have previous links? Then again, where ideology is concerned - e.g. gays, abortion - I can see him as the cavalier raging forth on what he believes is right. (even if I don't agree with it)

But then of course there's the aching chasm that has opened up between the electorate - the last election wasn't pretty.

So in conclusion:
To the business-lover: he's a good president for saying 'yes' to his mates' mates
To the right-wing defender of the US above all: he's a hero (although it's not as simple out there as they think)
To the libertarian or environmentally-conscious: he's a loon
To the bible belt: he's a bastion for their ideologies
To the.... and so on

I haven't concluded anything really have I. For the record, I think he behaves like exactly what he is: his Dad's son in power acting like a 12 year old with more power than he knows what to do with but with a neat idea to keep his mates happy.

This fence is making my arse hurt.

I'm sorry, I don't live in the US so this might be wrong, but didn't he turn a billion dollar surplus into a trillion dollar defecit?

Plus, a relative of mine who lives in the US is now too scared to reveal his nationality (malaysian) because he used to be accused of being a terrorist. What kind of world is that?

And I completely agree with Hyperspatial Travel.

Your relitive has no reason to fear unless he is a terrorist and if he is not then he is jumping at shadows

How is persuing freedom, and freedom from terror actions which cause instability?

They are only pursuing freedom and freedom from terror if you buy into that sort of bullshit rhetoric. The US is no safer after the invasion of Iraq than it was before, and now we face an indefinite occupation of two foreign nations, which will drain our economy for decades and on a generation of young Americans.

Right, here we go. I'm British, so I don't know extensive amounts about George, nor do I have to live with the effects of his policies. But from what I get, he isn't a bad President. He is however, a neo-Christain, which also makes him a homophobe, anti-abortion and anti-stem cell. I don't agree with these views, but each to their own. He hasn't done a brilliant job on the US economy, but neither has he ruined it. He isn't a good orator or public speaker, and that gives the impression that he is stupid, but I don't believe he is. He does genuinely believe that he was right to invade Iraq and Afghanistan, but he didn't think out the consequences before hand (rebuilding process and such). But he can't be blamed entirely for that, since it is up to his foreign and war offices. He won the election, because he played it right (he campaigned on the War on Terror) and because John Kerry was boring, unanimated and changed his policies every day. Bush is nowhere near the best President ever, but he isn't exactly the worst either. And there we go. My opinion.
At least you sound like some one who thinks before making a rash decision.

Do you have a way to back this up.

rock on fellow bush supporter!
Well the way i see it is Bush is and was better than Gore.
11/9 is not Bush's fault.
Going into Afghanistan was wrong and was only to divert attention.
Iraq was a grudge.
Kerry is/was nothing and got treated as such.

Democrats complain and moan about Republicans cheating but Republicans have claimed the Demo's cheated.
Answer Everyone Cheats!

If someone asked me Who would be the best id say Clinton.
Id rather have Clinton(Not Hillary)

<a href="http://www.geekandproud.net/terror/"><img alt="Terror Alert Level" border="0" src="http://www.geekandproud.net/terror/terror.php" /> </a>

So if he is so hated in other countries, then why is there no resolve in those countries to stand up to him and say; "enough".

Because the governments won't stand up to him: the citizens DO hate him though (I call as example evidence the anti-war protests around the world - Bush was mentioned somewhat) but they're not always simple minded enough to vote in their government based on their opinion of the US. There are a few other things in life than the US, such as how their own country is doing...

What is a troll in the way you are using it?
Of course something completely different from the definition i linked to, which is why i posted it firsthand. [/sarcasm]

Although i do not fully agree with the linked article (http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=64326), i find a lot of truth in it. Complete with links et all its worth a look, even if its heavily slanted. Bush is far from being the best president ever, he sucks golf balls through a garden hose.

Also if our republican president is so bad, then why did so many republicans sweep congressional offices in the last few years?

I did not create this thread so that I could go on about the glories of the president. I just want proof as to why so many people seem to think that he is wrong or a bad president, or why other people think as highly of him as i do.

So? Don't list every single "glory". Just list a few reasons why YOU think he's the best president ever, instead of asking everyone else for their reasoning, and saying you support him but not list why you think so.

Well the way i see it is Bush is and was better than Gore.
11/9 is not Bush's fault.
Going into Afghanistan was wrong and was only to divert attention.
Iraq was a grudge.
Kerry is/was nothing and got treated as such.

Democrats complain and moan about Republicans cheating but Republicans have claimed the Demo's cheated.
Answer Everyone Cheats!

If someone asked me Who would be the best id say Clinton.
Id rather have Clinton(Not Hillary)

<a href="http://www.geekandproud.net/terror/"><img alt="Terror Alert Level" border="0" src="http://www.geekandproud.net/terror/terror.php" /> </a>

Sensible answer. I'm beind this guy. Looks like both the Dems and Repubs need to both get it together. The Dems have been taken over by the latte` liberals and the Repubs have been hijacked by the intoralant Religious Right. I pray for America...

Also if our republican president is so bad, then why did so many republicans sweep congressional offices in the last few years?

BECAUSE THERE IS NO DIRECT CO-RELATION BETWEEN THE TWO! :rolleyes:

BAM! YOU GOT SERVED!! :sniper: :gundge: :mp5:

Because the governments won't stand up to him: the citizens DO hate him though (I call as example evidence the anti-war protests around the world - Bush was mentioned somewhat) but they're not always simple minded enough to vote in their government based on their opinion of the US. There are a few other things in life than the US, such as how their own country is doing...
Yes there are other issues than the US but in government sould not the majority rule? If the majority of a country says; "Stop Bush", then shouldn't the governing body do something?

Politics has become a game where you can win only by cheating, telling lies, giving and taking bribes, etc etc.
A man who knows how to do these things gets to be the president.

Also if our republican president is so bad, then why did so many republicans sweep congressional offices in the last few years?

Well that depends on
(a) how highly you judge the US electorate
(b) and more pertinently how much you link the US president's proficiency with that of his party.

What really is your point here? As others have said, you've come on as a bit of a fan-boi with no real arguments to back it up. I think I'll start a thread of 'oranges are rubbish' and wait for everyone else to discuss and I'll just say 'cos they are' because that's the truth innit?

Personally, I believe Abe Lincoln was the greatest US prez, he freed the slaves! :)

Yes there are other issues than the US but in government sould not the majority rule? If the majority of a country says; "Stop Bush", then shouldn't the governing body do something?

Quite so. They *should*. Witness the UK: they don't. One of the only reasons the theatre I was in liked the Love Actually film was because the UK prime minister said No to the president for something.

So if he is so hated in other countries, then why is there no resolve in those countries to stand up to him and say; "enough".

Oh, there is. I've been to several anti-Bush rallies, protests against the anti-third world "Free Trade" Act, I don't buy products made in America, for the most part, unless it is impossible for me to obtain the products anywhere else, even if it costs me double the price.

I've run for government once, failing miserably due to my lack of knowlege to how politics work on the inside, and, well, let's have a look at Why, he, among many other US Presidents, are hated.

http://www.vexen.co.uk/USA/hateamerica.html#Regimes
http://www.isometry.com/usahate.html
http://www.omnicenter.org/warpeacecollection/whydopeoplehateus.htm
http://www.omnicenter.org/warpeacecollection/dictators.htm
http://www.krysstal.com/democracy_whyusa.html
http://www.whywehatebush.com/

So? Don't list every single "glory". Just list a few reasons why YOU think he's the best president ever, instead of asking everyone else for their reasoning, and saying you support him but not list why you think so.

Tax Cuts, not the best in history, but the best I've seen in a while.
Also his stance on getting unborn children at a certain stage of development health care is a good one. How does helping people get health care needed through pregnancy turn into a bad thing.

The United States is more divisive today than at almost any time since the Civil War.

What a load of...

A similar arguement is made in Australia that the Liberal (Conservative) government has divided that nation. What a load of twang.

If anything it is the lefties trying to rile up divisions.

Besides, if the Libs were dividing the nation why is it that they won not only 4, count them 1 2 3 4 Federal Elections in a row but at the last election the Liberal/National Coalition won control of the Senate?

If the nation was divided there would be a hell of a lot more Greens, Democrat, Family First and former One Nation whack jobs in the parliament.

BECAUSE THERE IS NO DIRECT CO-RELATION BETWEEN THE TWO! :rolleyes:

BAM! YOU GOT SERVED!! :sniper: :gundge: :mp5:
yes there is.

Bam you got served :sniper: :gundge: :mp5:

Your relitive has no reason to fear unless he is a terrorist and if he is not then he is jumping at shadows

How can you say that?

All it takes is for one person to say 'you come from a muslim country, you must be a terrorist' for people to come knocking on his doors.

Americans used to be incredibly proud, now all they do is fear.

Well that depends on
(a) how highly you judge the US electorate
(b) and more pertinently how much you link the US president's proficiency with that of his party.

What really is your point here? As others have said, you've come on as a bit of a fan-boi with no real arguments to back it up. I think I'll start a thread of 'oranges are rubbish' and wait for everyone else to discuss and I'll just say 'cos they are' because that's the truth innit?
yes well to the heart of it. I am board, and do not really give a rats ass about this subject, but it was beter than nothing. However I am ready for bed now so good night.

What a load of...

A similar arguement is made in Australia that the Liberal (Conservative) government has divided that nation. What a load of twang.

If anything it is the lefties trying to rile up divisions.

Besides, if the Libs were dividing the nation why is it that they won not only 4, count them 1 2 3 4 Federal Elections in a row but at the last election the Liberal/National Coalition won control of the Senate?

If the nation was divided there would be a hell of a lot more Greens, Democrat, Family First and former One Nation whack jobs in the parliament.

That's wonderful. Go Australia. Now did you have anything relevant to say?

yes there is.

Bam you got served :sniper: :gundge: :mp5:

Really? Darn. I didn't so.

How can you say that?

All it takes is for one person to say 'you come from a muslim country, you must be a terrorist' for people to come knocking on his doors.

Americans used to be incredibly proud, now all they do is fear.
I really do not believe that this is true, some of my best friends are muslims fron bangladash. No one I know bothers them.

Personally, I believe Abe Lincoln was the greatest US prez, he freed the slaves! :)

And he wore that cool hat. And he got shot! You can't get any better than that!

I am board...
You are an ex-tree? That does explain a lot. :D

That's wonderful. Go Australia. Now did you have anything relevant to say?

I'M HIT!!!!!!!!

I am pointing out that wheather you are a Democrat (USA) or ALP (Australia) you are still peddling the same crap.

Neither country is any more divided, its just that you lost and you can't handle the fact that the majority voted conservative parties in.

And he wore that cool hat. And he got shot! You can't get any better than that!

Right on!! :) :)

I'M HIT!!!!!!!!

I am pointing out that wheather you are a Democrat (USA) or ALP (Australia) you are still peddling the same crap.

Neither country is any more divided, its just that you lost and you can't handle the fact that the majority voted conservative parties in.

I disagree: the vehemence between the Democrat and Republican voters at the last election seemed greater than ever. There's no denying that the current US government polarises opinion. They got into power: congratulations to them. However there is - and Bush said this himself the day he won - a need to reconcile the divisions of the electorate.

As an extreme example, if a brutal oppressive government was elected 65-35, does this mean that the 'losing' 35% don't deserve attention to address their concerns? The government represents the people; it's not a fight in the playground.

country is any more divided, its just that you lost and you can't handle the fact that the majority voted conservative parties in.
And if you close your eyes nobody can see you, right?
The public discourse became more radicalised over the last years, not only on political issues and not only in anglophone countries. I aint no sociologist and dont know the reason for it, but extreme viewpoints are more and more vocal and rhetorics like "either with us or against us" from people who claim to be/are perceived as moderates do nothing to soothe this.

I'M HIT!!!!!!!!

I am pointing out that wheather you are a Democrat (USA) or ALP (Australia) you are still peddling the same crap.

Neither country is any more divided, its just that you lost and you can't handle the fact that the majority voted conservative parties in.

And a lot of conservatives can't handle the fact that SOME of our criticisms are legit, as an Australian I can tell you that ALPers have been correct in saying that John Howard (our PM) has done some things that hurt Australia. Also, the division isn't about majority, it's about vocal opinion. A LOT OF DEMS AND ALPERS HAVE BEEN VERY LOUD ABOUT THEIR VIEWS ON BUSH. THERE IS DIVISION, FACE IT.

I disagree: the vehemence between the Democrat and Republican voters at the last election seemed greater than ever. There's no denying that the current US government polarises opinion. They got into power: congratulations to them. However there is - and Bush said this himself the day he won - a need to reconcile the divisions of the electorate.

As an extreme example, if a brutal oppressive government was elected 65-35, does this mean that the 'losing' 35% don't deserve attention to address their concerns? The government represents the people; it's not a fight in the playground.

If a government is elected by 50% +1 vote they have the right to govern the nation for their allotted time.

Angst between ALP and Libs was high at the last election as the ALP leader said "I grew up being taught to hate Liberals and I will teach my kids to hate Liberals."

He also reffered to Liberals as "Suck holes" and "Arse Lickers".

Mind you he had a breakdown after his election loss, tried to cut his own hair and wrote a book bagging out the ALP. Stable people on the left side...

However, I really don't understand the people that say they think that Bush is the most dangerous man in the World. That's just ignorance to say that.

Long Live Lincoln and Long Live the Stovepipe Hat (I think that's what it was called).

I am a pro Bush kinda guy. I think that he has done a superior job over the last couple of years to bring stability to our nation. If you disagree please have evidence to back up your disagreement. If you agree please have evidence to support your agreement.
Yep, bush is the greatest president in the same kind of way that -

Jar Jar Binks is the greatest sci-fi character in history...

Ted Bundy is the greatest humanitarian in history...

Paris Hilton is the greatest intellectual in history...

Dude Where's My Car is the greatest movie in history...

The Edsel is the greatest car in history...

The Titanic is the greatest oceanliner in history...

The Spruce Goose is the greatest plane in history...

Ghandi is the greatest bareknuckle streetfighter in history...

Steven Seagal is the greatest actor in history...

