NationStates Jolt Archive

I, of course, was never a supporter of Bush, and I presume quite a few people here match that. I am curious as to those who still support him. We're scraping the bottom of the barrel here. So, I must ask: is any NationStater one of those ~32% of Americans?

Not entirely, on what area in particular are we talking about?

Not entirely, on what area in particular are we talking about?
We're talking overall here, not on any specific issues, though I suppose you could debate that.

If supporter of Bush is defined as " would still have voted for him over Kerry" Than yes. However that number should be higher, but it actually asked if you support him, which really is a different thing altogether. No I don't support him, but electing him over Kerry was a form of damage control.

Hell No! I Never Supported Bush!!

Yes. I still support President Bush.

anyone quoted saying "the majority of our imports come from outside the country" should NEVER be president!

BUSH SUCKS

=/ Fuck. Didn't see "Never supported" and hit "American: No"....



/Never supported Bush.
//L. Johnson was from TX, as is Bush Sr.
///Bush Sr. thinks Atheists shouldn't be citizens.
////The Bush family can collectively blow me.

I mistakenly voted "I am an American: No," but should have voted "I have never been a Bush supporter."

Never supported him

I never supported Bush, But I am an American. So I made the same mistake as the ones above me and clicked the wrong No.

Usian here. At first I just thought he was a bad president, now I see he's a war criminal.

My fault gang. Probably should have put that option as the first one. Oh well.

So, those of you that still do support him, even after everything else...FOR SCIENCE'S SAKE, MAN, WHY?!

you will ALWAYS have at least 30% supporting either party at all time. Most Americans are sheep and will always vote the same way no matter what.

you will ALWAYS have at least 30% supporting either party at all time. Most Americans are sheep and will always vote the same way no matter what.
Is this true in other countries, or is the United States the only one where we have uneducated fools always voting and the educated peeps rarely voting?

We're talking overall here, not on any specific issues, though I suppose you could debate that.
Hmm... Overall, he's done a bad job, though he is (from what I can tell) very strong in other areas of the Presidency.

I don't support him, he should be impeached and imprisoned. His presidency is unconstitutional.

is the United States the only one where we have uneducated fools always voting and the educated peeps rarely voting?

The reverse is actually true; voter turnout increases with more education.

The reverse is actually true; voter turnout increases with more education.
It certainly does not seem that way overall, based on the way voting went back in 2004. Of course, people were polorized to come and vote against gay marriage rather than on an important issue in the election, but meh.

you will ALWAYS have at least 30% supporting either party at all time. Most Americans are sheep and will always vote the same way no matter what.
Nixon and Carter both hit below 30% some time in their presidency, and if things continue the way they're going, it looks like W. Bush is headed that way too.

Nixon and Carter both hit below 30% some time in their presidency, and if things continue the way they're going, it looks like W. Bush is headed that way too.
Didn't both of them hit that shortly before the end of their Presidency? Bush still has two years in office. I wonder if he'll resign eventually if things get to the point where he has only ~10% (!) supporting him.

Bad show...

I'd support the man, though not American.... Jebus he has gained weight!

Is this true in other countries, or is the United States the only one where we have uneducated fools always voting and the educated peeps rarely voting?

Uhm, I have PhD in Theoretical Physics and I vote in each and every election - including primaries, local referenda etc. And I always vote straight Republican ticket and against all Socialist proposals. As for other countries, the level of voter participation is directly proportional to how f***ed up the country is. Remember, North Korea holds the absolute record of voter participation (100%). And even in countries with voluntary participation high level of voter participation usually means people rely on the (Socialist) government rather than themselves for all their needs and vote simply because they know they'll be screwed (in the redistribution process) if they don't (because other groups will get all the goodies).

Of course, people were polorized to come and vote against gay marriage rather than on an important issue in the election, but meh.

What would you consider an important issue?
I mean, it's obvious that gay rights is less important than some things, but Bush's stance on that issue was one of the many things that made it obvious that he didn't care about people.

Simply put, his domestic policy is (and always was) deplorable, and I'm even more disturbed that noone seemed to care -- they were too busy running around about "terrorists" (and they have no excuse for being such idiots before 9/11 occurred.) It's not like Israel ever elected a leader who ran their systems of education, environment, civil rights, health care, and economic balance into the ground because of the (much more valid) threat of terrorists.

Didn't both of them hit that shortly before the end of their Presidency? Bush still has two years in office. I wonder if he'll resign eventually if things get to the point where he has only ~10% (!) supporting him.

He won't. Although I'd love for him to resign ASAP because Cheney would be so much better. Scratch that - not ASAP, but on January 21, 2007. Because in that case Cheney would serve for two years and still be eligible for two full presidential terms.

Uhm, I have PhD in Theoretical Physics and I vote in each and every election - including primaries, local referenda etc. And I always vote straight Republican ticket and against all Socialist proposals.

Partisan voting? Allegations of "socialist" proposals in the U.S.?
There you have it, living proof that a PhD in one of the most intellectual fields of academics can be a total idiot.

Partisan voting? Allegations of "socialist" proposals in the U.S.?
There you have it, living proof that a PhD in one of the most intellectual fields of academics can be a total idiot.
Of course. A PhD means jack shit to me unless you can prove you really earned that PhD. Don't think waving around a fancy degree will make me blink at all.

What would you consider an important issue?
I mean, it's obvious that gay rights is less important than some things, but Bush's stance on that issue was one of the many things that made it obvious that he didn't care about people.

The US government is actually constitutionally prohibited from "caring" about people. Check the enumerated powers of Congress in Article I, Section 8. There's nothing about "caring" there - only mundane stuff about collecting taxes, declaring war, granting copyright etc. I can take care of myself, thank you very much. Whenever I hear a politician proclaiming that he "cares" about me, I want to grab one of my guns (but I don't - because I know he's lying).

Partisan voting? Allegations of "socialist" proposals in the U.S.?
There you have it, living proof that a PhD in one of the most intellectual fields of academics can be a total idiot.

To begin with, any sort of public funding for education is a socialist proposal. Communist actually - just read the Communist Manifesto (I did - multiple times).

To begin with, any sort of public funding for education is a socialist proposal. Communist actually - just read the Communist Manifesto (I did - multiple times).
...waitwaitwaitwait. You're against any funding for education? And you have a PhD? Why?

Now, I'm a Libertarian. I favor the free market system above all others, but as a mainly social liberal I also understand the value of the people. As such, I favor streamlined, efficient programs to handle everything, to limit taxation to the minimum for that, and all that jazz.(This includes welfare programs, which I think should be hand up not hand out style programs, with punitive efforts aimed at those that try to abuse it.) But going so far as to say there should be no publically funded education is ludricrous.

To begin with, any sort of public funding for education is a socialist proposal. Communist actually - just read the Communist Manifesto (I did - multiple times).

I suppose that would justify voting for Bush.

I guess that means you don't support other "socialist" and "communist" ideas such as protecting the environment, maintaining a low rich/poor divide, protecting civil liberties, or basic upholding civil rights... Bush certainly doesn't.

To begin with, any sort of public funding for education is a socialist proposal. Communist actually - just read the Communist Manifesto (I did - multiple times).

So anything remotely communist or socialist is bad. Anything they even thought of is bad. And anything that even reminds you of them is bad.

Isn't that a little immature?

Never was a supporter, and still aren't.

Never liked the guy.

*obligatorily bashes Bush for the umpteenth time*

-thump-

*yawns*

To begin with, any sort of public funding for education is a socialist proposal. Communist actually - just read the Communist Manifesto (I did - multiple times).
What is wrong with educational funding, I'm all for a overhall of the educational system, and I'm a libritarian capitalist.

I've never supported GWB, his father GHWB or his nazi grandfather, PB.

Never supported him; unfortunately the Poll confused me and I chose 'Yes'...

NEVER was a supporter. Only reason he won was because, in one theory of mine, his dad was a good president and people thought he might be, too. Also, Kerry wasn't that good of a candidate either, but I still would've voted for him, if I could. Where's Gore when we needed him?!:headbang:

Uhm, I have PhD in Theoretical Physics and I vote in each and every election - including primaries, local referenda etc. And I always vote straight Republican ticket and against all Socialist proposals.
What about when Republicans do "socialist" things?

Even in countries with voluntary participation high level of voter participation usually means people rely on the (Socialist) government rather than themselves for all their needs and vote simply because they know they'll be screwed (in the redistribution process)
You vote for your self interest, they vote for theirs. What's the problem?

Meh. Honestly, I've long since stopped giving a shit about what Bush is doing day to day. He'll be out in 2008, and until then I don't have an opinion because I wait until the president leaves office to form one. I disagree on certain policies, but overall I remain undecided until the end.

i am a bush supporter. everything he has done has been for the good of the country. either way it (war in Iraq) was a no when situation. when we first went every one stood behind him now when they see it is not going to be a piece of cake they want out. we have an obligation to help them.

To begin with, any sort of public funding for education is a socialist proposal. Communist actually - just read the Communist Manifesto (I did - multiple times).
So Bush (increased education funding by 49%) is a communist?

Not funding public education is a stupid proposal. It would cause the destruction of the economy.

To begin with, any sort of public funding for education is a socialist proposal. Communist actually - just read the Communist Manifesto (I did - multiple times).

Apparently, you didn't also read The Wealth of Nations, otherwise you'd know that damned dirty pinko Adam Smith also supported public funding for education.

I'm actually a bit curious here: if Karl Marx had forbidden socialists from boiling puppies, would you therefore endorse it?

Publicly funded education is older than socialism by several millenia. And I'm not saying that all of socialism is bad.

you will ALWAYS have at least 30% supporting either party at all time. Most Americans are sheep and will always vote the same way no matter what.
I think you might be surprised. Canadians and Americans are very similar, yet Prime Minister Brian Mulrooney had an 8% approval rate when he stepped down. If we can do it, so can you.

