NationStates Jolt Archive

I been wondering if anyone else who plays NS shares such a deep hatred to George W. Bush. Even in my school's school news paper I make fun of him. I got into such a rant about him in one article that after it was published I was called into the principals office. so just vote and voice your oppinion.

One of the worst Presidents ever.

fuck bush. in the arse. with a wooden spoon.

I'm not into that kinda thing, sorry.

serated metal spoon?

No with a rusty mixer

i heard that bush recently reached 50% strong disapproval

have i ever mentioned that the dems collaborationist and capitulationist strategy is like totally awesome and certainly going to make them win forever? smart collaborationists at least have the good sense to try to cover up their collaboration once the other side is on the retreat. not these geniuses though.

fuck bush. in the arse. with a wooden spoon.

I'm not into that kinda thing, sorry.

Your poll sucks. It should be
George Bush:
Great President or Greatest President?

Incidentally, I Am America (And So Can You!) kicks ass.

He's a lame duck, simple as that...he has no credibility left, therefore no influence to do anything significant ever again. Well I suppose he could still veto bills, but that's about all he can do now.

I can't stand him. Not socially, not in foreign policy, not economically. He's only in power because some wealthy white men in suits thought he'd make the most profit for them!

I'd say I can't wait 'till 2008, but to be honest it'll be the same guy with a different face. Not in a Mission Impossible way, but you get my drift.

I can't stand him. Not socially, not in foreign policy, not economically. He's only in power because some wealthy white men in suits thought he'd make the most profit for them!

I'd say I can't wait 'till 2008, but to be honest it'll be the same guy with a different face. Not in a Mission Impossible way, but you get my drift.

I agree!

Nobody is worse than William Jefferson Clinton. But Georgey-porgey does come close second.

Get rid of the bush. It makes people happier.

Well my opinion of him is sort of unique.

As a president/politician I greatly dislike him and consider him one of the worst, if not the worst President in the History of the United States.

However as a person, I'm more neutral, I obviously don't agree with him on the majority of things, but he's done what he thinks is right and the best for the country, now that's not to say it is, but anyways, yeah.

I can't stand him. Not socially, not in foreign policy, not economically. He's only in power because some wealthy white men in suits thought he'd make the most profit for them!

I'd say I can't wait 'till 2008, but to be honest it'll be the same guy with a different face. Not in a Mission Impossible way, but you get my drift.

I agree!

EDIT: as well

Coulda been worse though. It could have been John Kerry or Al Gore in the White House. We'd still be in a depression because they couldn't have brought themselves to cut taxes. We'd be handing out arrest warrants to terrorists instead of killing them. And we'd probably be bending over backwards to make sure we ruined our manufacturing base, in accordance with the Kyoto Treaty.

Even me 90-year-old dear old granny has a large resentment for him. She said if she could properly move and actually travel over to DC she would do the country a favor and kill him. She also said when the Iranian President came to New York that she hopes some gangster goes and kills that s.o.b.

However as a person, I'm more neutral, I obviously don't agree with him on the majority of things, but he's done what he thinks is right and the best for the country

why should that matter in your evaluation of him as a person? doesn't the fact that he is effectively never right in these judgments (or most others, for that matter) imply some pretty awful shit about him as a person?

Coulda been worse though. It could have been John Kerry or Al Gore in the White House. We'd still be in a depression because they couldn't have brought themselves to cut taxes. We'd be handing out arrest warrants to terrorists instead of killing them. And we'd probably be bending over backwards to make sure we ruined our manufacturing base, in accordance with the Kyoto Treaty.

I'd rather have all of that then be in a quagmire in a foreign country. Plus killing terrorists instead of arresting them=bad.

Well my opinion of him is sort of unique.

As a president/politician I greatly dislike him and consider him one of the worst, if not the worst President in the History of the United States.

However as a person, I'm more neutral, I obviously don't agree with him on the majority of things, but he's done what he thinks is right and the best for the country, now that's not to say it is, but anyways, yeah.

All the shit and bad choices he's made implies how he is as a person. And also how the hell do you know about him as a person. We can only effectively judge him as our president and representitive. So still my position remains. FUCK BUSH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm generally not a fan of Bush. He spends government money like a Democrat and if he had handled the Iraq War right, it probably could've been over by now.