;)

And a lot of conservatives can't handle the fact that SOME of our criticisms are legit, as an Australian I can tell you that ALPers have been correct in saying that John Howard (our PM) has done some things that hurt Australia. Also, the division isn't about majority, it's about vocal opinion. A LOT OF DEMS AND ALPERS HAVE BEEN VERY LOUD ABOUT THEIR VIEWS ON BUSH. THERE IS DIVISION, FACE IT.

You don't agree with me = division.

In that case in the entire history of every country on earth there has been division because not everyone agrees.

Going to a Liberal Party meeting now, have fun!!!

*drizzles gasoline over the thread*

Matches, anyone?

Yep, bush is the greatest president in the same kind of way that -

Jar Jar Binks is the greatest sci-fi character in history...

Ted Bundy is the greatest humanitarian in history...

Paris Hilton is the greatest intellectual in history...

Dude Where's My Car is the greatest movie in history...

The Edsel is the greatest car in history...

The Titanic is the greatest oceanliner in history...

The Spruce Goose is the greatest plane in history...

Ghandi is the greatest bareknuckle streetfighter in history...

Steven Seagal is the greatest actor in history...

;)

That's a fantastic list. :D

Neither country is any more divided, its just that you lost and you can't handle the fact that the majority voted conservative parties in.
You're right. Australia is united now - united against Howard and his IR reforms...

If a government is elected by 50% +1 vote they have the right to govern the nation for their allotted time.

Angst between ALP and Libs was high at the last election as the ALP leader said "I grew up being taught to hate Liberals and I will teach my kids to hate Liberals."

He also reffered to Liberals as "Suck holes" and "Arse Lickers".

Mind you he had a breakdown after his election loss, tried to cut his own hair and wrote a book bagging out the ALP. Stable people on the left side...

Over-generalizing. One man does not speak for every ALPer.

And the right hasn't covered itself in glorious rationality either. Ann Coulter, any1?

If a government is elected by 50% +1 vote they have the right to govern the nation for their allotted time.


Of course they do, but it is the responsibility of the elected government in any democracy to - as best they can - represent their people. If they and their voters differ widely in ideology from those who didn't vote for them, then it may be difficult (nay impossible), but sometimes there's some middle-ground. Bush does seem to swing too far the other way: in a recent conference on IT policy, he made a point of not inviting those who didn't vote Republican. This is IT, not a Republican conference. Mature.

Going to a Liberal Party meeting now, have fun!!!
Excellent. Then maybe you can explain to me why the hell the ALP would have somehow raised interest rates.....
:rolleyes:

That's a fantastic list. :D

Actually, Steven Steagal was a pretty good actor...

Actually, Steven Steagal was a pretty good actor...


hahahahahahahaha

I stand by my opinion of Steven Steagal.

First of all, a few tangent points-


is the only government head other than that of SOMALIA to sign the Human Rights of the Child bill...
I thought Somalia's government collapsed in 1984 and that the country was effectively an Anarchy... correct me if I'm wrong.

and to The Seperate One, you're doing a fairly good job of chairing the debate respectfully (despite not being neutral on the subject), but as much as Zexaland's "There's no correlation" was unproven, the unqualified "yes there is" was a bit of a silly reply. Both sides, get some proof down, and we'll let people pick up the pieces so we don't lapse into "no it's not"-"yes it is"-"no it's not"-"yes it is"-"no it's not" like a couple of children fighting over a toy.


So if he is so hated in other countries, then why is there no resolve in those countries to stand up to him and say; "enough".

There is some resolve - the people protest (especially Europeans) but their administrations ignore them (because the democracy "people governing" part only comes in every five years). However, the administrations rarely oppose because of the Little Boys and Fat Mans the world has accumulated (the US more than any, 26,000 at the time of the START 3 treaty) over the years - people don't like the concept of a nuclear war. In the case of Britain, we mostly honour our alliance with the States, but whilst all sides despised the Nazis as they were intent on Empire Building, some Brits (myself included) see attacking Iraq and Afghanistan as more likely to provoke further attacks than solve the problem. Radical Imams are in every country and attacking muslim countries will just made them more persuasive.
If this procedure continues, we'd have to be regime changing every country with military force - not only is this unlikely, but the cynical are thinking along the lines of "war for oil" or "Corporate empire building". In all honesty, I cannot find any proof to the countrary, but we do know that coalition nations get first dibs on the Oil pipelines, and how is corruption going to be monitored in a country with an infrastructure that's been destroyed slowly by mismanagement (Despotism) and military campaigns since 1991? Better watch the Exxon shares to find out.

Personally, I'm not going to go preaching what I think is best for my country (it's a radical secularist change to cut it short, but that's a whole new can of worms), but I agree that the states are very divided. If you took the Mason-Dixon, I'm pretty sure the Union would be Blue and the Confederates Red. Perhaps the sides formed seperate entities again, people wouldn't be so judgemental about the americans (there's a significant amount of stereotyping) due to seeing how both mindsets of american peoples work - there's benefits to both sides.

So as far as Bush is concerned - there's a fine line between idiocy and genius - overall, it'd say he's stepped over it in terms of foreign relations at times, but with regards to concerns of the economy of his country he's keeping the cool cap on. It's a pity it's partially due to providing a fifth of the world's greenhouse gases, but fundamentalists and science frequently battle- even today, some decendants of the Puritans claim that dinosaur bones were "put in the ground by the devil" to test their beliefs!

Funny old world :)

Excellent. Then maybe you can explain to me why the hell the ALP would have somehow raised interest rates.....
:rolleyes:

Good point there, pal. DID the Libs come 2 that conculsion by way of irrelevant past info and speculation...or...?

So if he is so hated in other countries, then why is there no resolve in those countries to stand up to him and say; "enough".

Didn't you see the demonstrations against him before the war on Iraq. I was in stockholm. Minus 20 Celsius but still 30 000 people on the streets. In Madrid, Paris and Berlin more than 100 000.

Did you hear about the democarcy aid to US during the last elections? Do you know that international society sent people to supervise the elections just like they do for elections in Azerbadjian or Mocambique.

Everywhere he goes you get demonstration. He came to Copenhagen this summer and you had 25 000 people on the streets. They had to shut down the city while he was here due to security issues.

The spanish governement was overthrown due to supporting Bush.

Go look on www.bushwanted.org , www.boycottbush.org , www.stopbushproject.com or almost any other combination of words like stop, don't, away, NO, anti and Bush.

*drizzles gasoline over the thread*

Matches, anyone?

I got a lighter, that enuff? ;)

Seriously though, don't. It's a crime. ARSON. Don't do it.

Seriously though, don't. It's a crime. ARSON. Don't do it.

A pox on you.

*drizzles gasoline over the thread*

Matches, anyone?

*throws lit match on thread*

He turned "The Land of the Free" into "The Land of the Fear"

Good point there, pal. DID the Libs come 2 that conculsion by way of irrelevant past info and speculation...or...?
It was a cold-blooded lie, you can say it.
Most of Australia is ridiculously in debt. Any rise in interest rates hurts average people a lot. So how do you scare them? With interest rates.

There is absolutely no viable economic argument for it. You would have to assume that the ALP would just randomly throw huge amounts of money into the economy and crowd out investment. Which was at no point suggested in the ALP's programs and strategies.

A pox on you.



*throws lit match on thread*

Yeah? Well, :upyours: you 2.

*runs to get a fire hose*

It was a cold-blooded lie, you can say it.
Most of Australia is ridiculously in debt. Any rise in interest rates hurts average people a lot. So how do you scare them? With interest rates.

There is absolutely no viable economic argument for it. You would have to assume that the ALP would just randomly throw huge amounts of money into the economy and crowd out investment. Which was at no point suggested in the ALP's programs and strategies.

That's what I thought...

Here's a nice article from last year. Granted it's a little dated, it's the opinion of historians, which probably have a better grasp on "best President in history" than most of us on here...unless of course you have a degree in history to bring to the table :) Here we go:

Although his approval ratings have slipped somewhat in recent weeks, President George W. Bush still enjoys the overall support of nearly half of the American people. He does not, however, fare nearly so well among professional historians.

A recent informal, unscientific survey of historians conducted at my suggestion by George Mason University’s History News Network found that eight in ten historians responding rate the current presidency an overall failure.

Of 415 historians who expressed a view of President Bush’s administration to this point as a success or failure, 338 classified it as a failure and 77 as a success. (Moreover, it seems likely that at least eight of those who said it is a success were being sarcastic, since seven said Bush’s presidency is only the best since Clinton’s and one named Millard Fillmore.) Twelve percent of all the historians who responded rate the current presidency the worst in all of American history, not too far behind the 19 percent who see it at this point as an overall success.

Among the cautions that must be raised about the survey is just what “success” means. Some of the historians rightly pointed out that it would be hard to argue that the Bush presidency has not so far been a political success—or, for that matter that President Bush has not been remarkably successful in achieving his objectives in Congress. But those meanings of success are by no means incompatible with the assessment that the Bush presidency is a disaster. “His presidency has been remarkably successful,” one historian declared, “in its pursuit of disastrous policies.” “I think the Bush administration has been quite successful in achieving its political objectives,” another commented, “which makes it a disaster for us.”

Additionally, it is, of course, as one respondent rightly noted, “way too early to make a valid comparison (we need another 50 years).” And such an informal survey is plainly not scientifically reliable. Yet the results are so overwhelming and so different from the perceptions of the general public that an attempt to explain and assess their reactions merits our attention. It may be, as one pro-Bush historian said in his or her written response to the poll, “I suspect that this poll will tell us nothing about President Bush’s performance vis-à-vis his peer group, but may confirm what we already know about the current crop of history professors.” The liberal-left proclivities of much of the academic world are well documented, and some observers will dismiss the findings as the mere rantings of a disaffected professoriate. “If historians were the only voters,” another pro-Bush historian noted, “Mr. Gore would have carried 50 states.” It is plain that many liberal academics have the same visceral reaction against the second President Bush that many conservatives did against his immediate predecessor.

Note: How come educated people, especially with degrees, tend to be liberal? I would like to link to the recent election and the fact that people with a higher education voted against Bush, while those with little or no education voted for Bush...too bad I'm too lazy to look it up right now.

Yet it seems clear that a similar survey taken during the presidency of Bush’s father would not have yielded results nearly as condemnatory. And, for all the distaste liberal historians had for Ronald Reagan, relatively few would have rated his administration as worse than that of Richard Nixon. Yet today 57 percent of all the historians who participated in the survey (and 70 percent of those who see the Bush presidency as a failure) either name someone prior to Nixon or say that Bush’s presidency is the worst ever, meaning that they rate it as worse than the two presidencies in the past half century that liberals have most loved to hate, those of Nixon and Reagan. One who made the comparison with Nixon explicit wrote, “Indeed, Bush puts Nixon into a more favorable light. He has trashed the image and reputation of the United States throughout the world; he has offended many of our previously close allies; he has burdened future generations with incredible debt; he has created an unnecessary war to further his domestic political objectives; he has suborned the civil rights of our citizens; he has destroyed previous environmental efforts by government in favor of his coterie of exploiters; he has surrounded himself with a cabal ideological adventurers . . . .”

Note: That pretty much sums it up right there, those reasons alone put Bush in the "one of the worst Presidents in American history" category...

Why should the views of historians on the current president matter?

I do not share the view of another respondent that “until we have gained access to the archival record of this president, we [historians] are no better at evaluating it than any other voter.” Academic historians, no matter their ideological bias, have some expertise in assessing what makes for a successful or unsuccessful presidency; we have a long-term perspective in which to view the actions of a current chief executive. Accordingly, the depth of the negative assessment that so many historians make of George W. Bush is something of which the public should be aware. Their comments make clear that such historians would readily agree with conclusion that then-Democratic presidential hopeful Richard Gephardt pronounced a few months ago: the presidency of George W. Bush is “a miserable failure.”

Note: Yup.

The past presidencies most commonly linked with the current administration include all of those that are usually rated as the worst in the nation’s history: Nixon, Harding, Hoover, Buchanan, Coolidge, Andrew Johnson, Grant, and McKinley. The only president who appeared prominently on both the favorable and unfavorable lists was Ronald Reagan. Forty-seven historians said Bush is the best president since Reagan, while 38 said he is the worst since Reagan. Almost all of the historians who rate the Bush presidency a success are Reagan admirers. Indeed, no other president (leaving aside the presumably mostly tongue-in-cheek mentions of Clinton) was named by more than four of the historians who took a favorable view of the current presidency.

Ronald Reagan clearly has become the sort of polarizing figure that Franklin Roosevelt was for an earlier generation—or, perhaps a better way to understand the phenomenon is that Reagan has become the personification of the pole opposite to Roosevelt. That polarization is evident in historians’ evaluations of George W. Bush’s presidency. “If one believes Bush is a ‘good’ president (or great),” one poll respondent noted, he or she “would necessarily also believe Reagan to be a pretty good president.” They also tend to despise Roosevelt. “There is no indication,” one historian said of Bush, “that he has advisors who are closet communist traitors as FDR had. Based on his record to date, history is likely to judge him as one of America’s greatest presidents, in the tradition of Washington and Lincoln.”

The thought that anyone could rate the incumbent president with Washington and Lincoln is enough to induce apoplexy in a substantial majority of historians. Among the many offenses they enumerate in their indictment of Bush is that he is, as one of them put it, “well on his way to destroying the entire (and entirely successful) structures of international cooperation and regulated, humane capitalism and social welfare that have been built up since the early 1930s.” “Bush is now in a position,” Another historian said, “to ‘roll back the New Deal,’ guided by Tom DeLay.”

Several charges against the Bush administration arose repeatedly in the comments of historians who responded to the survey. Among them were: the doctrine of pre-emptive war, crony capitalism/being “completely in bed with certain corporate interests,” bankruptcy/fiscal irresponsibility, military adventurism, trampling of civil liberties, and anti-environmental policies.

Note: I would like to point out the "14 Points of Facism," which lists some of the above (please be aware the points below are based off regimes such as Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Franco’s Spain, Salazar’s Portugal, Papadopoulos’s Greece, Pinochet’s Chile, and Suharto’s Indonesia):

1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism. From the prominent displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins, the fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always obvious. Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were common themes in expressing this nationalism. It was usually coupled with a suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on xenophobia.