I think you might be surprised. Canadians and Americans are very similar, yet Prime Minister Brian Mulrooney had an 8% approval rate when he stepped down. If we can do it, so can you.
I'll tell you one thing though... if they can't do it now...



:confused:

As for other countries, the level of voter participation is directly proportional to how f***ed up the country is. Remember, North Korea holds the absolute record of voter participation (100%). And even in countries with voluntary participation high level of voter participation usually means people rely on the (Socialist) government rather than themselves for all their needs and vote simply because they know they'll be screwed (in the redistribution process) if they don't (because other groups will get all the goodies).

That's still no excuse for the US to have a voter participation rate in the 40 percent range. Even Canada manages to keep its in the 60 range. Of course, you may be one of those people who believes that Canada would be better named Canuckistan and explain away the differences that way.

I am not an American.

However, I still prefered Bush in both past elections. Neither Al Gore nor John Kerry is a man I'd want as President of the United States.

I recognise that GWB has done a dreadful job as President. He's been an especially bad economic steward.

And yet, I'd still rather have him than Gore or Kerry. The Democrats have done an appalling job at selecting candidates since Clinton.

I think you might be surprised. Canadians and Americans are very similar, yet Prime Minister Brian Mulrooney had an 8% approval rate when he stepped down. If we can do it, so can you.

In his last year in office he actually dropped below 5% for a time. Canadians were more likely to believe that Elvis was alive than to think Mulroney was doing a good job.

There's a reason I joined the Reform Party in 1992.

I am not an American.

However, I still prefered Bush in both past elections. Neither Al Gore nor John Kerry is a man I'd want as President of the United States.

I recognise that GWB has done a dreadful job as President. He's been an especially bad economic steward.

And yet, I'd still rather have him than Gore or Kerry. The Democrats have done an appalling job at selecting candidates since Clinton.

Actually, I'd say they've done an especially bad job since Walter Mondale. Clinton won the battle for the Democratic Party, but only by gutting the heart and soul of the party.

I'll tell you one thing though... if they can't do it now...



:confused:Give them time. There are still two years left in his mandate. Mulroney was a prime minister for 9 years. And while Mulroney had no Iraq, he did bring in a brand new tax. If Bush brought in a GST, I guarantee his approval rating would get into the single digits too.

I support Bush more than I would have supported Kerry, but he doesn't have my full support. He's doing a fairly good job, but he is increasing the power of government to dangerous levels. I'm a socially moderate libertarian who supported both wars (and any possible upcoming war in Iran has the go-ahead from me) and most of his policies except the policies which extended government power. I guess I agree with him about 80% of the time.

If supporter of Bush is defined as " would still have voted for him over Kerry" Than yes. However that number should be higher, but it actually asked if you support him, which really is a different thing altogether. No I don't support him, but electing him over Kerry was a form of damage control.

Voting for a war mongering corporate whore is "damage control" to you? :confused: This is truly one of the dumbest things I've read here in a long time...:rolleyes:

Yeah, well, I support Bush's policies and I still support him today. Bush can't win with the democrats, he gets blasted for ANYTHING he does. I'm a far right conservative, so that is probably why I still support him.

PS: yes, i am American...

If I were forced to vote for either Bush or Gore, and later Bush or Kerry, than yes I would have voted for Bush, the lesser of two evils in my mind.

But either way I did not vote for Bush, nor did I vote for Gore or Kerry, all three of them are idiots in their own special way. As of the last two elections I have neglected to vote because I disagree with all the parties in a majority of issues.

Here's hoping we get someone decent to run in 2008!

Uhm, I have PhD in Theoretical Physics and I vote in each and every election - including primaries, local referenda etc. And I always vote straight Republican ticket and against all Socialist proposals. .

Seems to me all that time and money you spent on your "PhD" was a total waste. It just goes to show a degree is in no way an indicator of intelligence.

As for other countries, the level of voter participation is directly proportional to how f***ed up the country is. Remember, North Korea holds the absolute record of voter participation (100%).

The reason behind that is there are NO ELECTIONS in North Korea. North Korea is a DICTATORSHIP.


And even in countries with voluntary participation high level of voter participation usually means people rely on the (Socialist) government rather than themselves for all their needs and vote simply because they know they'll be screwed (in the redistribution process) if they don't (because other groups will get all the goodies).

In America, we are getting screwed royally left and right by the corporations, the oil companies, and the pharmaceutical lobbies. I think America could use a dose of Socialism right about now. Maybe you should go back to school...:rolleyes:

Yeah, well, I support Bush's policies and I still support him today. Bush can't win with the democrats, he gets blasted for ANYTHING he does. I'm a far right conservative, so that is probably why I still support him.

PS: yes, i am American...

Correction, you are what is WRONG with America...:upyours:

Well just because I support the president, doesn't mean i'm a bad person.

Where is the "I support Bush because he is our president, as I would anyone who is our president, but I am not in support of many of his policies, even though I am a Republican" option?

Well just because I support the president, doesn't mean i'm a bad person.

No, it just means you support a godawful President that dragged your country into two wars, allows the government to spy on its own people, has created an atmopshere of paranoia that allows the government to do this and labels anyone who protests as 'Unpatriotic', and has lost the respect of much of the international community.

The reason behind that is there are NO ELECTIONS in North Korea. North Korea is a DICTATORSHIP.


Exactly! In a dictatorship only the dictator has power, and if elects himself dictator than its conisiderd 100% voter turnout... (1/1)

^That was a joke, so don't attack me for being stupid please...

Correction, you are what is WRONG with America...:upyours:

No, you jackass, you're what is wrong with America. Yelling at and demonizing someone because they're of a different political party is childish and pathetic. Americans need to understand that not everyone thinks their way and we need, as a whole, to understand that we are first Americans and not first Democrats, or conservative, or liberals, or Republicans. Overly partisan dumbfucks like you are what is wrong is America.

No, it just means you support a godawful President that dragged your country into two wars, allows the government to spy on its own people, has created an atmopshere of paranoia that allows the government to do this and labels anyone who protests as 'Unpatriotic', and has lost the respect of much of the international community.
Uhm. The government has tapped into very little phone calls. According to reports from the media today, and congressman, the government has only tracked the phone numbers and the length of the phone conversations. I did support both wars, Afghanistan contained a terrible terrorist group, and Iraq's dictator was a murderer, basically, and did not cooperate with the international community. Not everyone is going to like what the United States does, but it's peoples interests come first. The US congress approved the Iraq War.

Its just my opinion. May not be like yours, sorry.

Uhm. The government has tapped into very little phone calls. According to reports from the media today, and congressman, the government has only tracked the phone numbers and the length of the phone conversations. I did support both wars, Afghanistan contained a terrible terrorist group, and Iraq's dictator was a murderer, basically, and did not cooperate with the international community. Not everyone is going to like what the United States does, but it's peoples interests come first. The US congress approved the Iraq War.

1) The govt has a list of numbers it monitors, and the NSA weill not divulge details of them, even when threatened with subpeonas. This is an invasion of privacy and extremely Big-Brother-ish

2) I'll give you Afghanistan, although that really hasn't worked out well. As to Iraq; so what? Uganda and North Korea have dictators that don't cooperate with the community, yet I don't see the US invading them? So why Iraq and not them? How does invading Iraq (Which has never threatened the US) help the US public or play into their interests?

The reason behind that is there are NO ELECTIONS in North Korea. North Korea is a DICTATORSHIP.

There are elections; however, there's only one candidate and if you don't vote, you're probably going to die.


In America, we are getting screwed royally left and right by the corporations, the oil companies, and the pharmaceutical lobbies. I think America could use a dose of Socialism right about now. Maybe you should go back to school...:rolleyes:

Socialism doesn't work. I hate to tell you, but people socialist countries are many, many times worse off than even the poorest people in America are. Take the worst aspects of corporate corruption, environmental incompetence, and add a dash of of repression and mass murder and you have socialism. It didn't work, and it never will work.

I, of course, was never a supporter of Bush, and I presume quite a few people here match that. I am curious as to those who still support him. We're scraping the bottom of the barrel here. So, I must ask: is any NationStater one of those ~32% of Americans?
Yes i am American, and yes I still support Bush. I think that no one from any country but the United States of America has a valid reson to weigh in on this. Think about hkow much worse off the world would be if John Kerry and John Edwards had won the last election.

"Well the US did have a lot of oil interests in the reigon."
lol No.
Uhm...
It's kinda late to talk about THEN. The US is in Iraq now, and has to stay the course unless it wants the country to turn into a terrorist haven.

"Well the US did have a lot of oil interests in the reigon."
lol No.
Uhm...
It's kinda late to talk about THEN. The US is in Iraq now, and has to stay the course unless it wants the country to turn into a terrorist haven.

It already is a terrorist haven. When Saddam was in power (As terrible as it was) at least Saddam and Bin Laden hated each other. Now Iraq is a breeding ground for anti-Western terrorists.

And just pulling out now wouldnt help much, now would it.
Then you're talking about an Iranian intervention, which could damage US interests in the reigion, by a lot.

And just pulling out now wouldnt help much, now would it.
Then you're talking about an Iranian intervention, which could damage US interests in the reigion, but a lot.

Pulling out would be no different to staying in, and just cost more money and lives. The Iraqi govt has asked you to leave several times, and you've refused. As to Iranian intervention, it is doubtful whether they would beyond supplying terrorists, but it'd be your own fault really. Invading Iraq has given every anti-Western mullah and demagogue a plave to rally their troops and believers.

I am not an American.

However, I still prefered Bush in both past elections. Neither Al Gore nor John Kerry is a man I'd want as President of the United States.

I recognise that GWB has done a dreadful job as President. He's been an especially bad economic steward.

And yet, I'd still rather have him than Gore or Kerry. The Democrats have done an appalling job at selecting candidates since Clinton.
I could understand Kerry... but Gore? What could you possibly have against him to the point of favouring Bush?