However, he's NOT the worst president we've ever had. As Myrmidonisia said, he's better than John Kerry or Al Gore would have been. And I'd definitely prefer him over another Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton. It's a little too extreme to call him the WORST.

Stop hating your own president. All you Americans and your 'hatred' towards YOUR own president. The president is the representative of the people - YOU elected him. If you want to hate someone, it's yourselves that you must hate, or at least the majority of you who voted for him. Stop attacking him. I disagree with him on almost all the issues, but yet he's just a human, like everyone, trying his best. It is VERY hard to be the president of a country, and especially the US. In any case, most of his actions are through advisors that are behind the scenes, so stop being a bunch of crybaby haters. You just need someone to take your anger out on. Well, your president is not the way to go. Criticism is more than acceptable and even desireable, but HATE?

Bush is a puppet.

If you don't like him you're a crackhead. But then again I'm a neocon. We aren't fighting over here so we're doing something right. Oh and if Hillary gets elected:
:sniper:
I hope Colbert gets elected.

Stop hating your own president. All you Americans and your 'hatred' towards YOUR own president. The president is the representative of the people - YOU elected him. If you want to hate someone, it's yourselves that you must hate, or at least the majority of you who voted for him. Stop attacking him. I disagree with him on almost all the issues, but yet he's just a human, like everyone, trying his best. It is VERY hard to be the president of a country, and especially the US. In any case, most of his actions are through advisors that are behind the scenes, so stop being a bunch of crybaby haters. You just need someone to take your anger out on. Well, your president is not the way to go. Criticism is more than acceptable and even desireable, but HATE?

I can't friggen vote you moron in two years I can, but I can't now so it's not my fault this jackass is in office!

If you don't like him you're a crackhead. But then again I'm a neocon. We aren't fighting over here so we're doing something right. Oh and if Hillary gets elected:
:sniper:
I hope Colbert gets elected.

If someone with a position like you I will be the doing the :sniper:

Well my opinion of him is sort of unique.

As a president/politician I greatly dislike him and consider him one of the worst, if not the worst President in the History of the United States.

However as a person, I'm more neutral, I obviously don't agree with him on the majority of things, but he's done what he thinks is right and the best for the country, now that's not to say it is, but anyways, yeah.

I agree. He doesn't really seem to know what's going on. I don't mean he's stupid (probably smarter than he lets on, actually), but he's in denial to the point where the real world is irrelevant to his decisions. But if he were my neighbor? I don't know how I would feel. Probably like this guy (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/42590).

Poll sucks.

Wheres the Not Best but far from worst choice?

why should that matter in your evaluation of him as a person? doesn't the fact that he is effectively never right in these judgments (or most others, for that matter) imply some pretty awful shit about him as a person?

Ah, but Bush doesn't make judgments. Cheney and Rove do that for him. :)

I been wondering if anyone else who plays NS shares such a deep hatred to George W. Bush. Even in my school's school news paper I make fun of him. I got into such a rant about him in one article that after it was published I was called into the principals office. so just vote and voice your oppinion.
Would you mind sharing this rant (article?) of your's with us? If it was published in a school paper already, I'm sure you wouldn't mind.

Thank you in advance.

Several punchy, short opinions:

-unrealistic
-failure
-suckitude
-out of touch
-should drink more
-unskilled
-poor judge of character
-poor judge of ideas

Originally posted by Intelligenstan
Stop hating your own president. All you Americans and your 'hatred' towards YOUR own president. The president is the representative of the people - YOU elected him. If you want to hate someone, it's yourselves that you must hate, or at least the majority of you who voted for him. Stop attacking him. I disagree with him on almost all the issues, but yet he's just a human, like everyone, trying his best. It is VERY hard to be the president of a country, and especially the US. In any case, most of his actions are through advisors that are behind the scenes, so stop being a bunch of crybaby haters. You just need someone to take your anger out on. Well, your president is not the way to go. Criticism is more than acceptable and even desireable, but HATE?
Hmm... what a remarkably biased and stereotypical view of America.