2. Disdain for the importance of human rights. The regimes themselves viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was egregious, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation.

3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause. The most significant common thread among these regimes was the use of scapegoating as a means to divert the people’s attention from other problems, to shift blame for failures, and to channel frustration in controlled directions. The methods of choice—relentless propaganda and disinformation—were usually effective. Often the regimes would incite “spontaneous” acts against the target scapegoats, usually communists, socialists, liberals, Jews, ethnic and racial minorities, traditional national enemies, members of other religions, secularists, homosexuals, and “terrorists.” Active opponents of these regimes were inevitably labeled as terrorists and dealt with accordingly.

4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism. Ruling elites always identified closely with the military and the industrial infrastructure that supported it. A disproportionate share of national resources was allocated to the military, even when domestic needs were acute. The military was seen as an expression of nationalism, and was used whenever possible to assert national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite.

5. Rampant sexism. Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the national culture were male-dominated, these regimes inevitably viewed women as second-class citizens. They were adamantly anti-abortion and also homophobic. These attitudes were usually codified in Draconian laws that enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the country, thus lending the regime cover for its abuses.

6. A controlled mass media. Under some of the regimes, the mass media were under strict direct control and could be relied upon never to stray from the party line. Other regimes exercised more subtle power to ensure media orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing and access to resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and implied threats. The leaders of the mass media were often politically compatible with the power elite. The result was usually success in keeping the general public unaware of the regimes’ excesses.

7. Obsession with national security. Inevitably, a national security apparatus was under direct control of the ruling elite. It was usually an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any constraints. Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting “national security,” and questioning its activities was portrayed as unpatriotic or even treasonous.

8. Religion and ruling elite tied together. Unlike communist regimes, the fascist and protofascist regimes were never proclaimed as godless by their opponents. In fact, most of the regimes attached themselves to the predominant religion of the country and chose to portray themselves as militant defenders of that religion. The fact that the ruling elite’s behavior was incompatible with the precepts of the religion was generally swept under the rug. Propaganda kept up the illusion that the ruling elites were defenders of the faith and opponents of the “godless.” A perception was manufactured that opposing the power elite was tantamount to an attack on religion.

9. Power of corporations protected. Although the personal life of ordinary citizens was under strict control, the ability of large corporations to operate in relative freedom was not compromised. The ruling elite saw the corporate structure as a way to not only ensure military production (in developed states), but also as an additional means of social control. Members of the economic elite were often pampered by the political elite to ensure a continued mutuality of interests, especially in the repression of “have-not” citizens.

10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated. Since organized labor was seen as the one power center that could challenge the political hegemony of the ruling elite and its corporate allies, it was inevitably crushed or made powerless. The poor formed an underclass, viewed with suspicion or outright contempt. Under some regimes, being poor was considered akin to a vice.

11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts. Intellectuals and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them were anathema to these regimes. Intellectual and academic freedom were considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal. Universities were tightly controlled; politically unreliable faculty harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent were strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed. To these regimes, art and literature should serve the national interest or they had no right to exist.

12. Obsession with crime and punishment. Most of these regimes maintained Draconian systems of criminal justice with huge prison populations. The police were often glorified and had almost unchecked power, leading to rampant abuse. “Normal” and political crime were often merged into trumped-up criminal charges and sometimes used against political opponents of the regime. Fear, and hatred, of criminals or “traitors” was often promoted among the population as an excuse for more police power.

13. Rampant cronyism and corruption. Those in business circles and close to the power elite often used their position to enrich themselves. This corruption worked both ways; the power elite would receive financial gifts and property from the economic elite, who in turn would gain the benefit of government favoritism. Members of the power elite were in a position to obtain vast wealth from other sources as well: for example, by stealing national resources. With the national security apparatus under control and the media muzzled, this corruption was largely unconstrained and not well understood by the general population.

14. Fraudulent elections. Elections in the form of plebiscites or public opinion polls were usually bogus. When actual elections with candidates were held, they would usually be perverted by the power elite to get the desired result. Common methods included maintaining control of the election machinery, intimidating and disenfranchising opposition voters, destroying or disallowing legal votes, and, as a last resort, turning to a judiciary beholden to the power elite.

The reasons stated by some of the historians for their choice of the presidency that they believe Bush’s to be the worst since are worth repeating. The following are representative examples for each of the presidents named most frequently:

REAGAN: “I think the presidency of George W. Bush has been generally a failure and I consider his presidency so far to have been the most disastrous since that of Ronald Reagan--because of the unconscionable military aggression and spending (especially the Iraq War), the damage done to the welfare of the poor while the corporate rich get richer, and the backwards religious fundamentalism permeating this administration. I strongly disliked and distrusted Reagan and think that George W. is even worse.”

NIXON: “Actually, I think presidency may exceed the disaster that was Nixon. He has systematically lied to the American public about almost every policy that his administration promotes.” Bush uses “doublespeak” to “dress up policies that condone or aid attacks by polluters and exploiters of the environment . . . with names like the ‘Forest Restoration Act’ (which encourages the cutting down of forests).”

HOOVER: “I would say GW is our worst president since Herbert Hoover. He is moving to bankrupt the federal government on the eve of the retirement of the baby boom generation, and he has brought America’s reputation in the world to its lowest point in the entire history of the United States.”

COOLIDGE: “I think his presidency has been an unmitigated disaster for the environment, for international relations, for health care, and for working Americans. He’s on a par with Coolidge!”

HARDING: “Oil, money and politics again combine in ways not flattering to the integrity of the office. Both men also have a tendency to mangle the English language yet get their points across to ordinary Americans. [Yet] the comparison does Harding something of a disservice.”

McKINLEY: “Bush is perhaps the first president [since McKinley] to be entirely in the ‘hip pocket’ of big business, engage in major external conquest for reasons other than national security, AND be the puppet of his political handler. McKinley had Mark Hanna; Bush has Karl Rove. No wonder McKinley is Rove’s favorite historical president (precedent?).”

GRANT: “He ranks with U.S. Grant as the worst. His oil interests and Cheney’s corporate Haliburton contracts smack of the same corruption found under Grant.”

“While Grant did serve in the army (more than once), Bush went AWOL from the National Guard. That means that Grant is automatically more honest than Bush, since Grant did not send people into places that he himself consciously avoided. . . . Grant did not attempt to invade another country without a declaration of war; Bush thinks that his powers in this respect are unlimited.”

ANDREW JOHNSON: “I consider his presidency so far to have been the most disastrous since that of Andrew Johnson. It has been a sellout of fundamental democratic (and Republican) principles. There are many examples, but the most recent would be his successful efforts to insert provisions in spending bills which directly controvert measures voted down by both houses of Congress.”

BUCHANAN: “Buchanan can be said to have made the Civil War inevitable or to have made the war last longer by his pusillanimity or, possibly, treason.” “Buchanan allowed a war to evolve, but that war addressed a real set of national issues. Mr. Bush started a war . . . for what reason?

EVER: The second most common response from historians, trailing only Nixon, was that the current presidency is the worst in American history. A few examples will serve to provide the flavor of such condemnations. “Although previous presidents have led the nation into ill-advised wars, no predecessor managed to turn America into an unprovoked aggressor. No predecessor so thoroughly managed to confirm the impressions of those who already hated America. No predecessor so effectively convinced such a wide range of world opinion that America is an imperialist threat to world peace. I don 't think that you can do much worse than that.”

“Bush is horrendous; there is no comparison with previous presidents, most of whom have been bad.”

[b]“He is blatantly a puppet for corporate interests, who care only about their own greed and have no sense of civic responsibility or community service. He lies, constantly and often, seemingly without control, and he lied about his invasion into a sovereign country, again for corporate interests; many people have died and been maimed, and that has been lied about too. He grandstands and mugs in a shameful manner, befitting a snake oil salesman, not a statesman. He does not think, process, or speak well, and is emotionally immature due to, among other things, his lack of recovery from substance abuse. The term is "dry drunk". He is an abject embarrassment/pariah overseas; the rest of the world hates him . . . . . He is, by far, the most irresponsible, unethical, inexcusable occupant of our formerly highest office in the land that there has ever been.”

Note: Hahahahahahaha

“George W. Bush's presidency is the pernicious enemy of American freedom, compassion, and community; of world peace; and of life itself as it has evolved for millennia on large sections of the planet. The worst president ever? Let history judge him.”

“This president is unique in his failures.”

And then there was this split ballot, comparing the George W. Bush presidencies failures in distinct areas. The George W. Bush presidency is the worst since:

“In terms of economic damage, Reagan.

In terms of imperialism, T Roosevelt.

In terms of dishonesty in government, Nixon.

In terms of affable incompetence, Harding.

In terms of corruption, Grant.

In terms of general lassitude and cluelessness, Coolidge.

In terms of personal dishonesty, Clinton.

In terms of religious arrogance, Wilson.”

My own answer to the question was based on astonishment that so many people still support a president who has:

Note: And here we go, in a nutshell:

Presided over the loss of approximately three million American jobs in his first two-and-a-half years in office, the worst record since Herbert Hoover.

Overseen an economy in which the stock market suffered its worst decline in the first two years of any administration since Hoover’s.

Taken, in the wake of the terrorist attacks two years ago, the greatest worldwide outpouring of goodwill the United States has enjoyed at least since World War II and squandered it by insisting on pursuing a foolish go-it-almost-alone invasion of Iraq, thereby transforming almost universal support for the United States into worldwide condemnation. (One historian made this point particularly well: “After inadvertently gaining the sympathies of the world 's citizens when terrorists attacked New York and Washington, Bush has deliberately turned the country into the most hated in the world by a policy of breaking all major international agreements, declaring it our right to invade any country that we wish, proving that he’ll manipulate facts to justify anything he wishes to do, and bull-headedly charging into a quagmire.”)
Misled (to use the most charitable word and interpretation) the American public about weapons of mass destruction and supposed ties to Al Qaeda in Iraq and so into a war that has plainly (and entirely predictably) made us less secure, caused a boom in the recruitment of terrorists, is killing American military personnel needlessly, and is threatening to suck up all our available military forces and be a bottomless pit for the money of American taxpayers for years to come.

Failed to follow through in Afghanistan, where the Taliban and Al Qaeda are regrouping, once more increasing the threat to our people.

Insulted and ridiculed other nations and international organizations and now has to go, hat in hand, to those nations and organizations begging for their assistance.

Completely miscalculated or failed to plan for the personnel and monetary needs in Iraq after the war, so that he sought and obtained an $87 billion appropriation for Iraq, a sizable chunk of which is going, without competitive bidding to Haliburton, the company formerly headed by his vice president.
Inherited an annual federal budget surplus of $230 billion and transformed it into a $500+ billion deficit in less than three years. This negative turnaround of three-quarters of a trillion dollars is totally without precedent in our history. The ballooning deficit for fiscal 2004 is rapidly approaching twice the dollar size of the previous record deficit, $290 billion, set in 1992, the last year of the administration of President Bush’s father and, at almost 5 percent of GDP, is closing in on the percentage record set by Ronald Reagan in 1986.

Cut taxes three times, sharply reducing the burden on the rich, reclassified money obtained through stock ownership as more deserving than money earned through work. The idea that dividend income should not be taxed—what might accurately be termed the unearned income tax credit—can be stated succinctly: “If you had to work for your money, we’ll tax it; if you didn’t have to work for it, you can keep it all.”

Severely curtailed the very American freedoms that our military people are supposed to be fighting to defend. (“The Patriot Act,” one of the historians noted, “is the worst since the Alien and Sedition Acts under John Adams.”)

Called upon American armed service people, including Reserve forces, to sacrifice for ever-lengthening tours of duty in a hostile and dangerous environment while he rewards the rich at home with lower taxes and legislative giveaways and gives lucrative no-bid contracts to American corporations linked with the administration.

Given an opportunity to begin to change the consumption-oriented values of the nation after September 11, 2001, when people were prepared to make a sacrifice for the common good, called instead of Americans to ‘sacrifice’ by going out and buying things.

Proclaimed himself to be a conservative while maintaining that big government should be able to run roughshod over the Bill of Rights, and that the government must have all sorts of secrets from the people, but the people can be allowed no privacy from the government. (As one of the historians said, “this is not a conservative administration; it is a reckless and arrogant one, beholden to a mix of right-wing ideologues, neo-con fanatics, and social Darwinian elitists.”)

My assessment is that George W. Bush’s record on running up debt to burden our children is the worst since Ronald Reagan; his record on government surveillance of citizens is the worst since Richard Nixon; his record on foreign-military policy has gotten us into the worst foreign mess we’ve been in since Lyndon Johnson sank us into Vietnam; his economic record is the worst since Herbert Hoover; his record of tax favoritism for the rich is the worst since Calvin Coolidge; his record of trampling on civil liberties is the worst since Woodrow Wilson. How far back in our history would we need to go to find a presidency as disastrous for this country as that of George W. Bush has been thus far? My own vote went to the administration of James Buchanan, who warmed the president’s chair while the union disintegrated in 1860-61.

Who has been the biggest beneficiary of the horrible terrorism that struck our nation in September of 2001? The answer to that question should be obvious to anyone who considers where the popularity ratings and reelection prospects of a president with the record outlined above would be had he not been able to wrap himself in the flag, take advantage of the American people’s patriotism, and make himself synonymous with “the United States of America” for the past two years.

That abuse of the patriotism and trust of the American people is even worse than everything else this president has done and that fact alone might be sufficient to explain the depth of the hostility with which so many historians view George W. Bush. Contrary to the conservative stereotype of academics as anti-American, the reasons that many historians cited for seeing the Bush presidency as a disaster revolve around their perception that he is undermining traditional American practices and values. As one patriotic historian put it, “I think his presidency has been the worst disaster to hit the United States and is bringing our beloved country to financial, economic, and social disaster.”

