NationStates Jolt Archive

(I have posted this in another thread, but I think people should read it, so, fearing that it would be left unnoticed, I have created this thread to thoroughly bash Bush. But, if you support Bush, please state your opinion and support it with evidence, if possible. No "he rocks cuz I said" crap. I will be more than happy to discuss anything related with this topic. It should also be noted, that most of this is directed at Americans, since I am one. However, those not living in the United States, please most definitely share your views. I am most eager to hear how the rest of the world view Bush.)

He has supposedly fought racism against Muslims, his action to inact the Patriot Act was not helpful. Even though it states that we should treat all equally, the targets of suspected terrorists under the Patriot Act have ALL BEEN MUSLIM OR MIDDLE EASTERN descent. Or have we forgotten that terrorists can be Caucasian as well? Do you remember Timothy McVeigh? or Eric Rudolph?

Let's look at it this way as well: the Patriot Act was an EMERGENCY law passed during an EMERGENCY time, 45 days after 9/11. However, last time I checked, it's been FOUR years since that happened. We are NOT in a state of emergency anymore. If Bush wants to prove that he isn't discriminating, then he must get rid of the Patriot Act that tramples civil freedoms.

I suggest that everyone read this. http://www.aclu.org/Privacy/Privacy.cfm?ID=11054&c=130
This will give you a lot of insight into the innerworkings of the Patriot Act. Many people will say they haven't noticed their rights being taken away, but isn't that the point? Others claim they'll give up some rights for protection from terrorists, but doesn't that defeat the purpose of fighting terrorists? GIVING up rights for protection sounds stupid.

Benjamin Franklin once said, "Those who would give up essential liberty for a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Be careful what you give up, or else you'll screw yourself over.

Here's some more reasons: HE LIES! That or he's so vague that's how he comes across. "Sadaam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction." Have we found them? No. Why? Because they never existed. Hussein was so screwed over from the Gulf War, he couldn't fart without us knowing about it. Their economy sucked due to all the trade embargoes placed upon Iraq. They had neither the means nor the money to create WMD's. Not only that, the Sunni sect of the Islam is (or was) surrounding Iraq, and they do not like Hussein. For this reason, Hussein needed to pretend he had these weapons, or he'd get destroyed. For some odd reason, we were convinced as well.

Once we get in Iraq and find nothing, Bush is somehow able to cleverly cover up that mistake by saying we rid the world of a cruel dictator and were fighting for the people's freedom. That's great and all, but not the reason we went to war. There's no exit strategy at all. Remember the London bombing not too long ago? That happens EVERYDAY in Iraq. American troop deaths are nearing 1,800, but the government hasn't released the Iraqi numbers.

Now, let's move a little closer to home. The No Child Left Behind Act. Wow. That just sucks. No, really. I've actually heard teachers complain about it. There's no funding and it's unrealistic. It's funding to a school is based on standardized tests(which suck, but that's a different thread). If your school doesn't get high enough scores on these tests, then you're federal funding gets cut. The problem is, not enough schools were getting proper funding, so they couldn't reach these "goals". Several schools in Kansas City, MO were shut down because of it and kids had to be bussed to other schools. This hits close to home for me since I live in Missouri. Yeah, great plan there, Big W.

The plan that was supposed to help our education screwed it over.

Does anybody know what happened with his great plan for Social Security, because I certainly don't know. He used that to help him get re-elected, and nothing's really happened. Hmm. I don't know about you, but I feel really insecure about my retirement.

I do credit him with two amazing abilities, though. One is creating words unheard of before, such as "explorationists"....I prefer explorers myself. His other superpower was somehow uniting the Shiite and Sunni Muslims sects against him....They haven't been united in about a thousand years; now THAT'S how you piss people off. Good job, Bush.

Maybe he could start with this thread. That'd be awfuly nice.

My first response to this was: "TROLL! TROLL!"

Second response: "MMm. Edumacated troll that I agree with."

Third reaction: "Mmmm. Flambe..."

Oh, and http://www.satirewire.com/news/jan02/axis.shtml

I think that the first to go would be the Axis of Countries Whose Name Ends in 'Guay.

That would be Paraguay, Uruguay, and Chadguay.

Where is the "all of the above" option? :p

That doesn't apply - it isn't stating which will he go after, but which will fall FIRST?

Oh, and http://www.satirewire.com/news/jan02/axis.shtml

I think that the first to go would be the Axis of Countries Whose Name Ends in 'Guay.

That would be Paraguay, Uruguay, and Chadguay.

hahahaha...that article's great

Of course it applies...I'm thinking they will all fall at the same time.