Pulling out would be no different to staying in, and just cost more money and lives. The Iraqi govt has asked you to leave several times, and you've refused. As to Iranian intervention, it is doubtful whether they would beyond supplying terrorists, but it'd be your own fault really. Invading Iraq has given every anti-Western mullah and demagogue a plave to rally their troops and believers.
Atleast staying in gives some HOPE. lol. ok but more seriously.
Theres still a chance conditions can improve when a full government is formed, which is expected VERY VERY soon.

In his last year in office he actually dropped below 5% for a time. Canadians were more likely to believe that Elvis was alive than to think Mulroney was doing a good job.

There's a reason I joined the Reform Party in 1992.
And what if I were to say that despite his cronyism, scandal plagued, and unpopular government he did pretty neat job. Particularly towards the end. Wasn't able to control government spending but ah well...

No, it just means you support a godawful President that dragged your country into two wars, allows the government to spy on its own people, has created an atmopshere of paranoia that allows the government to do this and labels anyone who protests as 'Unpatriotic', and has lost the respect of much of the international community.

Yeah. Because it's okay for Muslim extremists to beat children for flying kites or blowing up Buddahs. :rolleyes:

Never mind that the Arab extremists have been at war with the US for years:
Attacks on the US by Islamic extremists:
• 1983 April 18 U.S. Embassy Bombing in Beirut, Lebanon kills 63
• 1983 September 23 Gulf Air Flight 771 is bombed, killing all 117 people on board
• 1983 October 23 Marine Barracks Bombing in Beirut kills 241 U.S. Marines. 58 French troops from the multinational force are also killed in a separate attack.
• 1985 TWA Flight 847 hijacking
• 1985 October 7 - October 10 Achille Lauro cruise ship hijacking by Palestinian Liberation Front, during which passenger Leon Klinghoffer is shot dead.
• 1985 EgyptAir Flight 648 hijacked by Abu Nidal group, flown to Malta, where Egyptian commandos storm plane; 60 are killed by gunfire and explosions.
• 1986 TWA Flight 840 bombed on approach to Athens airport; 4 Americans, including an infant, are killed.
• 1986 April 6 the La Belle discotheque in Berlin, a known hangout for U.S. soldiers, was bombed, killing 3 and injuring 230 people, for which Libya is held responsible. In retaliation, the US bombs Libya in Operation El Dorado Canyon and tries to kill dictator Qaddafi.
• 1986 Pan Am Flight 73, an American civilian airliner, is hijacked; 22 people die when plane is stormed in Karachi, Pakistan.
• 1988 Pan Am Flight 103 bombing (Lockerbie). The worst act of terrorism against the United States prior to September 11, 2001.
• 1989 Avianca Flight 203 bombed over Colombia
• 1993 February 26 World Trade Center bombing kills 6 and injures over 1000 people
• 1993 Failed New York City landmark bomb plot
• 1993 Mir Aimal Kansi, a Pakistani, fires an AK-47 assault rifle into cars waiting at a stoplight in front of the Central Intelligence Agency headquarters. Two died.
• 1994 December 11 A small bomb explodes on board Philippine Airlines Flight 434, killing a Japanese businessman. Authorities found out that Ramzi Yousef planted the bomb to test it for his planned terrorist attack.
• 1995 Operation Bojinka is discovered on a laptop computer in a Manila, Philippines apartment by authorities after an apartment fire occurred in the apartment.
• 1995 Bombing of military compound in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
• 1996 June 25 Khobar Towers bombing
• 1997 A terrorist opened fire on tourists at an observation deck atop the Empire State Building in New York City, killing a Danish national and wounding visitors from the United States, Argentina, Switzerland and France before turning the gun on himself. A handwritten note carried by the gunman claimed this was a punishment attack against the "enemies of Palestine".
• 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya, killing 225 people and injuring more than 4,000.

..and if this is the same international community that still hasn't acted about North Korea, couldn't control Jugoslavia, and leaves the poor folks of Darfur to genocide... left Rwanda to genocide... there's no respect worth respecting.

I'm not a Bush fan, but at least complain about his actual screwups. The US was going to have to fight in Afghanistan no matter who was in the White House.

Of course. A PhD means jack shit to me unless you can prove you really earned that PhD. Don't think waving around a fancy degree will make me blink at all.

So what you're saying is that because he's not a socialist he doesn't earn that degree?

Yeah. Because it's okay for Muslim extremists to beat children for flying kites or blowing up Buddahs. :rolleyes:

Never mind that the Arab extremists have been at war with the US for years:
Attacks on the US by Islamic extremists:
• 1983 April 18 U.S. Embassy Bombing in Beirut, Lebanon kills 63
• 1983 September 23 Gulf Air Flight 771 is bombed, killing all 117 people on board
• 1983 October 23 Marine Barracks Bombing in Beirut kills 241 U.S. Marines. 58 French troops from the multinational force are also killed in a separate attack.
• 1985 TWA Flight 847 hijacking
• 1985 October 7 - October 10 Achille Lauro cruise ship hijacking by Palestinian Liberation Front, during which passenger Leon Klinghoffer is shot dead.
• 1985 EgyptAir Flight 648 hijacked by Abu Nidal group, flown to Malta, where Egyptian commandos storm plane; 60 are killed by gunfire and explosions.
• 1986 TWA Flight 840 bombed on approach to Athens airport; 4 Americans, including an infant, are killed.
• 1986 April 6 the La Belle discotheque in Berlin, a known hangout for U.S. soldiers, was bombed, killing 3 and injuring 230 people, for which Libya is held responsible. In retaliation, the US bombs Libya in Operation El Dorado Canyon and tries to kill dictator Qaddafi.
• 1986 Pan Am Flight 73, an American civilian airliner, is hijacked; 22 people die when plane is stormed in Karachi, Pakistan.
• 1988 Pan Am Flight 103 bombing (Lockerbie). The worst act of terrorism against the United States prior to September 11, 2001.
• 1989 Avianca Flight 203 bombed over Colombia
• 1993 February 26 World Trade Center bombing kills 6 and injures over 1000 people
• 1993 Failed New York City landmark bomb plot
• 1993 Mir Aimal Kansi, a Pakistani, fires an AK-47 assault rifle into cars waiting at a stoplight in front of the Central Intelligence Agency headquarters. Two died.
• 1994 December 11 A small bomb explodes on board Philippine Airlines Flight 434, killing a Japanese businessman. Authorities found out that Ramzi Yousef planted the bomb to test it for his planned terrorist attack.
• 1995 Operation Bojinka is discovered on a laptop computer in a Manila, Philippines apartment by authorities after an apartment fire occurred in the apartment.
• 1995 Bombing of military compound in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
• 1996 June 25 Khobar Towers bombing
• 1997 A terrorist opened fire on tourists at an observation deck atop the Empire State Building in New York City, killing a Danish national and wounding visitors from the United States, Argentina, Switzerland and France before turning the gun on himself. A handwritten note carried by the gunman claimed this was a punishment attack against the "enemies of Palestine".
• 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya, killing 225 people and injuring more than 4,000.

..and if this is the same international community that still hasn't acted about North Korea, couldn't control Jugoslavia, and leaves the poor folks of Darfur to genocide... left Rwanda to genocide... there's no respect worth respecting.

I'm not a Bush fan, but at least complain about his actual screwups.

Impressive strawman there. Where did I ever say that was okay? Answer: I never. Of course it isn't allright, and of course the international community isn't perfect; it's a long way from being so. But the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have done nothing but cost you lives and money, liberated a single country that seems to be bordering on civil war at times, and created a beacon for every anti-Western figure to send his followers to and show it as another sign of Western evil.

So what you're saying is that because he's not a socialist he doesn't earn that degree?

Where the hell did you get that from? He attacked the guy because he started screaming that any funding for education was a socialist principle, yet he had a degree funded by that socialism, which he obviously disliked. Ironic, no?

1) The govt has a list of numbers it monitors, and the NSA weill not divulge details of them, even when threatened with subpeonas. This is an invasion of privacy and extremely Big-Brother-ish

Dude, ALL THE MAJOR TELEPHONE COMPANIES KEEP THOSE RECORDS. They were already there. Not it just means someone who can actually use them has them.

Atleast staying in gives some HOPE. lol. ok but more seriously.
Theres still a chance conditions can improve when a full government is formed, which is expected VERY VERY soon.

Methought the mission was already accomplished?

Methought the mission was already accomplished?
Mm, THAT i dont agree on. (with bush)
lol

Dude, ALL THE MAJOR TELEPHONE COMPANIES KEEP THOSE RECORDS. They were already there. Not it just means someone who can actually use them has them.

This makes it a good thing? They shouldn't be used at all, especially by the government for crying out loud. There's no need to.

Where the hell did you get that from? He attacked the guy because he started screaming that any funding for education was a socialist principle, yet he had a degree funded by that socialism, which he obviously disliked. Ironic, no?

He bashed gov. funding of education? I didn't see that.

Ironic, yes, but doesn't mean he doesn't deserve the degree.

He bashed gov. funding of education? I didn't see that.

Ironic, yes, but doesn't mean he doesn't deserve the degree.


He never said that. He said it wouldn't mean anything unless he actually proved he earnt it. Which, by his rather ironic statement, makes it sound rather suspicious...

This makes it a good thing? They shouldn't be used at all, especially by the government for crying out loud. There's no need to.

The records are often used as evidence in solving crimes. Are you suggesting we completely remove them, hence limiting YET AGAIN Law Enforcement's ability to do their job?

Socialism doesn't work. I hate to tell you, but people socialist countries are many, many times worse off than even the poorest people in America are. Take the worst aspects of corporate corruption, environmental incompetence, and add a dash of of repression and mass murder and you have socialism. It didn't work, and it never will work.I will agree with you that America does not need a good dose of socialism. I believe it needs to moderate its domestic and foreign policy and start defending positive liberty and freedom at home for a change. However, despite that I am not myself a socialist, I will not discard socialism so easily. There are several concepts of socialist economic and political theory that have been applied in every single developed nation on the planet. The 8 hour workday, minimum wage laws, health care, social security, welfare, to name a few, etc. Naturally these are not exclusively socialist policies, but they are of socialist origin.