Some voters may judge such assessments to be wrong, but they are assessments informed by historical knowledge and the electorate ought to have them available to take into consideration during this election year. And here is where the problem, I think, stems from people who honestly find no fault with Bush and support him:

Steven Kull adds, "Another reason that Bush supporters may hold to these beliefs is that they have not accepted the idea that it does not matter whether Iraq had WMD or supported al Qaeda." Asked whether the US should have gone to war with Iraq if US intelligence had concluded that Iraq was not making WMD or providing support to al Qaeda, 58% of Bush supporters said the US should not have, and 61% assume that in this case the President would not have. Kull continues, "To support the president and to accept that he took the US to war based on mistaken assumptions likely creates substantial cognitive dissonance, and leads Bush supporters to suppress awareness of unsettling information about prewar Iraq."

The whole WMD and war issue aside, the point I was trying to make is about the cognitive dissonance and the suppression of awareness about ANY information that puts Bush in bad light, no matter if it's true or false, followers of Bush will disregard it 150%. Period.

This tendency of Bush supporters to ignore dissonant information extends to other realms as well. Despite an abundance of evidence—including polls conducted by Gallup International in 38 countries, and more recently by a consortium of leading newspapers in 10 major countries—only 31% of Bush supporters recognize that the majority of people in the world oppose the US having gone to war with Iraq. Forty-two percent assume that views are evenly divided, and 26% assume that the majority approves.There. I win :) Feel free to rebuttal the key points, mainly the parts in red, about what Bush has done for this country. You can try I suppose...and please provide sources that at least have a brain, a degree, or don't have the last name of Coulter or O'Reilley!!! Also, text in brown, in quoted sections, are my comments.

Go Indicativa.
I have a hard time imagining that he has improved his rating in the last year.

http://jtc.blogs.com/just_left/images/bushbrashtaxes.jpg

Enough said!

Note: How come educated people, especially with degrees, tend to be liberal? I would like to link to the recent election and the fact that people with a higher education voted against Bush, while those with little or no education voted for Bush...too bad I'm too lazy to look it up right now.

Well, to be fair, US universities are dominated by what you refer to as liberals. A lot of time spent in that setting must certainly have an effect on someone. They are, however, not liberals, they are usually socialists or some other left-wing ideology that has hijacked that noble term. It rightly belongs to libertarians, thank you.

Hey!

Im from Europe (France) but I know some of the current American issues, thanks to a part of my family & friends living over there. Well, this thread is quite interesting, even if it has enough material to be treated as a troll.
Indeed, most countries in Europe were against Bush wars but many governments didn't support their own people, especially English, Spanish and Italian's ones. We, French peeps, were represented by our president, who's said to be a "traitor" at that time, consequently to Bush's famous sentence "You are with us, else you are with the terrorists"... (I even heard of stupidities like he was a "pro-terrorist", which really represents a lack of political knowledge about him. This guy is quite liberal, but he comes from the left side and made some of the best actions ever for historical justice, ie. recognizing French culpability during WW2 and its genocide, etc... On that part he cannot be such a "traitor").

Anyway, what I feel about this story is, on an international point of view, that there are many consequences of all Bush's governement actions :

- what they did in Irak should have been done by Bush father 13 years ago, he really had the opportunity to end up with this regime, and obviously there's not only political issues related to that war (ie. business is business, nothing better than a war to boost a slowed economy and please friends in business)
> All this made the situation worse about terrorism (before American military forces came to Irak there was no terrorism at all there, only state "terrorism" ie. dictatorship)

- the Iraqi question has divided the whole occidental world, treating UN as a real joke (this is inexcusable. It creates a dangerous imbalance and make most countries think that the US want to be superior, despite the whole world feelings about them, ie. they don't give a sh!t about environment, even if they generate 1/4 of global pollution; they don't care about nuclear disarmament, even if they signed a pact with Russia about it, etc...)

- on the other hand we can see the beginning of a movement in the Middle-East countries for democracy, which is probably the best thing we could expect from an US president

What they did in Afghanistan was a pure reaction due to the terrible shock coming up from 9/11 tragedy so as to show the remaining power of the US (don't play with us or u'll pay for it), and it can't be blamed in front of these particular arguments


ps: just my opinion
pps: sorry for my English :(

The ultimate proof of Bush's ineptitude is his supporters. For example, the guy who posted this topic. Let's have a show of hands... the official statistic is that 23 percent of Americans have passports. That means 77 percent of the population has never been out of the country... I'd like to see a poll of passport holders who are also Bush supporters... I doubt there are too many because it's hard to travel and remain a Bush supporter whenyou can see the effect that horrible man has on the world. So ultimately the three excuses for being a Bush supporter are ignorance, stupidity, or insanity. I loike most Americans and I think most Southerners for example, fall into the first category, just because they don't have the opportunity to escape it. Oh right, and in the poll about the passports, if the only time the people left the country was on a mission trip, their vote doesn't count because they've been to thoroughly brainwashed.
Amendment... US citizens can go to Canada and parts of Mexico without a passport, but the Bush administration is ending this freedom starting in 2008. Don't want our citizens minds being polluted by evil Canadian socialism.

That people did not wish to serve in the military so they fled fearing a draft, only shows that they are cowards, not that bush did anything wrong.

Believing value judgements to be evidence is a sure sign of senility.

Ummm how about that he cheated in the election(s?) and continually lies to the American public?

How did he cheat in the elections again? By running a better campaign?

pps: sorry for my English :([/QUOTE]

Your English is brilliant. I wish I could speak a foreign language fluently. And I agree with many of the points made (I deleted that part in the quotes section, it would have take up too much room.) It really does represent the common European view. However, I think that democracy in the Mid East, and reform of the corrupt and incumbent UN are two good things that come out of Bush's wars.

Canada City']How did he cheat in the elections again? By running a better campaign?
by getting over 6,000 votes in an Ohio county that only had a population of ~2,500. That wasn't an isolated incident either.

I am a pro Bush kinda guy. I think that he has done a superior job over the last couple of years to bring stability to our nation. If you disagree please have evidence to back up your disagreement. If you agree please have evidence to support your agreement.

(bold added by me)

That is the problem with your argument. (well at least the most obvious one)

I am a pro Bush kinda guy. I think that he has done a superior job over the last couple of years to bring stability to our nation. If you disagree please have evidence to back up your disagreement. If you agree please have evidence to support your agreement.

He's not even the best president in the last 25 years. He violates the constitution in the name of security and to provide Gov. funding to religion. He started a war in which we had no vested interest. Afghanistan was fine. Iraq is not. If we used the grounds on which that war is being justified, we'd be in China, North Korea, Sudan, Iran and a host of other countries.

more facts to prove Bush is screwing the country.

http://www.readythinkvote.com/
It may seem partisan, but I challenge you to go to the sources, mostly from the government themselves, and find where they disagree with the graphs. I guess the truth is just biased.

And that reminds me of my favorite joke:

How many members of the Bush administration does it take to change a light bulb?

Ten

1. One to deny that a light bulb needs to be changed;

2. One to attack the patriotism of anyone who says the light bulb needs to be changed;

3. One to blame Clinton for burning out the light bulb;

4. One to arrange the invasion of a country rumored to have a secret stockpile of light bulbs;

5. One to give a billion dollar no-bid contract to Halliburton for the new light bulb;

6. One to arrange a photograph of Bush, dressed as a janitor, standing on a step ladder under the banner: Light Bulb Change Accomplished;

7. One administration insider to resign and write a book documenting in detail how Bush was literally in the dark;

8. One to viciously smear #7;

9. One surrogate to campaign on TV and at rallies on how George Bush has had a strong light-bulb-changing policy all along;

10. And finally one to confuse Americans about the difference between screwing a light bulb and screwing the country.

I am a pro Bush kinda guy. I think that he has done a superior job over the last couple of years to bring stability to our nation. If you disagree please have evidence to back up your disagreement. If you agree please have evidence to support your agreement.
Well, I don't see what's so great about him, because he hasn't done anything extraordinary. One could make the point that he is a good president, but I would think it rather difficult to argue that he's done better stuff than all the presidents who came before him.

I wouldn't say he's our BEST president, I mean....he's made his fair share of mistakes. He's certainly up there on the list, though.

I am a pro Bush kinda guy. I think that he has done a superior job over the last couple of years to bring stability to our nation. If you disagree please have evidence to back up your disagreement. If you agree please have evidence to support your agreement.Where is your evidence to back up your claim?

If I had to rank the Presidents, li'l shrub would come in about 6 millionth. As a President he makes a good puppet. He's so sub-par, useless, inept, and brain-dead that it isn't worth the effort to argue the point with someone who actually think's he's any good.

You say we're more stable? Wow. Before Bush, our economy had cleared up--we were actually in excess. Now we are billions in deficit. We are at war with a country, trying to unite two peoples that others have been trying to unite for centuries and always failed, for the fundamental reason that those people will not forgive--we are called crusaders and blamed for events that occured hundreds of years ago. Common constitutional rights are being questioned (Terri Schiavo case) , a confessed traitor (Karl Rove) is allowed to influence decisions that will impact our country for years, even after he's gone.

Other proof that Bush has, at the least, destroyed our stability? Well... Before Bush, America was regarded, at least, with some respect by other countries. Now, for the most part, we are hated the world over (take a look at the magazines published after his re-election). We hear very commonly that not many soldiers have died in the Iraq war--what we're not told are the numbers of people who die off the battlefield--in transit to hospitals, due to sickness, oh, and from poisoning from the terrible food (some of it a year past its expiration date or more, some of it damaged, tossed on the ground and re-packaged) that Haliburton supplies. Not to mention the simple lack of equipment our soldiers have--Most of it is falling apart, inadequate. You'd think that if a president is going to go to war, he could at least fund the people who are going to die for him.

And the war itself is a business venture for oil--If we were really fighting against the people who attacked us on 9/11 as they claim, wouldn't we be in Afganistan? Isn't Bin Laden still free? There are, in fact, satelite pictures of pipelines running from Iraq's oil deposits to out of the country, to our bases--pipelines that suddenly appeared after the war.

Of course, there's more. I would challenge someone--anyone--to name one thing Bush has done to actually improve our country--something that, when I have children, I will be thankful for.

He cheated to win the election, but he's entirely trustworthy to handle our tax dollars or our military or to insure our rights.

We have a troll.

Yeah, and it isn't even a witty troll. It is a very bland troll that seems mentally disabled. I suppose it takes all types.

Fools. Bush has presided over the greatest expansion of our ideas and power ever. That is a great feat.

Im not gonna bash bush, right now, but to say hes th3e best president in history is one of the most absurd claims ive heard in a loooong time.
Nothing else to say
goodbye all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush

This Helps Explain Why Bush Became a Great President While Driving Liberals Insane.

Super major snippage

Of course, there's more. I would challenge someone--anyone--to name one thing Bush has done to actually improve our country--something that, when I have children, I will be thankful for.

The do not call list and... well, thats about it.

http://www.moderateindependent.com/v1i3inept.htm

-----------------------------------------------------------

It has been a common joke made about President George W. Bush. The man is dumb, they say. An idiot. A bumbler. Imbecile.

It is also the general perception that President Bush failed miserably in his diplomatic efforts prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom. He should have been able to get the world on board, that line of thought goes.

These arguments both rely on the idea that not getting the world on board for Operation Iraqi Freedom was a failure on the part of Bush. He had claimed again and again that he would prefer to have the UN with him, even if he would do it with just a small "coalition of the willing" if necessary. So it seems he wanted to get the world united in this cause, but failed.

We at The Moderate Independent are sorry to break it to the world, but 1) Bush did not fail in his diplomatic efforts regarding Iraq, he succeeded brilliantly in achieving his goal, and 2) the man is no dummy - in fact, far from it; President Bush is one of the most cunning, politically brilliant men to occupy the White House in decades.


And there's even more at the link at the top on how Bush is not nearly as bad as many liberals and media-brainwashed people think.

Is this a Joke???? Bush the best president????
If they can attempt to impeach Clinton for a stain on a dress why cant they impeach Bush for sending nearly 2,000 US soilders to their deaths on a hyped up lie?
Who ever thinks bush is great is living in cockoo land and should open their eyes. :mad:

http://www.moderateindependent.com/v1i3inept.htm

-----------------------------------------------------------

It has been a common joke made about President George W. Bush. The man is dumb, they say. An idiot. A bumbler. Imbecile.

It is also the general perception that President Bush failed miserably in his diplomatic efforts prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom. He should have been able to get the world on board, that line of thought goes.

These arguments both rely on the idea that not getting the world on board for Operation Iraqi Freedom was a failure on the part of Bush. He had claimed again and again that he would prefer to have the UN with him, even if he would do it with just a small "coalition of the willing" if necessary. So it seems he wanted to get the world united in this cause, but failed.

We at The Moderate Independent are sorry to break it to the world, but 1) Bush did not fail in his diplomatic efforts regarding Iraq, he succeeded brilliantly in achieving his goal, and 2) the man is no dummy - in fact, far from it; President Bush is one of the most cunning, politically brilliant men to occupy the White House in decades.


And there's even more at the link at the top on how Bush is not nearly as bad as many liberals and media-brainwashed people think.

Bush was a C+ student with one D in astronomy, the lowest grades of any president i can think of.

He did fail, he did not get the UN on board and weant outside there wishes in invading Iraq with no proof of weapons of mass destruction.

One of the worst presidents since Andrew Jackson in my opinion.

On another point to all those stupid bush lovers, here is another stain on his record.

The use of the death penalty against child offenders – people under 18 at the time of the crime – is clearly prohibited under international law, yet a handful of countries persist with child executions.

Since January 1990 Amnesty International has documented 39 executions of child offenders in eight countries– the Democratic Republic of Congo, Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, the USA, China and Yemen. The USA carried out 19 executions – more than any other country. 17 of which were from Texas.

Texas, well we all know who was govenor between 1990 and 2000.

Is this a Joke???? Bush the best president????
If they can attempt to impeach Clinton for a stain on a dress why cant they impeach Bush for sending nearly 2,000 US soilders to their deaths on a hyped up lie?
Who ever thinks bush is great is living in cockoo land and should open their eyes. :mad:

Because Clinton was a liberal democrat, and they are all traitors. Bush is a Conservative Republican, and God speaks through him, he is a Patriot and a Great Man and all who dissent against Him should be silenced, along with thier traitorous families.