Of course it applies...I'm thinking they will all fall at the same time.

No, I'm pretty sure one bomb would land before the other.

No, I'm pretty sure one bomb would land before the other.

Exactly.

I do credit him with two amazing abilities, though. One is creating words unheard of before, such as "explorationists"....I prefer explorers myself. His other superpower was somehow uniting the Shiite and Sunni Muslims sects against him....They haven't been united in about a thousand years; now THAT'S how you piss people off. Good job, Bush.
You forget probably his most important ability. George W. Bush can "answer" a question without really saying anthing. For example, a reporter asked him about a recent surge in violence in Iraq, and what actions the US will resolve this violence. When the reporter said surge in violence Bush started laughing (a great way to show sympathy), then he answered the question, "I think about Iraq ever day. Every day I think about Iraq. I mean every day I think about this, and I will continue to think about Iraq every day."
So Bush is psychic powers now and can stop fighting by thinking? Unforunatly after such a lame answer, the report never even questioned his answer. Why ask Bush questions if you are going to accept answers that don't answer your question?

You forget probably his most important ability. George W. Bush can "answer" a question without really saying anthing. For example, a reporter asked him about a recent surge in violence in Iraq, and what actions the US will resolve this violence. When the reporter said surge in violence Bush started laughing (a great way to show sympathy), then he answered the question, "I think about Iraq ever day. Every day I think about Iraq. I mean every day I think about this, and I will continue to think about Iraq every day."
So Bush is psychic powers now and can stop fighting by thinking? Unforunatly after such a lame answer, the report never even questioned his answer. Why ask Bush questions if you are going to accept answers that don't answer your question?

Becuase you don't really want to ask the question, its just a matter of formality.

You forget probably his most important ability. George W. Bush can "answer" a question without really saying anthing. For example, a reporter asked him about a recent surge in violence in Iraq, and what actions the US will resolve this violence. When the reporter said surge in violence Bush started laughing (a great way to show sympathy), then he answered the question, "I think about Iraq ever day. Every day I think about Iraq. I mean every day I think about this, and I will continue to think about Iraq every day."
So Bush is psychic powers now and can stop fighting by thinking? Unforunatly after such a lame answer, the report never even questioned his answer. Why ask Bush questions if you are going to accept answers that don't answer your question?


On the other hand... why expect a sensible reply from Bush? Has he ever been rumored to have given one? Just one?

He has supposedly fought racism against Muslims, his action to inact the Patriot Act was not helpful. Even though it states that we should treat all equally, the targets of suspected terrorists under the Patriot Act have ALL BEEN MUSLIM OR MIDDLE EASTERN descent. Or have we forgotten that terrorists can be Caucasian as well? Do you remember Timothy McVeigh? or Eric Rudolph?

George Bush probably did not personally order any abuses of the Patriot Act that may have occured. I think you're picking on the wrong person.

Let's look at it this way as well: the Patriot Act was an EMERGENCY law passed during an EMERGENCY time, 45 days after 9/11. However, last time I checked, it's been FOUR years since that happened. We are NOT in a state of emergency anymore. If Bush wants to prove that he isn't discriminating, then he must get rid of the Patriot Act that tramples civil freedoms.

Is it? I didn't know it was an emergency law. In any case, is your claim that it is discriminatory the only reason that you want to do away with it? I don't believe it is discriminatory, so I'll have to disagree.

I suggest that everyone read this. http://www.aclu.org/Privacy/Privacy.cfm?ID=11054&c=130
This will give you a lot of insight into the innerworkings of the Patriot Act. Many people will say they haven't noticed their rights being taken away, but isn't that the point? Others claim they'll give up some rights for protection from terrorists, but doesn't that defeat the purpose of fighting terrorists? GIVING up rights for protection sounds stupid.

I don't think section 215 would be too dangerous, even to someone who was anti-American but not planning to blow up any buildings. The FBI can confiscate all they want, but if they still need a good reason to bring charges against you. The only issue is that of getting your stuff back after they're done 'investigating'. Regardless of my opinions on section 215, the real issue here is that it is clearly in violation of the fourth amendment of the constitution. I am not willing to comprimise the constitution for anything.

Here's some more reasons: HE LIES! That or he's so vague that's how he comes across. "Sadaam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction." Have we found them? No. Why? Because they never existed. Hussein was so screwed over from the Gulf War, he couldn't fart without us knowing about it. Their economy sucked due to all the trade embargoes placed upon Iraq. They had neither the means nor the money to create WMD's. Not only that, the Sunni sect of the Islam is (or was) surrounding Iraq, and they do not like Hussein. For this reason, Hussein needed to pretend he had these weapons, or he'd get destroyed. For some odd reason, we were convinced as well.