I consider that anarcho-capitalism has as much chance of "working" as state control or socialism does. I believe in the centrist approach.

Yes i am American, and yes I still support Bush. I think that no one from any country but the United States of America has a valid reson to weigh in on this. Think about hkow much worse off the world would be if John Kerry and John Edwards had won the last election.

I can only shudder to think how Gore/Kerry/Edwards would have handled the past few years.

Yes, I am American. Yes, I support Bush, if by 'supporting' you mean 'agreeing with more than 50% of his policies, decisions, and would still have voted for him over the others'.

I'd like to point out that the non-vocal majority is pretty much not represented at all in most polls taken. Head down to the West and South and you'll find quite a few ardent Republican-voting types who (believe it or not) like Bush, or support the wars, or can excuse the fact that GWB is not a smooth-talker like Clinton. I'm sure many of these people aren't exactly the type to participate in news polls, internet forum-sufing, or non-stop complaints and interviews and editorials about Bush.
The vocal minority seems to be the only ones represented.

The records are often used as evidence in solving crimes. Are you suggesting we completely remove them, hence limiting YET AGAIN Law Enforcement's ability to do their job?

Solving crimes is one thing. It's when the NSA starts using them, and won't say why they're using them even when threatened with subpeonas that it gets rather worrying, especially if they start shouting 'Terrorists' in the same sentence.

He never said that. He said it wouldn't mean anything unless he actually proved he earnt it. Which, by his rather ironic statement, makes it sound rather suspicious...

Ah, went back and read it. Amusing, yes, but that doesn't negate the fact he doesn't deserve the degree.

Besides, it's in a physics field, not a social field. But I'd rather not debate his academic credentials.

Ah, went back and read it. Amusing, yes, but that doesn't negate the fact he doesn't deserve the degree.

Besides, it's in a physics field, not a social field. But I'd rather not debate his academic credentials.

Again, he never said he doesn't deserve it. The chap said he should prove that he earnt it, not that he shouldn't have it.

Solving crimes is one thing. It's when the NSA starts using them, and won't say why they're using them even when threatened with subpeonas that it gets rather worrying, especially if they start shouting 'Terrorists' in the same sentence.

I'll give you that, but its rediculous that they're going to waste the effort to monitor phone calls from your significant other. THat's just stupid paranoia.

Again, he never said he doesn't deserve it. The chap said he should prove that he earnt it, not that he shouldn't have it.

He has it doesn't he? It's not honourary, it's real. He earned it.

There's nothing about politics in particle physics.

I'll give you that, but its rediculous that they're going to waste the effort to monitor phone calls from your significant other. THat's just stupid paranoia.

Exactly. I know no-one has a constitutional right to privacy in your country, but you should still expect to have privacy. It's just paranoia gone another step. Sorry to say it, but Al Quaeda won a much larger victory at 9/11 than just killing 3,000+ people. It made your government paranoid and many people happy to accept it.

I will agree with you that America does not need a good dose of socialism. I believe it needs to moderate its domestic and foreign policy and start defending positive liberty and freedom at home for a change. However, despite that I am not myself a socialist, I will not discard socialism so easily. There are several concepts of socialist economic and political theory that have been applied in every single developed nation on the planet. The 8 hour workday, minimum wage laws, health care, social security, welfare, to name a few, etc. Naturally these are not exclusively socialist policies, but they are of socialist origin.

The socialists of the 19th century that brought us things like social security, welfare, medical coverage, insurance, worker protections etc. would have been totally horrified by the "socialists" of the 20th century. The socialism you describe is far different than the horrid ideology put in to practice by people like Stalin or Pol Pot.

We need ownership of services to remain private, with government providing the safety net and services unable to be provided properly by the private sector. It should also provide the fiscal and monetary policy necessary to keep the economy stable. Government should make capitalism work better, rather than government try to lead by itself.

I consider that anarcho-capitalism has as much chance of "working" as state control or socialism does. I believe in the centrist approach.

I do as well.

He has it doesn't he? It's not honourary, it's real. He earned it.

There's nothing about politics in particle physics.

Hmmm. This is true. I think the point being that someone going around saying stuff like that might not make people believe he actually has a degree, as people with degrees are supposed to be intelligent and not make stupid statements...

No, you jackass, you're what is wrong with America. Yelling at and demonizing someone because they're of a different political party is childish and pathetic. Americans need to understand that not everyone thinks their way and we need, as a whole, to understand that we are first Americans and not first Democrats, or conservative, or liberals, or Republicans. Overly partisan dumbfucks like you are what is wrong is America.

:upyours: OK Dumbfuck, :upyours: that was the point I was trying to make!!! I am against all of the partisan bullshit you see every day, and people who insist that things be one way or another are whats wrong with America. Right Wing Conservatism is WRONG with America, as is the inane finger pointing and innefective practices of the liberals and Democrats. That is what my post meant. Why don't you go back and READ the actual posts before you post some crap of your own?

I voted "Yes".

By this I mean: He's in office, and I'd prefer it stay that way (i.e. no impeachment/resignation).

Do I think he's doing a good job? Well... I still have a job, food to eat, a car I can drive, and the internet (among other things...)... So, I count all that as not bad.

Do I think he's doing a marvelous, super fantastic job? In a word, no.

Would I vote for him? Again, no.

The socialists of the 19th century that brought us things like social security, welfare, medical coverage, insurance, worker protections etc. would have been totally horrified by the "socialists" of the 20th century. The socialism you describe is far different than the horrid ideology put in to practice by people like Stalin or Pol Pot.Naturally naturally. In fact there are socialist that do not consider either Stalin nor Pol Pot as examples of socialists. There are hard line Marxist socialists that refer to the Paris Commune as one of the best examples of a successful implementation of socialism that lasted until it was barbarically repressed. Against them they have of course the small scale at which this was implemented.

We need ownership of services to remain private, with government providing the safety net and services unable to be provided properly by the private sector. It should also provide the fiscal and monetary policy necessary to keep the economy stable. Government should make capitalism work better, rather than government try to lead by itself.
I do as well.
Agreed and well said on both counts.

Let's see...is there ANYTHING Bush has done that I support? Let's see...I can think of one: Afghanistan. And frankly, he could be doing better with that. The Taliban needed to be removed. Not just because they treated their civilians like dirt. Because the Taliban, indirectly, could cause a lot of problems around the world by their support of al-Qaida. We all know what al-Qaida can do if they put their minds to it. They killed 3,000 on 9/11 and they could have done far worse.

That said, what's going on there in Afghanistan? Hard to say. I have heard everything from the provisional government doing a fantastic job to Bush even wanting to restore the Taliban to power. Civilians still don't seem to be a lot better off, and al-Qaida is scattered. Osama bin Laden was wanted "dead or alive" and is still nowhere to be found. Bush doesn't give a flying fig.

As for everything else he's done, is anything else even supportable?

--The tax cuts: Great idea in principle if you want to cut spending as well. But let's see - they didn't helpt the economy, and spending went through the roof. Poor execution, if I ever saw it.
--The Patriot Act: A little much, if you ask me. Plus it was just rushed through Congress with almost no debate. I suppose this is Congress' fault as much as Bush's, but Bush didn't have to sign it.
--Federal Marriage Amendment: Now, is this really necessary? The Supreme Court is keeping its collective yap shut about gay marriage, and the amendment didn't have a prayer of passing anyway, so why alienate the 60% or so of Americans that believe gay folks should at least have civil unions? The amendment would have given gay folks jack-squat. Of course, I suppose he did that because he knows he would have gotten off far worse if he had done what the real nut jobs would want and make homosexuality a capital offense.
--Wire-tapping: Come on now. Get a damn warrant. Is it that hard? Bush demonstrated he has no respect for the law or for the Constitution with this.
--Iraq: This isn't to say Saddam Hussein wasn't a pompous, murdering jackass who rightly deserved to be drawn and quartered and die a slow, painful death. He was, and he is. But who's to say that the highly unstable Iraq region isn't going to turn into a more brutal Iran-esque theocracy? Democracy is a pretty far-fetched idea at this point. People are getting killed left and right, and American soldiers are targets. And if a theocratic dictatorship takes hold in Iraq, who's going to stop them? Is it worth it for the U.S. to do so?

Simply put: Bush is a clown. How he got one term is puzzling; how he got two terms is beyond me. Oh no, wait, it isn't: The Democrats decided to run a stick figure with the personality of a plank of wood against him. Edwards could have beated Bush. Clark probably could have beaten Bush, and I doubt those Swift Boat vets could have touched him.

My question for the Bush supporters here: Is there ANY circumstance under which you would support him serving as President after his term is set to expire?

Socialism doesn't work. I hate to tell you, but people socialist countries are many, many times worse off than even the poorest people in America are. Take the worst aspects of corporate corruption, environmental incompetence, and add a dash of of repression and mass murder and you have socialism. It didn't work, and it never will work.

I'm quite sorry but I must disagree with this statement.

For the Original question of do I support President Bush:

I'm an American, and I have not supported President Bush since he decided to go into Iraq, but I did support the Afghanistan War for the simple reason that there was proof that the Taliban harbored and supported Al Qaida and we apparently had a better plan for that mission because it was executed well and America had an agenda and accomplished it quickly. Iraq was HUGE mistake, and I didn't like it before I found out there was no WMDs, I didn't make a September 11th and Iraq connection so it was confusing to me as to why we were there.and it has turned into a great mess, and I dont think we can ever really WIN that war..(I'm afraid it may turn into a Vietnam, that was never declared a "war" either, and it was quite dismal for America as well)

but for US Domestic policy and the quoted member's claim that Socialism doesn't work. I must say this.. What information and sources do you have for making that kind of claim?