Because Clinton was a liberal democrat, and they are all traitors. Bush is a Conservative Republican, and God speaks through him, he is a Patriot and a Great Man and all who dissent against Him should be silenced, along with thier traitorous families.

And the award for most psychotic post goes to...
Kaledon!!
Before im silenced as i should be, i want to congratulate you for this acomplishment.

Because Clinton was a liberal democrat, and they are all traitors. Bush is a Conservative Republican, and God speaks through him, he is a Patriot and a Great Man and all who dissent against Him should be silenced, along with thier traitorous families.

and I suppose it is God that is telling him to put children to death!

With the best intelligence at the time, including Clinton's and Madeleine Albright's own statements, Saddam did indeed possess WMDs. We found out later that this was not the case (at least, the WMDs weren't in Iraq.) Regardless of this, if we succeed establishing a stable, self-sufficient government in Iraq, which I believe we will, then the Iraq War will have been one of the greatest moves in history. From Iraq, we can embark on a mission to promote peace and democracy, strike at the roots of terrorism, and make the world a better place. I believe that in the future Operation Iraqi Freedom will prove to have been a highly strategic move which did more good than harm, and the good it did do was tremendous.

and I suppose it is God that is telling him to put children to death!

Oh but you forget the bible story about the forty two children that made fun of a holy mans head and god sent 2 bears to kill them, all.
Hmm, do you think gods from texas?

Kaledan, you're extremely biased, but I do think you have some good points indeed.

With the best intelligence at the time, including Clinton's and Madeleine Albright's own statements, Saddam did indeed possess WMDs. We found out later that this was not the case (at least, the WMDs weren't in Iraq.)

Except that the people sent by the UN to search for the WMD's found none, so thats where it most definately should have ended.

Because Clinton was a liberal democrat, and they are all traitors. Bush is a Conservative Republican, and God speaks through him, he is a Patriot and a Great Man and all who dissent against Him should be silenced, along with thier traitorous families.

May I request this troll be banned?

With the best intelligence at the time, including Clinton's and Madeleine Albright's own statements, Saddam did indeed possess WMDs. We found out later that this was not the case (at least, the WMDs weren't in Iraq.) Regardless of this, if we succeed establishing a stable, self-sufficient government in Iraq, which I believe we will, then the Iraq War will have been one of the greatest moves in history. From Iraq, we can embark on a mission to promote peace and democracy, strike at the roots of terrorism, and make the world a better place. I believe that in the future Operation Iraqi Freedom will prove to have been a highly strategic move which did more good than harm, and the good it did do was tremendous.

Stupid thing to say. You have North Korea jumping up and down saying "hello, we got the bomb" but I dont see that weasel bush massing troops along the border and getting a "coalition of the willing"? unless oil is a factor of course which is surely isnt now is it?

as an outsider looking at your country i would rather see qual or clinton in office.
come on bush is just a puppet for his dad!
and just 4 more words..... Weapons of mass destruction....
he is a joke not a great man so get your head out of the sand :headbang:

Kaledan, you're extremely biased, but I do think you have some good points indeed.

No i dont think biased is the right word..
I'll refrain from using the right word.
And if silencing all liberals and there families is a good point that certainly you are also more than "extremely biased"

May I request this troll be banned?

Somone did not see the sarcasm. Ah well.

Come on, I even capitalized the first letters of everything to do with Bush.
I mean, God speaks through Him, seriously.
If I was being serious, I do agree that I should be banned, but hey.

Bush may not be the smartest man ever, but at the very least his IQ, which measures only a few select elements of intelligence, is average. I've heard from an anti-Bush friend of mine that his IQ is 100, which is exactly average.

By the way, my IQ is 156.

And the award for most psychotic post goes to...
Kaledon!!
Before im silenced as i should be, i want to congratulate you for this acomplishment.

Thanks, it was my pleasure. Obviously people are missing the humor here.

No i dont think biased is the right word..
I'll refrain from using the right word.
And if silencing all liberals and there families is a good point that certainly you are also more than "extremely biased"

I think the wording you require is:

Batshit loco.

Or perhaps:

Crazed psychotic redneck.

Somone did not see the sarcasm. Ah well.

Come on, I even capitalized the first letters of everything to do with Bush.
I mean, God speaks through Him, seriously.
If I was being serious, I do agree that I should be banned, but hey.

The sarcasm wasnt quite as obvious as the intense bigotry.

I think the wording you require is:

Batshit loco.

Or perhaps:

Crazed psychotic redneck.
ANother one failing to see the humor. Insh'allah

As to the first part proof, not just your word on it.
For the rest, there is nothing wrong with a little scandal.

Uhhh, unless, of course, the person committing the "scandal" just happens to be a DEMOCRAT! Then you'd be all over him like stink on shit, wouldn't you?

You guys unmercifully hounded Bill Clinton for six years over various bullshit, and the best you could ever come up with is that he lied about getting a hummer in the Oval Office, and for that, you guys started impeachment proceedings (which was so obviously partisan motivated that if you can't see it, you're pathetic!) whereas there's lots of neat little scandals right now in the Bush Administration, and not only do you not call Bush to task for it...you even go out an call Rove a National Fucking Hero for outing Valerie Plame!!

You guys are so partisan it's fucking disgusting. Bush is a lousy President. And an illegitamate one, at that.

Bush is the only President to ever have been twice-elected without a paper trail to really PROVE he won legitimately...and Bush had more votes cast against him than any other sitting President in U.S. history (and that's documentable, in 2004, even with the cheats thrown in) doesn't sound much like a candidate for "best" anything, if you ask me.

The "best" anything does not have more votes cast against him in a re-election bid than any sitting President in US history...and the "best" anything does not have a meager 41 percent approval rating after seven months into his second term in office.

another fact about your beloved bush. 25,000 innocent non combatant iraqis are now dead thanks to this dumb texan you call a great president.
I personally think he should be sharing a cell along with milovsavic and that bush lapdog, blair.

Oh but you forget the bible story about the forty two children that made fun of a holy mans head and god sent 2 bears to kill them, all.
Hmm, do you think gods from texas?

nope. I lived in Texas for nine years. and if I owned Hell and Texas, I'd live in Hell and rent out Texas.

The sarcasm wasnt quite as obvious as the intense bigotry.

Oh my. You still don't get it, do you? My point was that Republicans tried to impeach Clinton for a private matter (well, lying about a private matter, but again, something between two consenting adults, so who cares?). Now, Bush has lied to the country, gotten us into two fantastically fun wars, and caused huge amounts of suffering, but most rabid Republicans will still blame the Democrats for speaking out against him, hence the 'liberal traitors' line I used. Now do you get it? The irony, oh the irony! After I have to explain it all, it isn't even funny.

Bush may not be the smartest man ever, but at the very least his IQ, which measures only a few select elements of intelligence, is average. I've heard from an anti-Bush friend of mine that his IQ is 100, which is exactly average.

By the way, my IQ is 156.
By the way, no one cares about Bush's supposed IQ nor do we care about your IQ. But if you care, then let me tell you that the 16 smartest states based on IQ all voted for Kerry. The dumbest states voted for Bush. Bush is an idiot no matter what his IQ may say. As long as he says shit like "Families is where our nation finds hope, where wings take dream," he is an idiot.

Anyone wanna get in on his enviromental policies? quietly asking to reduce standards in nearly every industry from energy to tuna?

Anyone wanna get in on his enviromental policies? quietly asking to reduce standards in nearly every industry from energy to tuna?

No, I like eating canned dolphin. Especially endangered varieties!
:rolleyes: Now I made the sarcasm more obvious.

How can you say that?

All it takes is for one person to say 'you come from a muslim country, you must be a terrorist' for people to come knocking on his doors.

Americans used to be incredibly proud, now all they do is fear.


Im an american, I don't fear muslims.

Islam is a religion. a religion that does not teach its people to harm others. What I do however wish to be eradicated is the concept of terrorism. I am Pro-Bush, and I am Pro-War. I respect and have many friends who are against my beliefs but thats the wonderful thing about them and I, and most of the american public. Im not talking about the ones you see on CNN and FOX who continually argue and bicker over the issues facing our nation at the moment. Im talking about the everyday american family who sits down and eats dinner every night just like people do in many other nations in all walks of life. I am proud.

Oh my. You still don't get it, do you? My point was that Republicans tried to impeach Clinton for a private matter (well, lying about a private matter, but again, something between two consenting adults, so who cares?). Now, Bush has lied to the country, gotten us into two fantastically fun wars, and caused huge amounts of suffering, but most rabid Republicans will still blame the Democrats for speaking out against him, hence the 'liberal traitors' line I used. Now do you get it? The irony, oh the irony! After I have to explain it all, it isn't even funny.

And you still dont get the point either, if your fgoing to make a sarcastic post, make the sarcasm come off a little more obviously so that everyone who sees it doesnt just think your a batshit loco as wurzelmania put it.

Anyone wanna get in on his enviromental policies? quietly asking to reduce standards in nearly every industry from energy to tuna?

:( does that mean shrub bashing is over??

May I request this troll be banned?

not based on the post to which your reply (listed above) was referenced. You can't have someone banned for having a stupid opinion...or an opinion different from your own. But what you CAN do is what I do with stupid people all the time. I put them on my Ignore list.

how do you do that?

Write down the name of the offending nation.

click the little grey box in the upper left of your screen that says "Profile"

Go down the left-hand frame on the screen for "buddy/Ignore lists" Click it.

Add the offending nation to your Ignore list, and click update Ignore list. And viola! you don't have to see the posts from anyone you don't want to see them from.

Several idiots are currently on my ignore list...coincidentally, most of them are Republicans, too.

That people did not wish to serve in the military so they fled fearing a draft, only shows that they are cowards, not that bush did anything wrong.

Fleeing slavery is cowerdice?

And you still dont get the point either, if your fgoing to make a sarcastic post, make the sarcasm come off a little more obviously so that everyone who sees it doesnt just think your a batshit loco as wurzelmania put it.
yes, a [/sarcasm] or a smiley helps a lot, because there are people stupid/arrogant enough on here to seriously post stuff like that.

And you still dont get the point either, if your fgoing to make a sarcastic post, make the sarcasm come off a little more obviously so that everyone who sees it doesnt just think your a batshit loco as wurzelmania put it.

Again, I thought that by capitalizing things like God speaks through Him (Bush's words, not mine), you guys would have gotten it. But, you didn't, so that kinda blew. If I read something like that, I would see it as being prettty obvious. But I guess thats just me. I better eat some more dolphin now :rolleyes:

:( does that mean shrub bashing is over??

Awww of course not, just maybe now about oil and fishies.

Fleeing slavery is cowerdice?


What slavery? Have you ever even been to the united states?

Bush is an absolute moron. the fact that he needs a prepared speech to say anything and can never come up with an answer when questioned shows that he is nothing more then a daddy's boy finishing what his father started.

Everyone in the world hates bush. just the 51% of the us population supports him because he says and talks about god a lot. those are the only people in the WHOLE WORLD that support him. The americans are brainwashed into beleiving in him. Everyone else sees him as a pathetic loser who should be charged with war crimes for his actions in Iraq. What happened to afganistan? oh wait i remember, there isn't any oil there.

Basically the Us fucked the whole world over for electing bush. whats worse is that he was re-elected, showing that all the US are either brainwashed or truely pathetic. hopefully his time will run out and the next president will be able to start the clean up of the disaster zone created by bush. Im hoping for clinton.

If the US continue their habbits it will only be a matter of time until WW3 is upon us and with all the nukes everyone is fucked.

I don't think Bush is a bad president but I do object to his obssession with control- controlling the lives of americans, deciding for us what is good and bad, turning his opinions into law, and meddling with other cultures who may or may not want to be americanized.

Mostly, I'm a very open-minded person and just because I personaaly wouldn't make the same life choices as someone else doesn't mean I think thier way of life should be illegal.

The bottom line is, Bush has to learn to stop imposing his personal views on everyone and become more tolerant of other ways of life so long as they do not directly effect him.

Bush is an absolute moron. the fact that he needs a prepared speech to say anything and can never come up with an answer when questioned shows that he is nothing more then a daddy's boy finishing what his father started.

Everyone in the world hates bush. just the 51% of the us population supports him because he says and talks about god a lot. those are the only people in the WHOLE WORLD that support him. The americans are brainwashed into beleiving in him. Everyone else sees him as a pathetic loser who should be charged with war crimes for his actions in Iraq. What happened to afganistan? oh wait i remember, there isn't any oil there.

Basically the Us fucked the whole world over for electing bush. whats worse is that he was re-elected, showing that all the US are either brainwashed or truely pathetic. hopefully his time will run out and the next president will be able to start the clean up of the disaster zone created by bush. Im hoping for clinton.

If the US continue their habbits it will only be a matter of time until WW3 is upon us and with all the nukes everyone is fucked.

Oh contrair, only 51% of Americans are brainwashed into beleiving him, and they all live in Arkansas.

I don't think Bush is a bad president but I do object to his obssession with control- controlling the lives of americans, deciding for us what is good and bad, turning his opinions into law, and meddling with other cultures who may or may not want to be americanized.

Mostly, I'm a very open-minded person and just because I personaaly wouldn't make the same life choices as someone else doesn't mean I think thier way of life should be illegal.

The bottom line is, Bush has to learn to stop imposing his personal views on everyone and become more tolerant of other ways of life so long as they do not directly effect him.
Blatant misuse of 'effect', it should be 'affect!' :)

good point. i meant that. but that 51% effected the whole world :sniper:

good point. i meant that. but that 51% effected the whole world :sniper:

Yup :gundge: Sucks huh

On another point to all those stupid bush lovers, here is another stain on his record.

The use of the death penalty against child offenders – people under 18 at the time of the crime – is clearly prohibited under international law, yet a handful of countries persist with child executions.

Since January 1990 Amnesty International has documented 39 executions of child offenders in eight countries– the Democratic Republic of Congo, Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, the USA, China and Yemen. The USA carried out 19 executions – more than any other country. 17 of which were from Texas.