It may very well be that he misled Americans, but it's no big secret that the government has an interest in securing oil for the use of the United States if it ever becomes necessary. With the consumption of a finite oil supply rising at an ever increasing rate, the government apparently feels that it is time to start securing that oil so that we have time to transition to new sources of energy. I am convinced that this was the primary goal of the war in Iraq, although the freedom of Iraq is certainly a noble secondary objective, and I am convinced that it is the right thing for us to do. Civilian casualties be damned, our country's, as well as the rest of the world's, survival is very important to me. If Iraq attracts a few potential terrorists, fine, we can (relatively) easily identify our enemy and pick him off.

Once we get in Iraq and find nothing

This is a matter of opinion. As you probably gathered from what I said above, I think we found what we were looking for.

Bush is somehow able to cleverly cover up that mistake by saying we rid the world of a cruel dictator and were fighting for the people's freedom.

I kind of thought it was one of our goals before the invasion. It's just that President Bush would have had a hell of a lot easier time selling the war by making WMDs the primary reason for invasion then if he'd made it the liberation of the Iraqi people. I don't think Americans find anything wrong with that, it's just that it's such a sudden departure from our previous policy of not invaiding every country with a dictator and freeing the people living there! "Why is Iraq's freedom so important all of a sudden?" would have been what you heard of every news channel in the world back in 2003.

There's no exit strategy at all.

Sure there is. We exit when the Iraqi military is capable of defending the country by itself. Until then we have no intention of leaving.

Remember the London bombing not too long ago? That happens EVERYDAY in Iraq.

Do you think that the Iraqi people will put up with that for long? Instead of people rallying for the US to get bent, they'll crack down on terrorists. Hard. I realize that this might not be a sufficent answer for your question. Let me put it this way. Terrorists want to destabilize Iraq and take out a few Americans in the process. They wouldn't be there if we hadn't invaided, but they don't HAVE to be there now either, and even if they did have to be they wouldn't HAVE to target civilians. I'm not happy that it happens and I can express my sympathy and disappointment, but I can't apologize.

American troop deaths are nearing 1,800, but the government hasn't released the Iraqi numbers.

They figure that the independent studies did it for them? I don't know enough about that controversy to give you a suitable answer, so I won't.

Now, let's move a little closer to home. The No Child Left Behind Act. Wow. That just sucks. No, really. I've actually heard teachers complain about it. There's no funding and it's unrealistic. It's funding to a school is based on standardized tests(which suck, but that's a different thread). If your school doesn't get high enough scores on these tests, then you're federal funding gets cut. The problem is, not enough schools were getting proper funding, so they couldn't reach these "goals". Several schools in Kansas City, MO were shut down because of it and kids had to be bussed to other schools. This hits close to home for me since I live in Missouri. Yeah, great plan there, Big W.

You have no idea how much I agree with you. Our government doesn't have a clue when it comes to education. Or, maybe they doand they're just following the legacy of these guys (http://www.thememoryhole.org/edu/school-mission.htm).

The plan that was supposed to help our education screwed it over.

The government hasn't been serious about helping education since the Soviets were around to scare us into doing something effective. Apparently, the possibility of bright Asian students slowly taking the scientific and highly technical jobs once filled by Americans isn't a big concern.

Does anybody know what happened with his great plan for Social Security, because I certainly don't know. He used that to help him get re-elected, and nothing's really happened. Hmm. I don't know about you, but I feel really insecure about my retirement.

Don't. His plan is dead. It's a non-issue now. That's why you don't hear about it.

I do credit him with two amazing abilities, though. One is creating words unheard of before, such as "explorationists"....I prefer explorers myself. His other superpower was somehow uniting the Shiite and Sunni Muslims sects against him....They haven't been united in about a thousand years; now THAT'S how you piss people off. Good job, Bush.

The first observation is an ad hominem attack and I will not address it further. As for the second, I don't think he's united all the Shiites and Sunnis against him.

By the way, what are the axes of evil?

Bush is only a president . He may be able to destroy some good quality paper in his office but without support from congress and the voting public he can destroy little else .

Clin Ton will Destroy the Earth!

Bush is only a president . He may be able to destroy some good quality paper in his office but without support from congress and the voting public he can destroy little else .

Hey look, someone with at least half a brain. :D

Hopefully he'll destroy stupid crap like this thread.