I'm no expert, but I do love social studies and have my whole life, and I do pleasure researching. If one counts "socialism" as I do that I must say that the Nordic countries: Iceland, Norway, Sweden, and Denmark are all doing quite well and they are socialist.

yes these countries pay high taxes, but it has not compromised their economies, and they are some of the richest countries in the world (per capita) and their human developement Indexes are also quite high. Though its not my point to put down capitalism, at least the nordic form of socialism is working pretty darn well, and I'd love to live in any one of those countries.

I think if the US adopted just a few things from these countries, we'd be better for it. I honestly think so, I'm not being partisan or political.

To get back to the original thing. I hate Bush's policies on most issues. As as matter of fact if one looks back on History, America is no stranger to bad decisions on a number of issues, but we've done good things, and on Bush, I've gotten to the point of where I really dont care, his fate is already sealed and he will go down as one of the WORST presidents in American History.

--The tax cuts: Great idea in principle if you want to cut spending as well. But let's see - they didn't helpt the economy, and spending went through the roof. Poor execution, if I ever saw it.


I would have to disagree with this; the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts provided much needed boosts to disposable income which has definitely helped maintain the momentum of the economy even in the face of high oil prices and the variety of economic shocks since the end of the 2001 recession. The deficit spending also helped, but as the economy moves closer to full employment the risk of crowding-out inflation becomes greater and greater.

Who cares?
If only a fraction of what the republicans and democrats say about each other is true, the rest of us are screwed no matter what they vote.

Exactly. I know no-one has a constitutional right to privacy in your country, but you should still expect to have privacy. It's just paranoia gone another step. Sorry to say it, but Al Quaeda won a much larger victory at 9/11 than just killing 3,000+ people. It made your government paranoid and many people happy to accept it.

Unfortunately, you're right. I can't argue this -- I agree with you.

Holy shit, that's two things we agree on... :eek:

Hmmm. This is true. I think the point being that someone going around saying stuff like that might not make people believe he actually has a degree, as people with degrees are supposed to be intelligent and not make stupid statements...

Supposed to be. I have found that this is rarely the case. Ego > reality

Who cares?
If only a fraction of what the republicans and democrats say about each other is true, the rest of us are screwed no matter what they vote.

Haha, how true.

ARMED REVOLUTION!

Just to be clear I voted for "Not American: No", but I probably should have voted for "Never Supported Bush" (this poll is a bit confusing), Frankly I hated the Guy from the first minute I heard he existed.
(All I had to know was that he was from Texas and that was enough to know it would be disastrous, and that was before he was president).

Exactly. I know no-one has a constitutional right to privacy in your country, but you should still expect to have privacy. It's just paranoia gone another step. Sorry to say it, but Al Quaeda won a much larger victory at 9/11 than just killing 3,000+ people. It made your government paranoid and many people happy to accept it.
well, the fact that after the other two attempts by Al Quaeda to take down the WTC resulted in the loopholes and shoddy intelligence gathering that allowed them to succeed at 9/11 really is a testament that the old ways were not working.

well, the fact that after the other two attempts by Al Quaeda to take down the WTC resulted in the loopholes and shoddy intelligence gathering that allowed them to succeed at 9/11 really is a testament that the old ways were not working.

Are the new ways really any better? Is it worth sacrificing your privacy and allowing more government intrusion?

I would have to disagree with this; the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts provided much needed boosts to disposable income which has definitely helped maintain the momentum of the economy even in the face of high oil prices and the variety of economic shocks since the end of the 2001 recession. The deficit spending also helped, but as the economy moves closer to full employment the risk of crowding-out inflation becomes greater and greater.

They seemed pretty minor to me, but then again, I guess I noticed any boost in 2001 being cancelled out by 9/11 and the Enron-type scandals. Granted, Bush signed a corporate fraud initiative (that any president with ten functioning brain cells would have signed) that seems to be cancelled out by his close ties to Kenneth Lay. The 2003 bump I can't speak for, but I don't see much out of the economy these days. I definitely think we can do better.

I also don't think Bush's motivation for deficit spending was to revitalize the economy. I think he was motivated to cut taxes and raise spending separately. This wasn't a Depression-type scenario where deficit spending was necessary, and the fuel shocks are not on the same level as in the 1970s (I largely say this because people get all the gas they need and can drive their ridiculously oversized SUVs until the cows come home...there are no fuel lines, gas rations for stations, or markets for small cars that get good fuel economy and not much else.) To say that Bush is trying to take care of fuel shocks or raise the economy from the dead is exaggeration, and frankly, Bush might have been best served leaving the tax rate alone.

Are the new ways really any better? Is it worth sacrificing your privacy and allowing more government intrusion?it's different. the government is trying new ways and there will be alot of toes stepped on until the proper way is found. Until then, keep screaming for your rights but also realize that it's the Government's job to secure their citizens at the same time.

one does not have to sacrifice all their rights for security, but one cannot expect to keep all their rights and be secure.

I, of course, was never a supporter of Bush, and I presume quite a few people here match that. I am curious as to those who still support him. We're scraping the bottom of the barrel here. So, I must ask: is any NationStater one of those ~32% of Americans?
I used to support Bush, but i don't anymore.
He puts his religion ahead of what is right or what needs to be done.
I only agree with him on the war and the tax cuts he imposed, nothing else.

They seemed pretty minor to me, but then again, I guess I noticed any boost in 2001 being cancelled out by 9/11 and the Enron-type scandals. Granted, Bush signed a corporate fraud initiative (that any president with ten functioning brain cells would have signed) that seems to be cancelled out by his close ties to Kenneth Lay. The 2003 bump I can't speak for, but I don't see much out of the economy these days. I definitely think we can do better.

Well, the tax cuts helped mitigate the effects of Enron and the stock market crash in 2002; had the 2001/2003 credits not been passed, it is very likely that we would have had a double recession and we would be much worse off than we are today. Other than energy prices, the economy is in as good shape now as it was in 1997 or 1998.

The economy will perform much better once the effects of energy prices either are mitigated through reduced consumption and alternatives or supply increases considerably. I think the first is more likely, but that is in many ways better economically because it breaks the cycle of high and low energy prices making it more stable and much less inflationary.

Well in 2000 I didnt care about politics, but by 2003 i had no choice but to become political and I have never been a bush suporter. i think hes a moron who is trying to destroy the world. :upyours:

I'm no expert, but I do love social studies and have my whole life, and I do pleasure researching. If one counts "socialism" as I do that I must say that the Nordic countries: Iceland, Norway, Sweden, and Denmark are all doing quite well and they are socialist.


No, they're not. Socialism requires government ownership of the means of production; the Scandinavian nations (and most of Europe for that matter) have high taxes and a lot of government services, but ultimately the factors of production and the greater economy belong to individuals and the markets are privately determined. They are considered social-democratic capitalist nations, not socialist...there's a huge difference.

Well in 2000 I didnt care about politics, but by 2003 i had no choice but to become political and I have never been a bush suporter. i think hes a moron who is trying to destroy the world. :upyours:

Thank you for that highly educated, informed, and mature comment.

Yes. I still support President Bush.
As do I

Never was.

but electing him over Kerry was a form of damage control.[/QUOTE]

DAMAGE CONTROL? how the hell worse could kerry have done? bush is tying to start wars everywhere.

1. totally droped teh ball in iraq
where ARE those wmds?

2. totally dropped the ball with katrina
wheres the food, water and housing? oh and lets not forget "good job brownie" so dont blame fema alone for that.

3. has teh entire world pissed at us


4. thinks hes winston churchhill after the "hitler"esk leader of iran
if he was anyone else they would medicate him in some institution.

:upyours: OK Dumbfuck, :upyours: that was the point I was trying to make!!! I am against all of the partisan bullshit you see every day, and people who insist that things be one way or another are whats wrong with America. Right Wing Conservatism is WRONG with America, as is the inane finger pointing and innefective practices of the liberals and Democrats. That is what my post meant. Why don't you go back and READ the actual posts before you post some crap of your own?

No.

Your unbelievable bias shines through once again. You say that the finger pointing and innefective practices of the left are wrong. Fine, I agree, as does almost anyone.

Still, you don't even try to pick out something about conservatives or Republicans, you just say that the very concept of being "right winged" is wrong, or should I say, WRONG.

You're against partisan bullshit you say? You say that people who insist that "things" be one way or another are what's wrong with America? That's funny...because you seem pretty content with anything that isn't conservative.

Well in 2000 I didnt care about politics, but by 2003 i had no choice but to become political and I have never been a bush suporter. i think hes a moron who is trying to destroy the world. :upyours:

Yes. I'm sure that Bush sat down and thought, "You know what...I'm going to destroy the world...hehehehehe"

I'm just glad that in your 2.5 years of "being political" you have come to such an informed decision on world politics.

...and you say he's the moron...

I used to support Bush, but i don't anymore.
He puts his religion ahead of what is right or what needs to be done.
I only agree with him on the war and the tax cuts he imposed, nothing else.

Dude if your most important issue is not the war something is wrong here... our troops are overthere fighting... you support the presidents actions yet you dont support the president in Iraq???

Overall the concern here should be the war and if your for the war you support Bush. National security and the economy before social issues when it comes to supporting a polotician. To you its looking like you should be on the support side.

"He puts his religion ahead of what is right or what needs to be done." - If hes putting religion first then he is doing what he believes is right. LOL his morality comes from religin. (maybe what you mean to say is what i believe is right.)

DAMAGE CONTROL? how the hell worse could kerry have done? bush is tying to start wars everywhere.

1. totally droped teh ball in iraq
where ARE those wmds?

2. totally dropped the ball with katrina
wheres the food, water and housing? oh and lets not forget "good job brownie" so dont blame fema alone for that.

3. has teh entire world pissed at us


4. thinks hes winston churchhill after the "hitler"esk leader of iran
if he was anyone else they would medicate him in some institution.

You're really on a roll tonight aren't you?

How could Kerry have been worse? Well lets see...Democrat or Republican, most people agree that Kerry was a terrible leader. Most Democrats I talked to in 2004 were only voting for him because he wasn't Bush. Great way to pick a leader, eh?