I hope you realize something here about the basic demographics here, regarding Americans. 7 years ago, I was not old enough to vote. Just missed it. 3 years ago, I voted for John Kerry (of all people! I know!). Those of us who could vote probably didn't vote for Bush. Those of us who couldn't vote, couldn't vote. So why do you assume that 'WE' as a whole, the entire American demographic of NSG, wanted him to be elected? Just politically NSG is a very liberally leaned forum; anyone who has remotely liberal views would not vote for bush. the majority of right-wingers on this forum are libertarian right. OUR president; yes in fact, but not by our choice; that was made by the majority of America (even though Mr. Al Gore won the popular vote...), who, as you probably know, do not post on NSG. We actually have a reason, man, to dislike our president; while you may disagree, we actually have to live with his decisions, decisions I know he didn't make with my consent or support. Hate, of course, is too strong for any politician; I do in general greatly dislike both him, his policies, and his decisions, but I would hate him only if he wronged me in some way.
And as a human, and the job being hard, if he could not handle the job, then he has no excuse to run. It costs a great deal of money to run, and someone willing to put forth that much effort should be expected to function properly. If you don't, then you don't have an excuse to complain about both criticism and dislike; your political views are, unless I am gravely mistaken, your own fault. I don't know why others voted/didn't vote for him, but I know my reasons.
IF your assumption that Americans are all 'crybaby haters' and need someone to be angry at, which is already false by definition, then why would you complain that we are angry at the administration that is causing harm, that you say you disagree with? Of course many Americans are angry. Are you saying they should not be?

Definitely one of the worst, and certainly the stupidest.

George W. Bush is a caretaker president-he'll be forgotten once out of office, much like his father. I don't get the extremism, myself

Stop hating your own president. All you Americans and your 'hatred' towards YOUR own president. The president is the representative of the people - YOU elected him. If you want to hate someone, it's yourselves that you must hate, or at least the majority of you who voted for him. Stop attacking him. I disagree with him on almost all the issues, but yet he's just a human, like everyone, trying his best. It is VERY hard to be the president of a country, and especially the US. In any case, most of his actions are through advisors that are behind the scenes, so stop being a bunch of crybaby haters. You just need someone to take your anger out on. Well, your president is not the way to go. Criticism is more than acceptable and even desireable, but HATE?

Just in case you have signatures disabled.....

It is not necessary to hate George W. Bush to think he's a bad president. Grown-ups can do that, you know -- decide someone's policies are a miserable failure without lying awake at night consumed with hatred. Poor Bush is in way over his head, and the country is in bad shape because of his stupid economic policies. If that make me a Bush-hater, then sign me up.

-- Molly Ivins

I would rather have him then a democrat in the white house

(shuddering about thinking of Hilary Clinton sitting in the oval office)

Definitely one of the worst, and certainly the stupidest.

See: Warren Harding for the stupidest president.

I am not, in any way, positioned on him.

If you don't like him you're a crackhead. But then again I'm a neocon. We aren't fighting over here so we're doing something right. Oh and if Hillary gets elected:
:sniper:
I hope Colbert gets elected.

You do know that colbert is a satirist, yes? As in, he doesn't actually believe anything he says, he says it to make fun of people like you.

I personally don't care that much, he's not the worst guy to be in office (but since people have short memories it may seem like it), but he's far from the best (although I would place him in the bottom half).

What I do find funny though is how people are saying it would have been worse with the Democrats in charge. All I can say is, if the Democrats had been in charge then the biggest fuck up of the presidency, the Iraq War, would probably not have happened. In fact, if it was even some other Republican that got elected, it may not have happened (or it may have happened, and been followed up with Iran). Although I have to say, how did Gore and Kerry win the primaries? There were definitely better candidates on the field.

I like the man, he is Texan like me, and thats all it takes.

Those of you who say that Bush is the worst President in history need to do a little research. I don't think Bush ever paid off pirates to gain access to trade routes in the Mediterranean Sea. Maybe he hasn't been the best ever, but he has stuck by his word, regardless of how bad the personal attacks became. It's kind of gotten to be a fad, a pop-culture benchmark, to slander his name. Everyone wants to take a ride on the Democratic power wagon, but turns a blind eye to the good things he has done. It never fails, people will pick apart your weaknesses without ever acknowledging your strengths.

Worst? No.

Completely incompetent administration? Yes.