Bush is only a president . He may be able to destroy some good quality paper in his office but without support from congress and the voting public he can destroy little else .

You are a genius. Thank you very much.

[QUOTE=Epsonee]then he answered the question, "I think about Iraq ever day. Every day I think about Iraq. I mean every day I think about this, and I will continue to think about Iraq every day."
QUOTE]

:) I saw that on the Daily Show the other day lol "I...I tie a little string around my finger. Sometimes I look at it and say, 'What's that for?'. Then, then I remember and say, 'Oh ****' "

Semi on topic, though, intelligence isn't always perfect. Not the kind that Bush has little of, but the kind the CIA gathers. If officials in Iraq's government were told that they had WMDs and Saddam was acting like he did, then the CIA most likely reported that Iraq did in fact have WMDs. Bush, it seems, was looking for an excuse for the Iraq war anyway, but you can't really fault the administration for incomplete intelligence on the CIA's part, nor can you really fault the CIA.

People have this vision of intelligence services as a bunch of James Bonds who can infiltrate anywhere to find out whatever information they want, which is totally not true. In reality, most of the info that they get is from government officials, signals intel, and even stuff like news services. If all these sources point to something, like Iraq having WMDs, then that's what they'll report. They don't have the resources to sneak into Saddam's palace and record conversations with his defense minister or anything like that.

Wa d ya mean by oor allies.... a cood b a fukin Iraqi for o u no

Hello.... anybody out there?

Hello.... anybody out there?
nope

Question: Are there like three other Republicans on NationStates? Where are the pro-Bush threads?

Question: Are there like three other Republicans on NationStates? Where are the pro-Bush threads?

I think there are a lot of moderate/conservatives and some Republicans on NS. I'm one of them. I don't have any interest, nor presumably do the others, in getting involved in a thread that will generate much more heat than light.

I haven't been here that long, but my interest is in having a good debate or an exchange of views without the rancor that this type of thread generates.

I can tell by the tone of the thread and by who responds and by their attitude what the intent is. Just my opinion, but I won't post where I'm just going to be bushwhacked by a group of institutional thinkers.

1. George Bush probably did not personally order any abuses of the Patriot Act that may have occured. I think you're picking on the wrong person.



2. Is it? I didn't know it was an emergency law. In any case, is your claim that it is discriminatory the only reason that you want to do away with it? I don't believe it is discriminatory, so I'll have to disagree.



3. I don't think section 215 would be too dangerous, even to someone who was anti-American but not planning to blow up any buildings. The FBI can confiscate all they want, but if they still need a good reason to bring charges against you. The only issue is that of getting your stuff back after they're done 'investigating'. Regardless of my opinions on section 215, the real issue here is that it is clearly in violation of the fourth amendment of the constitution. I am not willing to comprimise the constitution for anything.



4. It may very well be that he misled Americans, but it's no big secret that the government has an interest in securing oil for the use of the United States if it ever becomes necessary. With the consumption of a finite oil supply rising at an ever increasing rate, the government apparently feels that it is time to start securing that oil so that we have time to transition to new sources of energy. I am convinced that this was the primary goal of the war in Iraq, although the freedom of Iraq is certainly a noble secondary objective, and I am convinced that it is the right thing for us to do. Civilian casualties be damned, our country's, as well as the rest of the world's, survival is very important to me. If Iraq attracts a few potential terrorists, fine, we can (relatively) easily identify our enemy and pick him off.



5. This is a matter of opinion. As you probably gathered from what I said above, I think we found what we were looking for.



6. I kind of thought it was one of our goals before the invasion. It's just that President Bush would have had a hell of a lot easier time selling the war by making WMDs the primary reason for invasion then if he'd made it the liberation of the Iraqi people. I don't think Americans find anything wrong with that, it's just that it's such a sudden departure from our previous policy of not invaiding every country with a dictator and freeing the people living there! "Why is Iraq's freedom so important all of a sudden?" would have been what you heard of every news channel in the world back in 2003.



7. Sure there is. We exit when the Iraqi military is capable of defending the country by itself. Until then we have no intention of leaving.



8. Do you think that the Iraqi people will put up with that for long? Instead of people rallying for the US to get bent, they'll crack down on terrorists. Hard. I realize that this might not be a sufficent answer for your question. Let me put it this way. Terrorists want to destabilize Iraq and take out a few Americans in the process. They wouldn't be there if we hadn't invaided, but they don't HAVE to be there now either, and even if they did have to be they wouldn't HAVE to target civilians. I'm not happy that it happens and I can express my sympathy and disappointment, but I can't apologize.