...and back to how Bush is "tying" to start wars everywhere. At least he can make up his mind. Kerry would start a war, say he didn't, continue fighting, pull out, and then support it. ;)

1. "droping teh ball" - Iraq

Yes, there were no WMD's in Iraq when we invaded. We know that now. Hindsight is 20/20 isn't it? Nevertheless, there was proof that Saddam had used WMD's in the form of chemical attacks on the Kurds and other groups of people. Also, there were facilities in Iraq that seemed to be designed for creating WMD's. Bush went in on faulty intelligence. That was the CIA's fault. He did what he thought was right.

2. "dropping the ball" - Katrina

What exactly did you expect him to do? Fly down there with a cape and save the poor people with his super powers? America faced, yet again, an unprecidented crisis which it wasn't prepared for. FEMA was to blame for the ineffectiveness of the nation after Katrina, just as National Security as a whole was to blame for 9/11.

3. "has teh entire world pissed at us"

I have two replies to this one. First of all, the entire world is pissed at us for reasons other than Bush. More than anything, they just make fun of him. People do that here, in America. The entire world is pissed because our rapid consumerism is taking over their economies, we don't bend over for the UN and other socialist-leaning nations, and we support Israel. Second, who the fuck cares? We are a sovereign nation. We determine how we do things. Foreigners don't.

4. "Winston Churchhill..."hitler"esk...and medicating Bush"

a. Wouldn't he be FDR...and not Churchill...since he's American?
b. How are Nazi Germany and Iran related? Dictatorships who hate Jews?
c. ...and thank you, doctor, for your diagnosis...

Now...between type-o's, misspellings of elementary-type words, and blatant stupidity, I suggest you take a long, hard look at your life before posting again with your "cool" little red smilie that gives me the finger. Good day.

Well in 2000 I didnt care about politics, but by 2003 i had no choice but to become political and I have never been a bush suporter. i think hes a moron who is trying to destroy the world. :upyours:



Rather have a moron in office than someone who was completely braindead. Bush was clearly smart enough to win the election over kerry and whats below moron?? Braindead kerry i believe.

But anyone can you plz explain how a moron can set out to destroy the world and yet conduct the intricate foreign policy necisary to achieve such a goal???

Sounds like you need to get back on your medication.

Rather have a moron in office than someone who was completely braindead. Bush was clearly smart enough to win the election over kerry and whats below moron?? Braindead kerry i believe.

But anyone can you plz explain how a moron can set out to destroy the world and yet conduct the intricate foreign policy necisary to achieve such a goal???

Sounds like you need to get back on your medication.

Pffft. You mean Bush was smart enough to have lots of connections he made whilst screwing up an oil company :)

The Machiavellian genius!

Dude if your most important issue is not the war something is wrong here... our troops are overthere fighting... you support the presidents actions yet you dont support the president in Iraq???

Overall the concern here should be the war and if your for the war you support Bush. National security and the economy before social issues when it comes to supporting a polotician. To you its looking like you should be on the support side.

"He puts his religion ahead of what is right or what needs to be done." - If hes putting religion first then he is doing what he believes is right. LOL his morality comes from religin. (maybe what you mean to say is what i believe is right.)

Why exactly is something wrong if his main concern isn't the war? Sure it may be your main concern...but why exactly MUST it be his?

Also, if the dude supports the war but not Bush's other foreign or domestic plans, than it's safe to say that he can support the war and not Bush. Why you think you can tell him that he actually does support Bush and just doesn't know it is beyond me.

Once again, if you think National Security and the Economy (which is rather amusing...considering the economy is not entirely, but rather independent of the President) are better tools for judging "polotician" then it's your opinion. If he thinks social issues are more important, as you suggested, then it's his opinion. I'd like you to tell southern blacks in the 1960's that social issues are less important.

To each his or her own, ya know? Your way doesn't have to be right.

Pffft. You mean Bush was smart enough to have lots of connections he made whilst screwing up an oil company :)

The Machiavellian genius!

whats that suppost to mean :D

dont tell me you think Bush and Osoma have tea in the whitehouse rose garden on tuesdays???

The Machiavellian genius!

Woah...don't give Bush that much credit ;)

Why exactly is something wrong if his main concern isn't the war? Sure it may be your main concern...but why exactly MUST it be his?

Also, if the dude supports the war but not Bush's other foreign or domestic plans, than it's safe to say that he can support the war and not Bush. Why you think you can tell him that he actually does support Bush and just doesn't know it is beyond me.

Once again, if you think National Security and the Economy (which is rather amusing...considering the economy is not entirely, but rather independent of the President) are better tools for judging "polotician" then it's your opinion. If he thinks social issues are more important, as you suggested, then it's his opinion. I'd like you to tell southern blacks in the 1960's that social issues are less important.

To each his or her own, ya know? Your way doesn't have to be right.

If national security falls apart you will be dying my friend. THier is no social issues if then country is dying and under siege.

Why exactly is something wrong if his main concern isn't the war? Sure it may be your main concern...but why exactly MUST it be his?

Also, if the dude supports the war but not Bush's other foreign or domestic plans, than it's safe to say that he can support the war and not Bush. Why you think you can tell him that he actually does support Bush and just doesn't know it is beyond me.

Once again, if you think National Security and the Economy (which is rather amusing...considering the economy is not entirely, but rather independent of the President) are better tools for judging "polotician" then it's your opinion. If he thinks social issues are more important, as you suggested, then it's his opinion. I'd like you to tell southern blacks in the 1960's that social issues are less important.

To each his or her own, ya know? Your way doesn't have to be right.

If national security falls apart you will be dying my friend. THier is no social issues if then country is dying and under siege. thats why national security should always come first (economics also ties in to fund national security)

ANd I would tell 1960's blacks that national security come before social issues. Thier is no social issues or a chance for black equality if evearyone is dead or dying.

If national security falls apart you will be dying my friend. THier is no social issues if then country is dying and under siege. thats why national security should always come first (economics also ties in to fund national security)

ANd I would tell 1960's blacks that national security come before social issues. Thier is no social issues or a chance for black equality if evearyone is dead or dying.

I wasn't defending either the importance of national security or social issues. Using my example of 60's blacks, I was just merely pointing out that different people consider different things more important.

Trytonia, you are a perfect example of the paranoid sheep Skinny was talking about. Why does national security have to come before social issues? Why can't they work in tandem, with equal importance? Frankly, if civil rights in the U.S. were horrible, I wouldn't give two shits how safe the country was. I wouldn't want to live IN it.

I am an American, and I love America more than anyone I've ever met. That's why I hate Bush. No single person in recent times has done more to destroy my country than he. I don't know if we'll ever even recover. I live in fear of the direction this country is moving. Civil liberties are constantly crushed. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. The middle classes suffer at the face of astronomically high record-breaking oil profits. The sick can't afford treatment, and the public education system is so bad that, according to statistics, if I attempted to intillectually compete against someone from a school in Iran, I would lose. In the mean time, I have no choice but to stand and watch as "the land of the free" becomes less and less free every day. I love America, which is why I hate Bush.

I wasn't defending either the importance of national security or social issues. Using my example of 60's blacks, I was just merely pointing out that different people consider different things more important.


Im spacificly stating that national security should be your most important issue as well as suggesting it to that individual.

If national security falls apart you will be dying my friend. THier is no social issues if then country is dying and under siege. thats why national security should always come first (economics also ties in to fund national security)

ANd I would tell 1960's blacks that national security come before social issues. Thier is no social issues or a chance for black equality if evearyone is dead or dying.

Trytonia, Benjamin Franklin once said, "They who give up a little liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Why does national security have to come before social issues?
Because buying bullets is de rigeur when mister Bush and his handlers openly play to his political backers. Now is not the time to buy bread. Apparently.

No.

Your unbelievable bias shines through once again. You say that the finger pointing and innefective practices of the left are wrong. Fine, I agree, as does almost anyone.

Still, you don't even try to pick out something about conservatives or Republicans, you just say that the very concept of being "right winged" is wrong, or should I say, WRONG.

You're against partisan bullshit you say? You say that people who insist that "things" be one way or another are what's wrong with America? That's funny...because you seem pretty content with anything that isn't conservative.

Do you know how to read? Or are you just reading what you want to see?

This is what I said in my response to you, go back and read it again:
"Right Wing Conservatism is WRONG with America, as is the inane finger pointing and innefective practices of the liberals and Democrats."

LEARN TO READ IDIOT:upyours:

Both camps are to blame, both the GOP and the Dems have failed. We need a new alternative and drastic changes now. If my comments seem anit-conservative to you it is because so far, they are the ones who have inflicted the most damage. Pick up a newspaper and READ for a change, educate yourself and learn what is going on for yourself instead of taking every little snippet of crap that comes out of Washington as "gospel".:rolleyes:

Trytonia, Benjamin Franklin once said, "They who give up a little liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."


what does that have to do with what i was talking about with ranking the importants of issues... THe ensuring of liberty is part of national security. As long as it does not violate that... national security SHOuld be your most important issue.

Trytonia, what Benjamin Franklin menat by that was that when you attempt to secure things by say, allowing the government to listen to your phone calls, you are (obviously) giving up liberty for a little security. The problem is, responding to this threat, the enemy will then learn new ways to commit their crimes without phones (in this example). Then you've lost your liberty, and it won't make you any more secure. Next, you will have to give up another liberty to stop the same criminals, until, in turn, you have no liberty and are equally unsafe. It is, essentially, a race for arms. The British government realised this a long time ago, in not allowing the policemen to carry guns. As such, there was a sort of an unspoken rule that if the criminals start carrying guns, then so will the policemen. As such, for more than a hundred years, British criminals were safer in that they never carried guns. The minute you escalate it, by giving youself an advantage to make it harder for them, they will adapt, and the cycle will never reverse.

it seems that this debate has largely become a right versus left slugfest. I lean to the right on many issues and I hate Dubya. He is one of the main forces behind amnesty for illegals, and is conducting a "War on Terror", among other things. Terrorism is nothign more than politically motivated crime. What's he gonna do, make all military battle fatigues blue? The fellas in Iraq are being used as policemen, not soldiers. By 1950s standards he's a pinko.