Those of you who say that Bush is the worst President in history need to do a little research. I don't think Bush ever paid off pirates to gain access to trade routes in the Mediterranean Sea. Maybe he hasn't been the best ever, but he has stuck by his word, regardless of how bad the personal attacks became. It's kind of gotten to be a fad, a pop-culture benchmark, to slander his name. Everyone wants to take a ride on the Democratic power wagon, but turns a blind eye to the good things he has done. It never fails, people will pick apart your weaknesses without ever acknowledging your strengths.

Well, don't overflatter either. Anything he's done that's good (besides being debate-able) could have been done by just about any presidential candidate.

One question: Those of you who say things like "The Iraq War F*ck Up" have never been to Iraq have you? You just assume, based mostly off of media coverage, that there was no real reason to be here. Just because CNN or Fox news tells you there was no Saddam Hussein to Al Qaeda link to be found, doesnt make it true. Take into consideration, the fact that the government and the military might not always make all of their knowledge public in order to ensure success in their operations. If you could speak from honest experience, that would be one thing. Because Ill tell you, a deployment to Iraq sucks, but I'll also tell you that there is a need for change and for us to be over there. You are all welcome to have whatever opinion it is that you have and to share with everyone you like, but you should consider your sources.

doggy style

One question: Those of you who say things like "The Iraq War F*ck Up" have never been to Iraq have you? You just assume, based mostly off of media coverage, that there was no real reason to be here. Just because CNN or Fox news tells you there was no Saddam Hussein to Al Qaeda link to be found, doesnt make it true. Take into consideration, the fact that the government and the military might not always make all of their knowledge public in order to ensure success in their operations. If you could speak from honest experience, that would be one thing. Because Ill tell you, a deployment to Iraq sucks, but I'll also tell you that there is a need for change and for us to be over there. You are all welcome to have whatever opinion it is that you have and to share with everyone you like, but you should consider your sources.
Are you honestly claiming to be a more reliable source than every professional journalist in America?

One question: Those of you who say things like "The Iraq War F*ck Up" have never been to Iraq have you? You just assume, based mostly off of media coverage, that there was no real reason to be here. Just because CNN or Fox news tells you there was no Saddam Hussein to Al Qaeda link to be found, doesnt make it true. Take into consideration, the fact that the government and the military might not always make all of their knowledge public in order to ensure success in their operations. If you could speak from honest experience, that would be one thing. Because Ill tell you, a deployment to Iraq sucks, but I'll also tell you that there is a need for change and for us to be over there. You are all welcome to have whatever opinion it is that you have and to share with everyone you like, but you should consider your sources.

Why would Fox news tell you that there was no link. I could imagine other biased sources but FOX NEWS?

Also, we can only judge the war based on the information given to us. If the government feels that it shouldn't tell us everything they should accept that people will use what they know. I don't need to have been to a war zone to know that it is unnecessary.

One question: Those of you who say things like "The Iraq War F*ck Up" have never been to Iraq have you? You just assume, based mostly off of media coverage, that there was no real reason to be here. Just because CNN or Fox news tells you there was no Saddam Hussein to Al Qaeda link to be found, doesnt make it true. Take into consideration, the fact that the government and the military might not always make all of their knowledge public in order to ensure success in their operations. If you could speak from honest experience, that would be one thing. Because Ill tell you, a deployment to Iraq sucks, but I'll also tell you that there is a need for change and for us to be over there. You are all welcome to have whatever opinion it is that you have and to share with everyone you like, but you should consider your sources.

Total bull shit. It is a fuck up, there's no fucking reason to be there. The condition on the ground, even if it is good doesn't make it a good war.

There was no link to Al Qaeda, and there never could have been. Saddam was an enemy of Al Qaeda, so how the fuck did people fall for that?

There were no weapons of mass destruction, and everyone seems to forget that we told Saddam to disarm. We said for months to do it, and maybe he did and we invaded him anyways(for those that say the weapons magically were whisked away to Syria).

Second, you attack me because I haven't been there, you say things might not be as bad as the media says. Guess what, it's a fucking war! And you know what happens in wars? Shit! Shit happens in fucking wars! If you don't know that, I suggest you go back to elementary school. So the best thing to do is to the end the war, that's the only way to make things better. And if we stay there, there will still be war, there will still be resistance. The longer we stay, the more polarized and more fucked up Iraq will be. And if we leave, we have Iran and Saudi Arabia on opposite sides waiting to pounce. Whether we stay or leave, we're fucked.