Texas, well we all know who was govenor between 1990 and 2000.

Actually, to be fair...between 1994 and 2000.

Ann Richards was Governor before Bush...and a damn fine Governor she was, too! Texas could use another Ann Richards! Guess what political party Ann Richards represented?

Bush is an absolute moron. the fact that he needs a prepared speech to say anything and can never come up with an answer when questioned shows that he is nothing more then a daddy's boy finishing what his father started.

Everyone in the world hates bush. just the 51% of the us population supports him because he says and talks about god a lot. those are the only people in the WHOLE WORLD that support him. The americans are brainwashed into beleiving in him. Everyone else sees him as a pathetic loser who should be charged with war crimes for his actions in Iraq. What happened to afganistan? oh wait i remember, there isn't any oil there.

Basically the Us fucked the whole world over for electing bush. whats worse is that he was re-elected, showing that all the US are either brainwashed or truely pathetic. hopefully his time will run out and the next president will be able to start the clean up of the disaster zone created by bush. Im hoping for clinton.

If the US continue their habbits it will only be a matter of time until WW3 is upon us and with all the nukes everyone is fucked.
How come it seems like only forgeiners (not in the US, and not subject to FOX News) have a rational grasp on American policies?

btw, here's what something unscripted sounds like coming out of Bush's mouth:
"Yes, that's a -- first of all, Mom, you're doing -- that's tough. But it's -- I appreciate that. I appreciate the idea of you wanting to give your children the education from you and the mom."
-- The lesson here is if it ain't scripted, don't expect it to make sense, Springfield, Missouri, Feb. 9, 2004

Actually, to be fair...between 1994 and 2000.

Ann Richards was Governor before Bush...and a damn fine Governor she was, too! Texas could use another Ann Richards! Guess what political party Ann Richards represented?

Ummmm.. the Whigs? Or the Ba'ath?

He turned "The Land of the Free" into "The Land of the Fear"

And the home of the depraved . . .

How come it seems like only forgeiners (not in the US, and not subject to FOX News) have a rational grasp on American policies?

btw, here's what something unscripted sounds like coming out of Bush's mouth:
"Yes, that's a -- first of all, Mom, you're doing -- that's tough. But it's -- I appreciate that. I appreciate the idea of you wanting to give your children the education from you and the mom."
-- The lesson here is if it ain't scripted, don't expect it to make sense, Springfield, Missouri, Feb. 9, 2004

Not ONLY foreigners, dont forget people who arent landlocked

The sarcasm wasnt quite as obvious as the intense bigotry.

The sarcasm wasn't obvious. This is one of the most obvious cases of sarcasm I've ever seen! Nobody in their right mind would go on the internet and say this seriously. I laughed when I first read the post but it got less funny all the time people were taking great moral offense on the matter. I think it shows that it is very hard to make jokes where George W is envolved. People are either in love with him or want to see him six feet under. I'll bear that in mind.

Blatant misuse of 'effect', it should be 'affect!' :)

I'm so embarrassed...

I'm so embarrassed...

Oh, I was just kidding.

Somone did not see the sarcasm. Ah well.


Someone nothing, I apear to the ONLY one who noticed it.

The sarcasm wasn't obvious. This is one of the most obvious cases of sarcasm I've ever seen! Nobody in their right mind would go on the internet and say this seriously. I laughed when I first read the post but it got less funny all the time people were taking great moral offense on the matter. I think it shows that it is very hard to make jokes where George W is envolved. People are either in love with him or want to see him six feet under. I'll bear that in mind.

Well, I was being totally serious. After all, if I could be around President Bush right now, I would be down on my knees licking His massive balls right now. :rolleyes:

What slavery? Have you ever even been to the united states?

People who may or may not have been fleeing a feared draft were accused of cowerdice.

Draft = Forced Servitude

Forced Servitude = Slavery

Do I need to spell it out more clearly?

And the home of the depraved . . .

With Liberty and Justice to the Flag-Waving Republicans who can afford it, screw everyone else...

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

When you look at the Bush administration it is easy to compare what has happened to the U.S. from the Clinton or any other administration till now. You can say that with these presidents America did not fall into the massive debt we now have and that the econmy was much stronger. But none of the other presidents have had to deal with a massive terrorist attack killing over 2 thousand people or terrorist cells right within our own border, along with the threat of them obtaining nuclear weapons. As far as i am concerned the blame with the 911 attacks should fall upon Clinton for not responding in 92. It is hard to maintain an economy and fight an enemy that will not even show theire face. I give props to Bush for having the balls to go after a threat before it materealizes and comes for us!. With this and the simple fact that we havent had another attack on our soil since 911 i stake my claim that Bush is doing a decent job.

You people actually like Bush?

Wow, its amazing the funny things you can say on drugs :D

I'm too lazy to read the rest of the topic, so I stopped at about post 45...

AHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHH!

The Separate One, you have got to be the. worst. debater. NS. has. ever. seen. You make me sick. You actually make me want to fall to my knees and vomit. The audacity of your comments, the sheer ignorant idiocy typical of a Bush supporter who thinks he's so freaking special... it's causing a lot of revulsion from what I can see. And from the looks of it, non-US members are having a field day with you too.

As others have said generally, I say specifically, "Rock on fellow Bush supporter!" is NOT a defence to your argument.

(Oh, and I'd drop it now, Sdaeriji is never wrong. :p)

(Btw, this is Pacitalia, I forgot to change accounts)

SNIPPS
I give props to Bush for having the balls to go after a threat before it materealizes and comes for us!.
SNIPPS


Oh yes going after a nonexistant enemy in lets say.. Iraq was a reat move! just because they dont exist doesnt mean we cant kick there ass!
What about the ones that do exist you might ask? whatever happend to osama?
Well they already attacked so of course there no concern anymore.

When you look at the Bush administration it is easy to compare what has happened to the U.S. from the Clinton or any other administration till now. You can say that with these presidents America did not fall into the massive debt we now have and that the econmy was much stronger. But none of the other presidents have had to deal with a massive terrorist attack killing over 2 thousand people or terrorist cells right within our own border, along with the threat of them obtaining nuclear weapons. As far as i am concerned the blame with the 911 attacks should fall upon Clinton for not responding in 92. It is hard to maintain an economy and fight an enemy that will not even show theire face. I give props to Bush for having the balls to go after a threat before it materealizes and comes for us!. With this and the simple fact that we havent had another attack on our soil since 911 i stake my claim that Bush is doing a decent job.

Yeah, and Bush never invited Taliban leaders to Texas. Nor, did he do this


Bush's Faustian Deal With the Taliban
By Robert Scheer
Published May 22, 2001 in the Los Angeles Times


Enslave your girls and women, harbor anti-U.S. terrorists, destroy every vestige of civilization in your homeland, and the Bush administration will embrace you. All that matters is that you line up as an ally in the drug war, the only international cause that this nation still takes seriously.

That's the message sent with the recent gift of $43 million to the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan, the most virulent anti-American violators of human rights in the world today. The gift, announced last Thursday by Secretary of State Colin Powell, in addition to other recent aid, makes the U.S. the main sponsor of the Taliban and rewards that "rogue regime" for declaring that opium growing is against the will of God. So, too, by the Taliban's estimation, are most human activities, but it's the ban on drugs that catches this administration's attention.

Never mind that Osama bin Laden still operates the leading anti-American terror operation from his base in Afghanistan, from which, among other crimes, he launched two bloody attacks on American embassies in Africa in 1998.

Sadly, the Bush administration is cozying up to the Taliban regime at a time when the United Nations, at U.S. insistence, imposes sanctions on Afghanistan because the Kabul government will not turn over Bin Laden.

The war on drugs has become our own fanatics' obsession and easily trumps all other concerns. How else could we come to reward the Taliban, who has subjected the female half of the Afghan population to a continual reign of terror in a country once considered enlightened in its treatment of women?

At no point in modern history have women and girls been more systematically abused than in Afghanistan where, in the name of madness masquerading as Islam, the government in Kabul obliterates their fundamental human rights. Women may not appear in public without being covered from head to toe with the oppressive shroud called the burkha , and they may not leave the house without being accompanied by a male family member. They've not been permitted to attend school or be treated by male doctors, yet women have been banned from practicing medicine or any profession for that matter.

The lot of males is better if they blindly accept the laws of an extreme religious theocracy that prescribes strict rules governing all behavior, from a ban on shaving to what crops may be grown. It is this last power that has captured the enthusiasm of the Bush White House.

The Taliban fanatics, economically and diplomatically isolated, are at the breaking point, and so, in return for a pittance of legitimacy and cash from the Bush administration, they have been willing to appear to reverse themselves on the growing of opium. That a totalitarian country can effectively crack down on its farmers is not surprising. But it is grotesque for a U.S. official, James P. Callahan, director of the State Department's Asian anti-drug program, to describe the Taliban's special methods in the language of representative democracy: "The Taliban used a system of consensus-building," Callahan said after a visit with the Taliban, adding that the Taliban justified the ban on drugs "in very religious terms."

Of course, Callahan also reported, those who didn't obey the theocratic edict would be sent to prison.

In a country where those who break minor rules are simply beaten on the spot by religious police and others are stoned to death, it's understandable that the government's "religious" argument might be compelling. Even if it means, as Callahan concedes, that most of the farmers who grew the poppies will now confront starvation. That's because the Afghan economy has been ruined by the religious extremism of the Taliban, making the attraction of opium as a previously tolerated quick cash crop overwhelming.

For that reason, the opium ban will not last unless the U.S. is willing to pour far larger amounts of money into underwriting the Afghan economy.

As the Drug Enforcement Administration's Steven Casteel admitted, "The bad side of the ban is that it's bringing their country--or certain regions of their country--to economic ruin." Nor did he hold out much hope for Afghan farmers growing other crops such as wheat, which require a vast infrastructure to supply water and fertilizer that no longer exists in that devastated country. There's little doubt that the Taliban will turn once again to the easily taxed cash crop of opium in order to stay in power.

The Taliban may suddenly be the dream regime of our own war drug war zealots, but in the end this alliance will prove a costly failure. Our long sad history of signing up dictators in the war on drugs demonstrates the futility of building a foreign policy on a domestic obsession.

Oh yes going after a nonexistant enemy in lets say.. Iraq was a reat move! just because they dont exist doesnt mean we cant kick there ass!
What about the ones that do exist you might ask? whatever happend to osama?
Well they already attacked so of course there no concern anymore.

Everybody who make this statement acts as if we have pulled all our troops from Afghanistan. We still have troops over there fighting, people!!. Besides I dont think that sending another half of a million troops to go search through blown up rock is goingh to help!

SNIPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP


Slightly off topic but recently the US war on drugs has taken even worse turns illegalizing medical marijuana and classifying it as THE DRUG THAT THE MOST FOCUS WILL BE ON, Mandatory minimum sentences are already the worst thing since unsliced bread, filling up our prisons so that they are forced to release violent criminal, ie rapists murderers etc early to make room for simple drug users, a large percent of which are in there simply for marijuana.

Bush leads the most corrupt, mendacious administration since ... well, maybe ever (including Nixon). It exists only to enrich to its corporate f*ck-buddies and turn this once-fine democracy into a fundamentalist theocracy. Worst of all, it lied to drag this nation into a bogus war on a country that was no threat. Now thousands on both sides are dead and the dipsh*ts who started it have no idea how to end it. We are *not* "fighting for our freedom," "liberating the people of Iraq" or "fighting the terrorists."

The tab on our Iraqi misadventure is about $200 billion and sure to climb. What could we do in this country with that kind of money? How about fixing our crappy schools, rebuild our crumbling infrastructure, provide decent health care, wean us off petroleum, invest in clean energy technologies, and a hundred other things that would make a real difference in the quality of life of all Americans.

But none of that matters to the Bushies and his paleo-cons. They're more worried about banning abortions, demonizing gays, enacting ruinous tax cuts, ridding the schools of evolution and "protecting" the flag against non-existent outrages.

Bush originally campaigned as a "uniter, not a divider," but virtually every action he's taken has been calculated to divide the country and pander to his "base."

Frankly, I'm ashamed of our government and angry that our country is becoming a backwater of fear and ignorance. Bush has been a disaster, and his reign of error can't end soon enough.

Everybody who make this statement acts as if we have pulled all our troops from Afghanistan. We still have troops over there fighting, people!!. Besides I dont think that sending another half of a million troops to go search through blown up rock is goingh to help!

Of course we still have a soldier, oh im sorry soldiers there.
And of Course searching for the mastermind of the single largest terrorist attack in US history is a waist of time when theres texas tea to be found.

Yeah, isn't it something like $2000/family, for the cost of the Iraq war?

Fools. Bush has presided over the greatest expansion of our ideas and power ever. That is a great feat.If you really believe that, or anything remotely like that, you are the fool.

Slightly off topic but recently the US war on drugs has taken even worse turns illegalizing medical marijuana and classifying it as THE DRUG THAT THE MOST FOCUS WILL BE ON, Mandatory minimum sentences are already the worst thing since unsliced bread, filling up our prisons so that they are forced to release violent criminal, ie rapists murderers etc early to make room for simple drug users, a large percent of which are in there simply for marijuana.

He gave the Taliban 43 million dollars. Bush supported the Taliban. Taliban bad. People who support Taliban bad. How is this off topic?

If you really believe that, or anything remotely like that, you are the fool.

Ah, the beauty of sarcasm. Then, the prime example of ignorance.

Everybody who make this statement acts as if we have pulled all our troops from Afghanistan. We still have troops over there fighting, people!!. Besides I dont think that sending another half of a million troops to go search through blown up rock is goingh to help!
we went in doing a half assed effort and we're still doing a half assed effort. I'm not putting the troops themselves down, I support them wholeheartedly, especially those in Afghanistan, but those are very few compared to those in Iraq. If we really cared about Osama, we'd have found him by now.

Here's how much Bush cared about him in March of '02:
"So I don't know where [Osama bin Laden] is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you. ...And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him."
-- White House, Mar. 13, 2002

Do you really think he cares now?

Actually, you're the one claiming Bush is the best President ever. Where's YOUR proof?