As for what Dimwits just said, I'd rather be shot than stabbed, thank you very much. British cops wear chain mail because of the stabbing rates there. Don't believe me? Look it up.

The reverse is actually true; voter turnout increases with more education.
The Swiss must be profoundly uneducated then.

Trytonia, what Benjamin Franklin menat by that was that when you attempt to secure things by say, allowing the government to listen to your phone calls, you are (obviously) giving up liberty for a little security. The problem is, responding to this threat, the enemy will then learn new ways to commit their crimes without phones (in this example). Then you've lost your liberty, and it won't make you any more secure. Next, you will have to give up another liberty to stop the same criminals, until, in turn, you have no liberty and are equally unsafe. It is, essentially, a race for arms. The British government realised this a long time ago, in not allowing the policemen to carry guns. As such, there was a sort of an unspoken rule that if the criminals start carrying guns, then so will the policemen. As such, for more than a hundred years, British criminals were safer in that they never carried guns. The minute you escalate it, by giving youself an advantage to make it harder for them, they will adapt, and the cycle will never reverse.

Unless of course you put criminals away long enough for crime to decrease greaty and im not gunna get into the police issue.

THe fact is that the wire tapings would have never been found out about by the terrorist and phones stop being used until some traitor leaked the information to the press.
The way they tap phones is through computers recording all phone conversations and searching for key words. The CIA doesnt have time to eat your lunches.

I also contest that these terrorist we are fighting have no rights of liberty. Not a single abuse has occured of a citizens liberty in these wire tapings due to good congressional oversight.

No, they're not. Socialism requires government ownership of the means of production; the Scandinavian nations (and most of Europe for that matter) have high taxes and a lot of government services, but ultimately the factors of production and the greater economy belong to individuals and the markets are privately determined. They are considered social-democratic capitalist nations, not socialist...there's a huge difference.

well then by gollee we should all be more socially democratic and nordic in our countries. It wouldn't hurt one thing, maybe except for the ridiculously rich.

Good Gods. Just listen to yourselves.

My politics lecturer once described the American political system as having two political parties, right-wing Conservatives and Fascists. Neo-Cons take Fascism to a whole new level (except they are less interested in the state and more in themselves).

Bush has authorisied illegal wire-tapping activities in your country, yet that's okay apparently. ILLEGAL ACTS.
The 'Patriot Act'? Please. Have you actually read what they can do if the state decides it doesn't like you?
I guess this is all part of the whole 'National Security Comes First'. We are going down a similar line in Britain and we have started shooting innocent foreigners for no reason.
That would also explain the concentration camp at Guantanamo, Abu-Ghraib and the abilty to kidnap foreign nationals and export them to secret torture camps where they have no rights.
It isn't even as if you are just screwing yourselves over, you are actively pursuing the citizens of other nations because they may/may not "pose a threat".

Bearing in mind Timothy Mcvey (he did carry out a terrorist act right?) I find the reasons for invading Afghanistan laughable. It's not like you invaded Ohio. Since Operation Enduring Freedom deaths in Afghanistan have risen by over 1000%, the Warlords of the Northern Alliance run 40% of the country and Opium production has risen by 800% and Alliance soldiers are still being butchered.
Of course, in light of America's support for the IRA I find it all the more sickening.

Iraq was invaded because (as Bob Woodward points out) Bush wanted to invade all along. The 'facts' of the link to Al-Qaeda and WMDs were rubbish. Obviously rubbish. Why do you think the UN wasn't interested. Any educated person could see they were rubbish but, apparently, it was good enough for the US. 4% of the entire population of Britain traveled to the Capital to march in protest. What happened in the US? That's the equivalent of 12 million people marching through Washington.

Most of Iraq is still in a worth situation than the day before the invasion. Ask an average Iraqi whether they are happy about the invasion and they will say 'no'.

The war itself is costing more US military lives than Iraqi Military lives. There is a reason why the US 'Doesn't do Bodycounts'. That and the count of civilian dead as, time and again, American troops massacre Iraqi civillians. It doesn't help that in this day and age a lot of these massacres are filmed. But apparently that's alright. Afterall, exactly how many US soldiers have been prosecuted for War crimes? Despite the overwhelming evidence? Of course, as Commander in Chief, Bush is directly responsible for these actions (Captain of the ship or 'the buck stops here') but is he made to be responsible? Are they stopped? Is any effort made to stop them?

No country has invaded more countries in the last 51 years than the US. No country has killed more people in the last 51 years than the US.

Due to his own 'white whale' Bush was directly responsible (and bear in mind that he is the President so the buck stops with him) for the deaths of over 100,000 individuals and some might point the finger for the 7/7 bombings in the UK.

Economically, the dollar is struggling against the Euro and, should OPEC finally open a Euro-oil exchange the fact that Bush totally fails to balance the books will really come back to haunt the US as it plunges into another Great Depression. Basic rules like 'don't spend more than you have' do seem to be quite complicated for some of the people in charge of the US. But the voters seem happy with it.

Then there is the environment (it's all fun and games...unless you live in Holland where most of your nation will be underwater, or anywhere there is a big whole in the Ozone layer inflicting cancer on children, or the Nordic countries who get acid rain storms). Not that I am suggesting that America is the single largest contributor to a global catastrophe and the least willing to do anything about it. Oh course I'm not, scientist across the world are.

Does it not scare anyone that you guys can do nothing about this until the next election. I mean, seriously, if Bush went off the edge (some would say further off the edge) there is nothing you could do until the election rolls around. If he decided not to hold one, what would you do? With the Patriot Act in place, what would they let you do?
Don't kid yourself that you live in a Democracy. You guys (like us) are in a Dictatorship that lets you kid yourselves (for one day every 1,450) that its a democracy.

For God's sake people. Question things! Question yourselves, your education, your views, your way of life, your country, your politics.
Questioning is not disloyalty.
Maybe your views are all right. But you can't be sure until you question them. Check them yourselves, don't rely on the governments or news corporation to provide them for you.
Like all 1st World countries you will not suffer regime change from the outside, you have to get up and do it yourselves.
And if you don't see the need, then God help the rest of the world (and the US) because, inevitably, someone is going to start lobbing nukes around and no-one will win in that scenario.

Impressive strawman there. Where did I ever say that was okay? Answer: I never.

Strawman? Please explain how posting 30 years worth of terrorism against the US is a misrepresentation of your position. Your point was that Bush dragged the US into two wars. Which is clearly not the case: Afghanistan was going to happen NO MATTER WHO was in the White House, sooner or later.
The US had a role in making the mess by way of the proxy war against the Soviets in the 80s. As with Panama and Iraq, we're paying to clean up the bad foreign policy of dropping support in a region when it's no longer a vital US interest.

Of course it isn't allright, and of course the international community isn't perfect; it's a long way from being so.

Yep. Especially since the only time the "International Community" ever actually does something is when one member leads the rest to do something. In almost every instance, that's the US. It's a rarity for ANY other nation to go into anywhere to do anything, mostly because they aren't strong enough to do so. Even France has done little since the rise of the 5th Republic, aside from a few interventions in ex-colonies.

I won't even get into the human rights records of most states the disparage the US, or the sham that is the UN Human Rights Council.

But the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have done nothing but cost you lives and money, liberated a single country that seems to be bordering on civil war at times, and created a beacon for every anti-Western figure to send his followers to and show it as another sign of Western evil.

Untrue. The War if Afghanistan has vastly improved the lot of that country, and it is most assuredly liberated. However, Afghanistan is clearly nowhere near civil war, nor are the jihadists doing very much of anything there. The war there has destroyed the Taliban's main safehaven and eradicated the major training camps.
Proof? Easy. Once the Taliban came to power in Afghanistan, the jihadist's attacks got more sophisticated: the African Embassy bombings, the Cole, all the way up to 9/11. Since the liberation of Afghan? The attacks in London and Spain were soft targets and unsophisticated -- the UK took 4 guys and about $15,000.
Since then? Nothing outside of the Middle East.

As for Iraq, that is going to take much, much longer, if ever to materialize.
However, I am very, very pleased the anti-Western fighters are going there to die. It beats the hell out of them blowing me up when I go to work in the Chrysler Building every day.
Cynical? Perhaps. But then 9/11, while it seems an excuse for some or passe for others, affects New Yorkers in a different way.

As I said: I do not care much for Bush, but I think you might want to really reconsider Afghanistan and the state of the pre-9/11 world before condeming Bush for the subsequent war there.

I am not an American, but initially (I was only in my early tens and late single digits) I thought Bush would be a good president despite the fact I prefered Gore. Now I don't support him (when the saber-rattling preluding the Second Gulf War started and the WMD accusations were flying about) and wouldn't trust him and his crony capitalist consorts as far as I could throw them.

--The tax cuts: Great idea in principle if you want to cut spending as well. But let's see - they didn't helpt the economy, and spending went through the roof. Poor execution, if I ever saw it.


I agree with or can see your POV on the rest of your points, but this one vexes me: the tax cuts most certainly made a difference in the economy.

The first round of tax cuts took effect on 7 June 2001, which helped to turn around the recession that began in the (very) late Clinton administration and was solidified by the destruction of the WTC.

Now, some complain that the tax cuts only help the rich. Well, that's because it's the rich that pay taxes.

2001 changes:
A new 10% bracket was created for single filers with taxable income up to $6,000, joint filers up to $12,000, and heads of households up to $10,000.

the 15% bracket's lower threshold was indexed to the new 10% bracket
the 28% bracket would be lowered to 25% by 2006.
the 31% bracket would be lowered to 28% by 2006
the 36% bracket would be lowered to 33% by 2006
the 39.6% bracket would be lowered to 35% by 2006

The second on 28 May 2003. It extended the tax breaks in duration, and lowered the tax rate for the lower incomes.