So basically, it was a big fuck up, and it was George Bush's big fuck up.

Are you honestly claiming to be a more reliable source than every professional journalist in America?

With regards to Iraq, definitely. I speak from experience. Do you speak Arabic? Have you ever been anywhere in the Middle East?

I never even claimed to be a journalist. I speak from experience. Do you speak Arabic? Have you ever been anywhere in the Middle East?

How well do you speak Arabic? What countries have you been to?

doggy style

See, this right here - this is why I was hesitating about joining this thread, because the thread title just put icky icky icky icky thoughts in my head, and my skin wouldn't stop crawling. But it's like porn -- curiosity wins out eventually, and it turns out, one was right to be afraid.

Anyhoo.... Worst President EVER!!!!! *waves wire hanger*

Yes, I know there have been other shitheads-in-chief, and many of them have been doozies. I'm not saying it's not a close race. But I do believe that the effects of what Bush has done -- both the domestic and foreign policy damage to the country -- has so much potential to keep screwing us over long after he is dead and buried (*prays*), that I feel confident in saying no president has hurt the US as much as George W. Bush, and his puppetmasters.

I have a degree in Arabic, and I've traveled to Egypt, Lebanon, Iraq, and Kuwait.

I have a degree in Arabic, and I've traveled to Egypt, Lebanon, Iraq, and Kuwait.

Prove It, I say, Prove It!

I have a degree in Arabic, and I've traveled to Egypt, Lebanon, Iraq, and Kuwait.

And should I take your for your word, as you say I should not do with the media?

Your poll sucks. It should be
George Bush:
Great President or Greatest President?

Incidentally, I Am America (And So Can You!) kicks ass.

COLBERT is that you?

Definitely a president who knows how to make enemies without actually trying.

I have a degree in Arabic, and I've traveled to Egypt, Lebanon, Iraq, and Kuwait.

So you speak the language and have been there...so we should trust you over multiple experts who have also been there. The difference between you and them is their job is to understand what's going on while your job is, well I assume a soldier but i don't know.

You don't have to believe me, thats not what I'm saying. And my job is to understand what's going on

And my job is to understand what's going on

And what job would that be?

Click Stand;13197735']And what job would that be?

Iraqi Information Minister, maybe?

More of an advisory position.

One question: Those of you who say things like "The Iraq War F*ck Up" have never been to Iraq have you? You just assume, based mostly off of media coverage, that there was no real reason to be here. Just because CNN or Fox news tells you there was no Saddam Hussein to Al Qaeda link to be found, doesnt make it true. Take into consideration, the fact that the government and the military might not always make all of their knowledge public in order to ensure success in their operations. If you could speak from honest experience, that would be one thing. Because Ill tell you, a deployment to Iraq sucks, but I'll also tell you that there is a need for change and for us to be over there.

A need for what precisely? And how is that need SO substantially greater than in so many other nations: Zimbabwe, Ethiopia, Sudan, Burma, Congo, Uganda, Chechnya, Pakistan, Somalia ... why not topple the terrible regimes here? why not halt the wars and human rights abuses ALREADY going on? Why wasn't that the original justification if there was "such a need" to be there? I don't deny that there have been similar problems in Iraq, but what was so SPECIAL about Iraq and at THIS point in time? It has been established that Bush & co were fully aware that there were no WMD units or capability there, at least none of consequence to America. The whole tragedy is nothing more than geo-political SELF-SERVICE, of which our neocon friend here will be aware.

You are all welcome to have whatever opinion it is that you have and to share with everyone you like, but you should consider your sources.
I would hardly consider FOX news to be an authoritative or reliable source. But don't take our word for the lack of an Al-Qaeda/Hussain link, read what the pentagon (http://www.npr.org/documents/2007/feb/dod_iog_iraq_summary.pdf) has to say about it...

You don't have to believe me, thats not what I'm saying. And my job is to understand what's going on

Exactly, so that means that the media can be trusted just as much as you, which doesn't help your argument much.

In any case, you haven't even touched post #49.

We aren't going to be arguing pointless technicalities are we?