I would say mainly because since he's entered office, meaningful elections have now come to palestine, lebenon, Iraq, afganistan, and to some degree Egypt. Where democracy was once wishful thinking, Bush helped make it a reality. This will be his legacy.

Oh and yes, i feel there is no country in the world where democracy is not the best choice, whether a country has a history of authoritarian rule like Russia or as liberal thinking as Sweeden.

I would say mainly because since he's entered office, meaningful elections have now come to palestine, lebenon, Iraq, afganistan, and to some degree Egypt. Where democracy was once wishful thinking, Bush helped make it a reality. This will be his legacy.

Yes, because standing on the fence, unable to decide whether to support Israel or Palestine more is really helping the democratic process in the Mideast. Or is it showing his face there all of once or twice in five years of leadership that helped? In other words, he's done basically nothing at all substantial. I do not argue that he has done nothing, of course, but he's basically not responsible at all for a democratic uprising in the region.

I am a pro Bush kinda guy. I think that he has done a superior job over the last couple of years to bring stability to our nation. If you disagree please have evidence to back up your disagreement. If you agree please have evidence to support your agreement.
Well, I think that regime change in Iraq and Afghanistan was a good idea, and the American aid post-tsunami was good; but Bush is not the best. He's not the worst, but definitely not the best ever.

I would give him a rating of 4/10. Here are some of his many problems:

- pissing all over the idea of environmental protection
- being too corporatist
- being a social conservative
- Guantanamo Bay and torture in general
- failing to catch Osama bin Laden
- being a right-winger

I would say mainly because since he's entered office, meaningful elections have now come to palestine, lebenon, Iraq, afganistan, and to some degree Egypt. Where democracy was once wishful thinking, Bush helped make it a reality. This will be his legacy.

Oh and yes, i feel there is no country in the world where democracy is not the best choice, whether a country has a history of authoritarian rule like Russia or as liberal thinking as Sweeden.
lol, if that's his legacy the world will have gone crazy. His legacy will be incredibly horrible fiscal managemet, possibly securing the economic downfall of America, creating the shithole known as Iraq and creating the do not call list. I can't forget the one good thing he's done, besides keeping me entertained for four and a half years; will be eight if he doesn't get shot. And you forget to mention elections in Iran, or were those as meaningful as elections in America? And he did not singlehandedly bring about all those elections. But he did singlehandedly burn the surplus and dug us into a fiscal hole the size of Mars.

Bush is an idiot, and generally a bad leader. Generalized statement.

He can't speak proper English, making up words when he can't think of real ones, and misuses words all the time. "Disassemble" instead of "Dissemble" as a relatively recent example, but there are hundreds of others. I bought a poster of stupid things he's said, but I don't feel like digging it out right now.
Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib - prisoner abuse taking place with picture proof for everyone to see. It happened under his presidency, with the people he picked to help him run the country. Bad judgement call? You bet. And you can't have horrible judgement when you're leading the world's greatest nuclear threat. At least you shouldn't...
Flip flopping - Uhhh... no WMD's? Okay, this war is about getting Saddam out of power! Hmm... we got him... let's say it's all about bringing democracy to them! What? They want a DIFFERENT form of democracy from American democracy where they elect all positions, rather than having appointments? Oh, that's no good... shove 'em hard, and tell them to do it our way. Because THAT'S the US democratic way!!! ... no, that's DICTATING to others how they should do things. - and that came from a source who was working in Iraq with the Americans on the installation of Democracy, who I heard speaking at a convention.
World-wide animosity - Bush got BOO'd at the Pope's funeral. Did America somehow miss that moment? People in Canada still liked Americans after the first election, because we thought, "Gee, they just got screwed. It's not their fault. They'll know better when the next election comes." Then they re-elected him. It's no longer just a dislike of America. It's starting to extend to the people, as well. It shows from political changes and comments from the past. When a member of parliament said, "American bastards" Canada was quick to say that was wrong. But when a similar sentiment was stated towards America as a whole, that wasn't so bad. We like the people, hate the people who run the country. But that's been changing, despite the fact there are still many good American citizens. Let's not forget the desecration of the Muslim holy books. Tell me, how do you think Right Wing fanatical Christians would react to similar desecration of the Bible? Oh, I bet they'd be furiously mad, too! I can't fault the Muslim community at all for being raging mad with America when Bush allows such actions to take place under his watch.
Kerry told the truth - When he said in the run-up to the election that they almost had Osama in Tora Bora he was RIGHT! Maybe people missed the intel that came out a few months after the election stating that they actually had Osama in a trap at that point... but somehow he escaped. And now he could be anywhere... but oil was more important than the actual terrorist mastermind. "I don't think about him much anymore." - Bush. Well, that's great. Cuz he ignored threats before 9/11, too. Let's just ignore Osama some more, so he can build up a devious plan to strike the US hard again.
You can't negotiate with terrorists - BULL SHIT. You can. England negotiated with terrorist cells in the IRA in order to try to stop the violence with some success. These people don't JUST want to blow themselves up! Believe it or not, they're dying for SOMETHING. They want something, and Bush is NEVER going to figure that out, so long as he keeps saying these people are psychotic, insane, sub-human, and can't be reasoned with. EVERYONE can be reasoned with. Maybe a leader of an organization has an irrational hatred. Sure. But that doesn't mean every person in a terrorist organization is that way. You can work with the people who want change, and don't want to keep killing themselves to make statements.
Record lows for economy - you don't need me to point out every record debt and deficit that Bush has reached. It's on the news all the time. 'nuff said.
There's more. I just don't feel like typing it right now. I figure that's enough anyway to show that Bush is inadequate in his role of leadership. Although all the Bush fanatics will discount everything I've brought up.

I would say mainly because since he's entered office, meaningful elections have now come to palestine, lebenon, Iraq, afganistan, and to some degree Egypt. Where democracy was once wishful thinking, Bush helped make it a reality. This will be his legacy.

Oh and yes, i feel there is no country in the world where democracy is not the best choice, whether a country has a history of authoritarian rule like Russia or as liberal thinking as Sweeden.

a) Palestine: Yassar Arafat was elected in elections. Sorry son, they had that already, even if the palestinians didnt elected the guy that most kissed the ass of the US

b) Lebanon had elections previously. If you challenge their legitimacy because Syrian troops were in Lybia at the time, then you challenge the Afghan and Iraqui elections

c) Democracy works in law and order. You have none in Iraq, so people have no freedom.

d) Egypt is ran the same way it was ran 5 years ago.

But ill grant you Afghanistan. I've heard that inside Cabul, everything is ok.

i'm sorry but didn't he ask for facts, not wild speculation and personal opinions, if you don't like bush too bad, i've read alot of this thread and am sick of seeing all the people accusing bush of dividing the nation, i'm pretty sure that was the democrats plan to try and beat bush... not his fault there's ignorant liberal extremists still crying about an election 5 1/2 years ago. So seriously, have facts and quit insulting other people, not the point of this topic, if i wanted to see people insult each other, i'd watch anne coulter attack anything that looks like a liberal... so anyway, have fun :) i did!

-snip-

Now, THAT was a good post. I commend you.

You can't negotiate with terrorists - BULL SHIT. You can. England negotiated with terrorist cells in the IRA in order to try to stop the violence with some success. These people don't JUST want to blow themselves up! Believe it or not, they're dying for SOMETHING. They want something, and Bush is NEVER going to figure that out, so long as he keeps saying these people are psychotic, insane, sub-human, and can't be reasoned with. EVERYONE can be reasoned with. Maybe a leader of an organization has an irrational hatred. Sure. But that doesn't mean every person in a terrorist organization is that way. You can work with the people who want change, and don't want to keep killing themselves to make statements.

LOL
O.K.
You can be the one to go meet with them

The notion that the current US President somehow surpasses Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Lincoln seems to me very odd.

The notion that the current US President somehow surpasses Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Lincoln seems to me very odd.

Obviously very odd.

LOL
O.K.
You can be the one to go meet with them

I would in a heartbeat if I was someone with some sort of political clout. However, I'm just a citizen. I can't even speak for my own country, nevermind the US.

<snip>There's more. I just don't feel like typing it right now. I figure that's enough anyway to show that Bush is inadequate in his role of leadership. Although all the Bush fanatics will discount everything I've brought up.
On the sole basis that you're communist, and you smoke pot and have premarrital sex and aren't Christian. Oh yeah, then they'll tell you that you hate America (usually they spell it "america") and that you should move to France/Canada and/or get a job.

Drink CAPULIN so when your brain gets a little oxygen you'll see why so many of us left.... we saw clearly and remember too well the sense of Nazism.

So if he is so hated in other countries, then why is there no resolve in those countries to stand up to him and say; "enough".

What we have here is another brainwashed christian that supports Bush. And correction on if he's just a bad orator. He's stupid period, he's a diesel dummy. And when it comes to stablilizing our economy, he fails miserably. He turned a TRILLON dollar surplus into a billion dollar defecit. And please take a note that he ran his first oil company into the ground like he ran everything else he ran, including America. Another thing that I love is that how him, and his cabinet have so much control over the American FREE press. We are so clouded, and with Fox news sucking his balls we're doomed. If you ever want to hear something that's actually truthful, watch a Bristish news channel. BBC for instance. They are usually dead on. It's pretty sad when your American populace doesn't know jack, when the British populace knows more. And about people fleeing. They flee because they see the draft coming back. They flee because they see the American government becoming more socialist as the year pass. Truthfully Canada has way more rights than the US does. If the draft does come back, then it's violating peoples rights. Sure we needed it back in WW2, and Vietnam. But we definitely don't need it now.


But if you like Bush, go ahead, state that you love him. That's your opinion, but when it comes to other people respecting you. Your S.O.L. But hey people like Seperate one voted him in. If you have anyone to blame when it comes to high gas prices, a bad economy, and you losing your house. Seperate One is the one to blame since he's openly saying he loves Bush. Oh and another thing, a lot of presidencys cheat. But they can keep it covered up better than Bush. And the reason why Bush was reelected was because he appealed to the older veterans, and the conservative uneducated people. The veterans don't believe in any of the gay marriage, or stem cell research that goes on today. And conservatives are usually just uneducated idiots, we have a lot of them.

Well that's my take on it. Hey if any of you have relatives who died or are fighting in this useless war, you know who to point the finger at.

On the sole basis that you're communist, and you smoke pot and have premarrital sex and aren't Christian. Oh yeah, then they'll tell you that you hate America (usually they spell it "america") and that you should move to France/Canada and/or get a job.

HAHAHAHA
I love that post. :)
1- not a communist. It's a nice idea on paper, but everyone knows it doesn't really work.
2- never touched pot. don't really care to, but if others want to, that's fine. No worse than alcohol.
3- premarital sex... I haven't heard anyone get upset about that one in AGES. That one really made me chuckle.
4- I am a Christian. I just don't go to church, and don't like to associate myself with organized Christianity because a lot of those people tend to scare me. I prefer to think for myself, and not be spoonfed what's right and wrong.
5- I don't advocate moving to another country to get away, either. Generally I think it's best to try to do what you can to change things. But when you feel there's no other option... sure. We don't mind taking in people who can't stand Bush. :)

HAHAHAHA
I love that post. :)
1- not a communist. It's a nice idea on paper, but everyone knows it doesn't really work.
2- never touched pot. don't really care to, but if others want to, that's fine. No worse than alcohol.
3- premarital sex... I haven't heard anyone get upset about that one in AGES. That one really made me chuckle.
4- I am a Christian. I just don't go to church, and don't like to associate myself with organized Christianity because a lot of those people tend to scare me. I prefer to think for myself, and not be spoonfed what's right and wrong.
5- I don't advocate moving to another country to get away, either. Generally I think it's best to try to do what you can to change things. But when you feel there's no other option... sure. We don't mind taking in people who can't stand Bush. :)
That's usually what pro-Bush arguments come down to once you shove the facts in their face and they wake up. It's good you have all the rebuttals pre-packaged!

In the months prior to 9/11, the U.S. gave 43 million dollars to Osama bin Laden for burning the hell out of farms that were supposedly producing opium poppies. Before starting the "War on Terror" or as I like to call it the War for Oil, Bush failed to seek Congressional approval, which as you may or may not be aware, violates an article in the Constitution. The Patriot Act has put people under government speculation for as little of an "offense" as voicing their political opinins in a neighborhood gym, or belonging to a peace group (e.g. Peace Fresno). The whole Terror Alert Scale is fearmongering at it's least subtle, and the invasion of Iraq was not needed at this time. Yes, the Iraqi people were suffering under the rule of a tyrannical dictator, but at this time, we need to find Osama bin Laden. Why haven't we found him, you ask? Because this administration doesn't want to find him. They want to be able to scare te public into following them for as long as possible. The list just keeps going.

...voicing their political opinins
GAH! Typo!

That's usually what pro-Bush arguments come down to once you shove the facts in their face and they wake up. It's good you have all the rebuttals pre-packaged!

hehehe. I love political debates, so I'm used to having them. I hear those same comebacks all the time, so I just like to point out how those people can be wrong about their stereotypes... it's especially funny when it's a person who "wants facts" in the first place, then makes those generalizations later on in the debate. :P

one of bush's main people ((sorry, i suddenly forgot the larger part of my vocabulary)) exposed a cia agent because her husband was exposing the truth about the "war against terrorism". that is AGAINST THE LAW and people get EXECUTED for it. what does our dear, caring, president bush do? he lets it go! the cia agent had to leave the country and bush is excusing his buddy's actions. GAH!!!! i truely don't understand how ANYBODY could still think he's good for this country. oh yes, and about the draft, i would rather spend a year in prison than go to that fucking pointless war! sorry, i get a bit emotional

i would rather spend a year in prison than go to that fucking pointless war! sorry, i get a bit emotional
Totally man. If he institutes the draft, I would willingly get myself arrested.

Truthfully Canada has way more rights than the US does.


How? What rights does Canada have over the US?

Totally man. If he institutes the draft, I would willingly get myself arrested.

Forget arrested. Go to Canada. Or Mexico, if that is closer.

Totally man. If he institutes the draft, I would willingly get myself arrested.