9. They figure that the independent studies did it for them? I don't know enough about that controversy to give you a suitable answer, so I won't.



10. You have no idea how much I agree with you. Our government doesn't have a clue when it comes to education. Or, maybe they doand they're just following the legacy of these guys (http://www.thememoryhole.org/edu/school-mission.htm).



11. The government hasn't been serious about helping education since the Soviets were around to scare us into doing something effective. Apparently, the possibility of bright Asian students slowly taking the scientific and highly technical jobs once filled by Americans isn't a big concern.



12. Don't. His plan is dead. It's a non-issue now. That's why you don't hear about it.



13. The first observation is an ad hominem attack and I will not address it further. As for the second, I don't think he's united all the Shiites and Sunnis against him.

14. By the way, what are the axes of evil?


First, I'm glad to see someone bring some good arguments to the table. I'm gonna go through you comments as you have mentioned them and will label yours as well.

1. Even though he has not personally promoted the abuse, the fact that he created room that allows for that kind of nonsense puts him at fault.

2. Yes, it is an emergency law. I'm not against it because it's discriminatory. It's not even supposed to be. The problem is the way it's enforced. Not only that, my other argument was the civil rights issue I mentioned in my post.

3. True, but Section 215 just sucks. They can take any "tangible" evidence? Hmm...not sure how much I agree with that.

4. I don't know how much we disagree here, but the fact that he so much as misled the American people disgusts me. We're also not having a very easy time "picking off" terrorists.

5. We may have found what we were really after, but based on the original reason for invasion, we found nothing.

6. The WMD's were our original reason for invading Iraq. He couldn't sell the idea very well because the UN inspectors hadn't finished their job and the intelligence was sketchy at best. If the reason was for liberation of the Iraqi people, I think we would have had more support. The WMD's could've been a secondary objective to find.

7. Exit strategy as in we leave soon. Even though the Iraqi people are determined, due to the lack of support from other countries, the U.S. is having a difficult time training Iraqi troops. Especially if they keep getting attacked.

8. I agree that the citizens don't like it; that's why they keep showing up at recruiting stations. The terrorists showed up because we invaded. They attack because we are there. The Iraq the terrorists want to destroy is the one created by the U.S.

9. Not much to say here except independent studies are lacking information because the government doesn't release the numbers.

10. I'm glad we completely agree on something.

11. Another agreement, I believe.

12. That's the problem though. It should be an issue since it was one of his main campaign themes. You don't promise the Americans change and then not even try.

13. The first part was just a joke, albeit true. The second, I'll admit that he hasn't unified ALL of them, but the fact that it's happened is serious.

14. For this, I found some evidence.
"The term axis of evil was used by United States President George W. Bush in his State of the Union Address on January 29, 2002 to describe 'regimes that sponsor terror'. The states Bush originally gave in his speech were Iraq, Iran, North Korea and then later Syria, but the definition could be interpreted broadly to include other governments.

His words have been interpreted by some to mean that the "axis of evil" consists solely of those three countries. Some argue that this is a misinterpretation. However, singling out the three in such a forum as a State of the Union address, and the mention of three countries and no others as an "axis", in light of the historical analogy of the German-Italian-Japanese Axis, is likely to result in such an interpretation."

Even though there are the three main ones: Iraq, Iran, and North Korea, there are others, such as Syria, Cuba, and Libya. I don't have the full list, but I have an inkling it includes whoever we don't like at the moment.

Those are my responses. I encourage others to join in as well. (Sorry for my somewhat slow response to this, getting online was difficult.)

I think there are a lot of moderate/conservatives and some Republicans on NS. I'm one of them. I don't have any interest, nor presumably do the others, in getting involved in a thread that will generate much more heat than light.

I haven't been here that long, but my interest is in having a good debate or an exchange of views without the rancor that this type of thread generates.

I can tell by the tone of the thread and by who responds and by their attitude what the intent is. Just my opinion, but I won't post where I'm just going to be bushwhacked by a group of institutional thinkers.

I'm sorry that's what happened, and I've tried to get discussion going, but the intention doesn't always happen, does it?

Hopefully he'll destroy stupid crap like this thread.
LOL GUD 1 BUDDY!!!!1

I am almost certain he destroys all the junk mail he gets .

None; Bush can't destroy any of them because it takes Congress to approve wars. :p

None; Bush can't destroy any of them because it takes Congress to approve wars. :p

True, but the President has the power to send troops anywhere for a limited amount of time.....this could start a war. Also called an executive order.