Income level Tax rate
up to $7,150 10%
$7,151 - $29,050 15%
$29,051 - $70,350 25%
$70,351 - $146,750 28%
$146,751- $319,100 33%
over $319,100 35%

Did it increase the deficit? Absolutely.

Did it raise spending? No, not in and of itself -- that is thanks to Bush's spending habit of never finding anything he won't spend money on. :(

Did it help the economy? Heck, yes. The stock market is re-approaching it's high, the housing market is stable, & inflation is in check. Unemployment is down.

However, the energy crisis was not expected and may take a toll if prices go up much further. Plus the huge costs of Iraq, cleaning up the Gulf Coast from the 3 hurricanes (bad luck there...) and the US's stupid free trade policy.

Do you know how to read? Or are you just reading what you want to see?

This is what I said in my response to you, go back and read it again:
"Right Wing Conservatism is WRONG with America, as is the inane finger pointing and innefective practices of the liberals and Democrats."

LEARN TO READ IDIOT:upyours:

Both camps are to blame, both the GOP and the Dems have failed. We need a new alternative and drastic changes now. If my comments seem anit-conservative to you it is because so far, they are the ones who have inflicted the most damage. Pick up a newspaper and READ for a change, educate yourself and learn what is going on for yourself instead of taking every little snippet of crap that comes out of Washington as "gospel".:rolleyes:

...

Are you serious?

No...honestly...are you serious?

Do I know how to read?

Lets look again at that quote of your's that you keep quoting:

"Right Wing Conservatism is WRONG with America" ...that means that everyone who is right winged and everyone who is conservative is automatically destroying America...simply because they are right of center.

now onto the second part...

"...as is the inane finger pointing and innefective practices of the liberals and Democrats" ...not only is the nature of this quote dramatically different, it is on an entirely different level. You said that "Right Wing Conservatism," as a concept, and therefore anyone who is that, is wrong with America. However, you don't say the same for liberals. You only say that liberals who point fingers are wrong. So lets see...a select portion of a group vs. the entirety of the other group...

...or am I just "not reading" again? Perhaps you should learn to talk/write/type?

Both "camps" are to blame, but the Democrats and Republicans have far from failed? America isn't some torn wasteland that is remnants of its former glory. We're still at the front of the first-world politically, economically, and socially. Just by saying that conservatives have "inflicted more damage" shows your bias...yet again. If they really are both to blame, as you said, then why are you blaming one over the other.

Face it, you're a liberal who hates conservatives, and yet you feel like attacking the democrats makes you somehow "above" the system. I'll have you know that I do pick up a paper now and then, but just because the paper I pick up isn't the New York Times, and I don't get my political info from democracynow.com, doesn't mean I'm any less educated that you are. Actually, by the looks of it, you fall quite short in that catagory.

You call for for a new alternative? The "ultimate" third party, eh? What exactly would this party stand for that would inspire the masses of people who define themselves by their economic, social, and governmental standings that fit in with the two main parties to quit being either a Republican or a Democrat? Why would this third party be any different than the two we have now?

You say we need drastic changes? What do you want? A Spartan state? A facist dictatorship? A slow yet direct democracy? The American communist bloc? No...I don't think you truly have any idea of what would make America better. You're simply spouting off cliches thought of by far more educated people than yourself in an attempt to somehow make me "look stupid" to all the people here who are otherwise ignoring you.

Unfortunately, when you attack me personally by calling me an idiot and making stupid assumptions about my intelligence and character, I don't have the luxury of simply ignoring you. I fully expect you to snap back at me with inept replies and a fury of "badass" smilies like :upyours: but in the end, that just further proves my point.

Perhaps once you graduate junior high you'll understand...I can only hope for your sake...and for our country's. Too many people are all fired up today but have absolutely no clue what they're fired up about. They do it to be cool, hip, to be with the crowd, or to be against the crowd. It's rather sad.

Does it not scare anyone that you guys can do nothing about this until the next election. I mean, seriously, if Bush went off the edge (some would say further off the edge) there is nothing you could do until the election rolls around. If he decided not to hold one, what would you do? With the Patriot Act in place, what would they let you do?
Don't kid yourself that you live in a Democracy. You guys (like us) are in a Dictatorship that lets you kid yourselves (for one day every 1,450) that its a democracy.

For God's sake people. Question things! Question yourselves, your education, your views, your way of life, your country, your politics.
Questioning is not disloyalty.
Maybe your views are all right. But you can't be sure until you question them. Check them yourselves, don't rely on the governments or news corporation to provide them for you.
Like all 1st World countries you will not suffer regime change from the outside, you have to get up and do it yourselves.
And if you don't see the need, then God help the rest of the world (and the US) because, inevitably, someone is going to start lobbing nukes around and no-one will win in that scenario.

Perhaps I should give you some slack because you don't live here, and since I'm sure there are some small details that I would surely miss about the British (I'm assuming...or wherever you live) governmental system, I'll give you a little.

Does it scare us that we can do nothing about Bush until the next election? Frankly, if anyone in America is scared, they need to go back to government class. There are many things that can be done, if things even need to be done. Lately, Bush has fallen out of favor with many Republicans, let alone the Democrats and independants who already can't stand him. Without the Senate and the House, the President is power-less.

Now, we have elections in the latter-half of this year which will decide how the House and the Senate, as well as certain governorships, will fall. Bush has had enough trouble passing anything with a Republican majority. That brings me to my next point: with a Democrat-controlled House and Senate, there is always the possibility of impeachment. If Bush truly did break a law, they could oust him just as they tried when Clinton lied under oath and tried to get others to lie for him.

If Bush "went off the deep end" like you said, he could be thrown out of office. It's not simple, but it's definately an available option. Second, you ask what if Bush decided not to have an election. That's rather foolish. It's not his, not anyone's for that matter, decision to make. And what exactly would they do if with the Patriot Act in that occasion? Record my phone number to an FBI list if I decided to vote? Perhaps you should study America a little more.

It's true, we don't live in a democracy. We live in a republic, which is far from a dictatorship. You should be electing people who represent your views. If they don't then at least they represent the views of the majority of people who did vote.

As for the second paragraph I quoted, and your final one I believe, I agree on different levels. For one, it is more than important to question everything. The Media are more corrupt than the government is. You cannot take what they say to heart. From CNN to blogs...each has their own interests in mind first and foremost, and the truth a distant second.

It's true that any regime change will happen from the inside only, but Jez and Liz, here in America we have regime changes every 4 or 8 years, and to a lesser extent, every 2 years or 1. If you don't like it, move to America and vote. If you don't live here, become a citizen and vote.

In any government by the people, be it a democracy, a republic, or whatever, voting is the single most important thing you can do. It is the only real way to change anything.

Bush won't "take over America" because he can be voted out of office. People aren't going to take arms against the government because it is a simple vote that can dramatically change it every four years. The Patriot Act can be thrown out with a vote. So could any right you have, for that matter.

If you, or anyone else, do anything in life other than die and pay taxes, it should be to educate yourself and vote for how you feel. Not for how you're told. Not for how you think you should feel. There are so many people who don't vote, and then complain that the nation isn't how they want it to be. Voting is power...realize it...

well then by gollee we should all be more socially democratic and nordic in our countries. It wouldn't hurt one thing, maybe except for the ridiculously rich.

...and why exactly should they be punished for everyone else's shortcomings and jealousy through ridiculous taxes?

I'm an American, and a constitutional moderate Libertarian (this basically means that I beleive the Constitution says what it says, and that it is NOT a living-breating document). Do I support the president? As Bush is the president, yes, I support him. Does that mean i agree with him? Of course not, but he is our president, as voted for by the delegates in the electoral college, and as such, I won't bad mouth him for the sake of bad mouthing him. People speak about how stupid he is, but he graduated college with a higher GPA than Kerry did. Does that really mean anything either? Of course not. It just means that a C average is all politians really need.

As for the whole right-wing, left-wing, Republican, Democrat fighting, THAT is the problem. More people in the US have to realize that there are other parties out there, and that the only way to stop the bipartisian fighting is to NOT vote for them. If you want more political freedoms, vote Libertarian. If you want better enviromental restrictions, vote Green. George Washington actually warned Jefferson and Addams that by starting the two-party system, they were basically going to kill the Constitution.

I understand why most Americans don't see this. It's easier to vote for what's already powerful and familiar. But all that has done over the last 146 years (I got this number from when the Republicans gained the White House for the first time, causing the Democats problems for the first time) is to cause both parties to become so powerful that most people don't see the point in voting anymore. "Why waste a vote on a third party? A Republican or Democrat is just going to win." It's that kind of apathy that will be the destruction of our country's potential for the future.

The two main parties don't represent me at all. Socially, I beleive the government has no right to tell me what to do in my house as long as I'm only hurting myself. As far as federal power, they should print, money, run the post office, collect taxes, and declare war and protect our borders. THAT'S IT. Any social issues should be handled on the state and local level. If you read the Constitution, that's how it is supposed to work. So which party beleives that? Certainly not either of the main parties.

So in summary, apathy and unchecked super-parties are what is wrong with the United States.

I was never a Bush supporter. I knew he would be a disaster from the start.

Yes. I still support President Bush.
Baah.

~32% Of Americans Still Support Bush overall. Are you one of them?

You know, I was perusing these forums to find a thread I'd posted in earlier, about helping a chap out with his computer and I saw this one. I haven't read much of what's gone on before, but I'm disappointed. The way the title of this thread is worded, it's almost as if supporting Bush is a crime or something. Whatever happened to freedom of choice? Freedom of belief? Freedom of speech?

I'd hate to sound as if I'm "siding" with Republicans here (not because I'm a Democrat, but because I attempt to appear as objective as I can) but they're human beings like any of you. I don't think Bush is any president out of the ordinary, there are things I support him in and there are things I don't support him in. If 32% of Americans still support Bush, it's their right to. If 32% of Americans still support Bush, that doesn't make them ignorant, foolish, or wrong.

So I have to ask, why is this specific percentage group being called out? Why does it matter if I am or if I am not one of them?