That's awesome. See, Bush can't arrest half of America for refusing to go to war for his oil. If enough people made a stand against such a thing, he'd be screwed.

Canada City']How? What rights does Canada have over the US?

In most ways Canada affords more rights to its citizens than the US does. The fact that it has recently become the 4th nation to legalize gay marriage is a fine example.

That's awesome. See, Bush can't arrest half of America for refusing to go to war for his oil. If enough people made a stand against such a thing, he'd be screwed.
Yes, that would indeed be awesome. But Bush doesn't know that he can't arrest half of America. Although, if enough people made a stand, it would work.

That's awesome. See, Bush can't arrest half of America for refusing to go to war for his oil. If enough people made a stand against such a thing, he'd be screwed.
Time to make our stand!
http://www.unitedforpeace.org/
This is what we've been waiting for all these years!

That people did not wish to serve in the military so they fled fearing a draft, only shows that they are cowards, not that bush did anything wrong.

We're not talking military. We're talking they actualy fled simply because he was re-elected. I know several now-elsewhere residents who moved out of country primarily because bush was re-elected.

We're not talking military. We're talking they actualy fled simply because he was re-elected. I know several now-elsewhere residents who moved out of country primarily because bush was re-elected.
This doesn't just effect anti-Bush people. There was a kid in my class who said if Kerry was elected, his family would leave the country. They still live here, obviously.

one of bush's main people ((sorry, i suddenly forgot the larger part of my vocabulary)) exposed a cia agent because her husband was exposing the truth about the "war against terrorism". that is AGAINST THE LAW and people get EXECUTED for it. what does our dear, caring, president bush do? he lets it go! the cia agent had to leave the country and bush is excusing his buddy's actions. GAH!!!! i truely don't understand how ANYBODY could still think he's good for this country. oh yes, and about the draft, i would rather spend a year in prison than go to that fucking pointless war! sorry, i get a bit emotional

Alright pal, people like you anger me. You obviously haven't listening to any of the commentary on Rove. Firstly, he didn't expose her name. Secondly, [Plame's] superior admitted that her post was not a covert one.

In the months prior to 9/11, the U.S. gave 43 million dollars to Osama bin Laden for burning the hell out of farms that were supposedly producing opium poppies. Before starting the "War on Terror" or as I like to call it the War for Oil, Bush failed to seek Congressional approval, which as you may or may not be aware, violates an article in the Constitution. The Patriot Act has put people under government speculation for as little of an "offense" as voicing their political opinins in a neighborhood gym, or belonging to a peace group (e.g. Peace Fresno). The whole Terror Alert Scale is fearmongering at it's least subtle, and the invasion of Iraq was not needed at this time. Yes, the Iraqi people were suffering under the rule of a tyrannical dictator, but at this time, we need to find Osama bin Laden. Why haven't we found him, you ask? Because this administration doesn't want to find him. They want to be able to scare te public into following them for as long as possible. The list just keeps going.i would like to add to this the "no child left behind" act. it was suppoosed to be more government funding to the schools. what it really is: the government is threatening to TAKE AWAY money from the schools if they refuse to release every child's personal information to the government.

No Child Left Behind takes away chances for every child to receive an equal education. Bush's real goal was to have large numbers of students move to private schools because of the bad conditions in public schools. This would allow them to spend less on education as a whole.

Alright pal, people like you anger me. You obviously haven't listening to any of the commentary on Rove. Firstly, he didn't expose her name. Secondly, [Plame's] superior admitted that her post was not a covert one. tell me what rove is, will you? then i'll explain things....actually, i haven't, but thats beside the point...it's still sadition... (i think i'm using the correct word, sorry if i'm not)

Alright pal, people like you anger me. You obviously haven't listening to any of the commentary on Rove. Firstly, he didn't expose her name. Secondly, [Plame's] superior admitted that her post was not a covert one.

He said wilsons wife which in a non polygamist society could be only one person, secondly, she was covert.

Alright pal, people like you anger me.

People like YOU anger ME. Let's agree to be angered by each other, shall we?

That people did not wish to serve in the military so they fled fearing a draft, only shows that they are cowards, not that bush did anything wrong.

Now, now, Tough guy. I dont see you signing up. Though, that's probably because you haven't even graduated middle school yet. The draft is undemocratic, to the extreme, and it is their right to try to avoid it. Furthermore, since George Bush took charge of the country, the value of the US dollar has decreased, the economy has been thrashed and most importantly. Record amounts of civil liberties have been abolished in the name of FREEDOM!(TM).

Anyway, Im pissed off by your comment kiddo. I doubt I would be less then thrilled to leave my job, my family, my community, to go off and serve in a war I dont believe in!

another fact about your beloved bush. 25,000 innocent non combatant iraqis are now dead thanks to this dumb texan you call a great president.
I personally think he should be sharing a cell along with milovsavic and that bush lapdog, blair.

US troops aren't targetting these iraqis though; the terrorists...I mean "freedom fighters" are.

Now, now, Tough guy. I dont see you signing up. Though, that's probably because you haven't even graduated middle school yet. The draft is undemocratic, to the extreme, and it is their right to try to avoid it. Furthermore, since George Bush took charge of the country, the value of the US dollar has decreased, the economy has been thrashed and most importantly. Record amounts of civil liberties have been abolished in the name of FREEDOM!(TM).

*virtually gives high five*

By the way, no one cares about Bush's supposed IQ nor do we care about your IQ. But if you care, then let me tell you that the 16 smartest states based on IQ all voted for Kerry. The dumbest states voted for Bush. Bush is an idiot no matter what his IQ may say. As long as he says shit like "Families is where our nation finds hope, where wings take dream," he is an idiot.

If the democrats were so smart, couldn't they find a way to manipulate the "hicks" to their favor?

Canada City']If the democrats were so smart, couldn't they find a way to manipulate the "hicks" to their favor?

See, that would require effort.

Stupid thing to say. You have North Korea jumping up and down saying "hello, we got the bomb" but I dont see that weasel bush massing troops along the border and getting a "coalition of the willing"? unless oil is a factor of course which is surely isnt now is it?

Canada is United States' biggest oil exporter.

Of course, the liberals tend to make up lies daily. A nice example would be Michael Moore.

US troops aren't targetting these iraqis though; the terrorists...I mean "freedom fighters" are.
Ah, but American troops ARE targeting Iraqi citizens. The administration they are being directed by is telling them to. Even if the Iraqi citizens are dying accidentally (which I doubt), the fact is, THEY ARE DYING.

Canada City']

Of course, the liberals tend to make up lies daily. A nice example would be Michael Moore.

Same could be said of the Republicans *coughAnneCoultercough*

Ah, but American troops ARE targeting Iraqi citizens. The administration they are being directed by is telling them to. Even if the Iraqi citizens are dying accidentally (which I doubt), the fact is, THEY ARE DYING.

That's part of war, unfortunately.

By your logic, doctors should be arrested for not saving every life out there.

Of course, the liberals tend to make up lies daily. A nice example would be Michael Moore.
You have every right to express that opinion, but I take offense at it nonetheless. I feel Michael Moore is expressing an opinion shared by others, not lying.

You have every right to express that opinion, but I take offense at it nonetheless. I feel Michael Moore is expressing an opinion shared by others, not lying.

Opinion I don't mind.

Stating a bunch of bullshit conspiracy theories that have more holes then moldy swiss cheese and turning it into a 'documentation' is where the line strikes.

Ann Coulter is a lying retarded bitch, but at least some of her articles are somewhat entertaining (example: "Bay loses five star rating")

By your logic, doctors should be arrested for not saving every life out there.
Doctors don't bomb people blindly, and the doctor is not at fault if the patient is too far gone to save. Donald Rumsfeld essentially said "precision targeting" was being used. A lot of innocents have died as a result of said targeting.

Because the governments won't stand up to him: the citizens DO hate him though (I call as example evidence the anti-war protests around the world - Bush was mentioned somewhat) but they're not always simple minded enough to vote in their government based on their opinion of the US. There are a few other things in life than the US, such as how their own country is doing...

*Applauds*

I am British, and I hate George W. Bush and American foreign policy but not because he dragged us into a war with Iraq because that's the decision of Tony Blair, a grown man, and a head of government in his own right; if he felt pressured to go to war with Bush then that reflects worse on him than on Bush.

On American domestic policy; I don't really care if Bush is a neo-conservative, Christian bigot who is ruining the economy (which he is without a doubt). You voted him in, he's yours to deal with!

My reasons for hating Bush are the only sensible ones I can give; how his actions have affected my own country; and they are the same reasons for me despising all American Presidents of the past 35 years; the hypocrisy of their attitude towards terrorists. On the one hand; Bush as with Clinton, Reagan and countless others condemned any terrorist attacks on themselves and pawn countries (*cough* Israel) and have leaned on others to freeze the assets of those who conduct or finance terrorist acts. Yet at the same time; have refused to take any such measures towards their own US citizens who have consistently financed IRA bombing campaigns against my own country. This thus, makes all American Presidents who have presided over such policies or rather this policy of blind ignorance; enemies of me and my nation or at least in my eyes. Harsh as that may sound, that is my honest opinion.

This in no way however, makes me despise America or Americans in general.

Stating a bunch of bullshit conspiracy theories that have more holes then moldy swiss cheese and turning it into a 'documentation' is where the line strikes.
Would you be so kind as to tell me what holes you found, exactly?

Would you be so kind as to tell me what holes you found, exactly?

http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm

Right, here we go. I'm British, so I don't know extensive amounts about George, nor do I have to live with the effects of his policies. But from what I get, he isn't a bad President. He is however, a neo-Christain, which also makes him a homophobe, anti-abortion and anti-stem cell. I don't agree with these views, but each to their own. He hasn't done a brilliant job on the US economy, but neither has he ruined it. He isn't a good orator or public speaker, and that gives the impression that he is stupid, but I don't believe he is. He does genuinely believe that he was right to invade Iraq and Afghanistan, but he didn't think out the consequences before hand (rebuilding process and such). But he can't be blamed entirely for that, since it is up to his foreign and war offices. He won the election, because he played it right (he campaigned on the War on Terror) and because John Kerry was boring, unanimated and changed his policies every day. Bush is nowhere near the best President ever, but he isn't exactly the worst either. And there we go. My opinion.

just so you dont get the wrong idea not all christians are homophobes and anti-abortion and anti-stem cell. only some of them are

The link does present some interesting arguments, granted. But, it seems to me that these are overstated arguments that the right wing keeps falling on. And it does point out that some parts of the movie are true. Facts or not, it still makes you think.

one more thing..... in a war...PEOPLE DIE...it happens...thats what war is..some how our socioty has forgoten that

i always kind of thought we were stable enough without indefinite detentions without charges or trials, and without a worldwide network of torture and murder camps, without increasing the scope of the already scary police state even further, etc. ymmv, i suppose.

on the other hand, this administration has had a continuous stream of scandals, each one of which would probably have brought down significant portions of lesser administrations. so that's stability of a sort i guess.

if people like you were in power, instead of our sensible Commander in Chief, our country would be in flames because pacifist policy only encourages the nut-job terrorists.

we have met them with force and are beating the crap out of them. at last count the casualty ratio is something like 25-to-1, terrorist to american soldier.

But I digress... let's just sit back and let the terrorists run around here unimpeded. That's a brilliant idea.

Yes, people do die in war, I understand that. But this war served no purpose other than to get our hands on Midlle Eastern oil. In other words, we didn't need any of this.

one more thing..... in a war...PEOPLE DIE...it happens...thats what war is..some how our socioty has forgoten that

we're now largely a nation of pussies... or at least about half of us are.

hehe

if people like you were in power, instead of our sensible Commander in Chief, our country would be in flames because pacifist policy only encourages the nut-job terrorists.

We may not have been attacked if certain pre-9/11 documents expressly stating that the U.S. was at a risk for terrorist attacks were actually READ by our "Sensible Commander-in-Cheif".

Your assertion is a massive destruction weapon :rolleyes:

Massive Destruction Weapon, eh? :)

Yes, people do die in war, I understand that. But this war served no purpose other than to get our hands on Midlle Eastern oil. In other words, we didn't need any of this.

i think that we had a small reason for going in to iraq.. we thought that they had wmd....wea re not perfect we may have made a mistake....it takes a person in charge a lot of courage to admit that...but look at afganistan i have not heard one word about it on the news lately and we have been there longer than we have been in iraq.... how can that be?

Bush may have brought stability to the USA, but hes has brought severe instability to other countries such as iraq and afthghanistan

Yes, we THOUGHT they had WMD's. But where are they? North Korea, on the other hand, does indeed have WMD's and/or is capable of making them. But what do we do? NOTHING! The reason Afghanistan has largely been forgotten is because Iraq is now the war of the moment. In awhile, Iraq won't be on the news anymore either. We'll be at war with some other country in the Middle East. But we can't forget about the problems that still exist in Afghanistan. Check out http://www.rawa.org if you're interested.

Bush may have brought stability to the USA...
What stability? Have you seen the economy and the size of the defecit lately?

i personaly think that if this administration had keeped the policy regarding reprts on the war that the administration had that ran the first golf war had we would not have half the problums we do now....

I'm certainly his fan and I rate him rather high but I would not go as far as calling him the best ever. He has a lot of wrong instincts. He's too socialist. He cutted taxes way too little but increased spending a lot. Leave No Child Behind is an abomination and I fundamentally disagree with the entire underlying philosophy. Huge expansion of (already bankrupt) Medicare with the monstrous prescription drugs "benefit" was another very bad idea. Bush is too warm to legalized racial discrimination (aka "affirmative action"). He has no intention of securing our borders in times of war and in fact wants to open them even wider. He failed to push through privatization of the Social Security (although I'm not sure whether he rather deserves blame for the failure or praise for the effort). In foreigh policy a lot goes on behind the scenes, but on the surface it does not seem like he's doing anything serious about supermajor crisis with North Korea and Iran. To come think of it, he nearly botched the Iraq war - he should have invaded Iraq in 2001, early 2002 at the lastest and never-ever even mentioned the UN in the process (if Tony Blair would not have gone along, too bad - it's better to do the right thing alone than the wrong thing with allies).