I have a degree in Arabic, and I've traveled to Egypt, Lebanon, Iraq, and Kuwait.
I'm fluent in English and live in Australia, it doesn't make me an expert on everything Australian, particularly with respect to the military. Nor does your claim to authority about the war make it any more just.

Nobody is worse than William Jefferson Clinton. But Georgey-porgey does come close second.

Yes, according to Rush Limbaugh, Clinton invented the blowjob, smuggled all the cocaine that Dubya smoked, and was married to a woman who lost money on some real estate.

Killing hundreds of thousands of people, declaring institutionalized torture legal, and declaring the executive branch to be a government in itself doesn't even come close to the evil of fictional Clinton.

I chose 'eh' because that's the best answer I could give, I suppose. I think he's a good president. Not the best, but good. I don't think he's bad. Not the best, but good. I support the War on Terror and George Bush's foreign policy, I support his views on the economy and tax cuts, and I back him when it comes to his unrelenting stand against the socialists in Congress trying to screw America. He's not perfect though. I do have my disagreements. I hate his border policy and immigration beliefs, I hate his administration's spending, and I wish he was tougher on some of our Middle Eastern allies to both pursue liberalization and get more active in the fight against the Islamists. I also think he agrees to some really stupid things like LOST. Still, I think he's a good person at heart that just wants to help his fellow man and that overall he's a good president that, assuming things like Iraq go right, will be seen in years to come as a great president that freed millions of people and brought democracy to two (maybe three soon) former dictatorships and laid the groundwork for the liberalization of the entire Middle Eastern region. I don't think Bush is stupid. I think he's a smart man actually. I think he's a good man. I think he's a man of God. I think he's a man that values human life. I think that he, regardless of opinion polls and our disagreements with him, represents the people of America fairly well. I think that he will be treated kindly by our history books.

Coulda been worse though. It could have been John Kerry or Al Gore in the White House. We'd still be in a depression because they couldn't have brought themselves to cut taxes. We'd be handing out arrest warrants to terrorists instead of killing them. And we'd probably be bending over backwards to make sure we ruined our manufacturing base, in accordance with the Kyoto Treaty.

Wow, it's terribly difficult to figure out where to begin on this one as you've set up more straw than a crow could be scared of. Remind me when the last depression was? Even the recession at the end of Clinton's last term (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4264572/) was one of the shallowest and shortest recessions in American history. A recession, three straight quarters of negative growth. The last quarter was a mere .6% (http://www.incontext.indiana.edu/2002/nov-dec02/spotlight.html) As for my bold and underlined can you say conjecture much?

You see the funny thing is that people generally call Democrats "tax and spend" which is true. But under Bush Republicans have been "borrow and spend." He funds wars, education policy, etc. on borrowed money. It works in the short term but it royally F's us long term. He allows Americans to pretend that we can wage war on multiple fronts and still have nothing to give up at home. The last comment you made is pure straw and not even worth refuting due to its lack of....well anything. If you could support anything you said then maybe there could be a discussion here. However your comment are pure ideological zealotry and utter nonsense.

George W. Bush is a caretaker president-he'll be forgotten once out of office, much like his father. I don't get the extremism, myself

Um, to be a caretaker president mustn't one... you know... take care? Even possibly take care of.

George Bush has shown all the reckless abandon of the alcoholic drug addict he still is and the drunken drug user the world would be better of if he still was.

Post #49 is babble. You don't know that there isn't a link between the two. I'm not claiming to be the foremost authority, for the third time, I'm just trying to challenge you to consider your sources and pay a little more attention before coming to such a concrete conclusion. Oh, the weapons of mass destruction thing? The whisk away to Syria comment? There was a nuclear facility just across the Iraqi/Syrian border that got taken out by Israeli jets in the very recent past. Did you miss that? That just so happens to be the most public incident. You can get angry and as worked up as you want to. What happens in war isn't just shit. You don't approve? That's fine, you don't have to.

What do multiple posters with less than 10 posts tell you in a thread?

"LOOK AT ME, I'M A LITTLE PUPPET" (echo echo)

Wow, it's terribly difficult to figure out where to begin on this one as you've set up more straw than a crow could be scared of. Remind me when the last depression was? Even the recession at the end of Clinton's last term (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4264572/) was one of the shallowest and shortest recessions in American history. A recession, three straight quarters of negative growth. The last quarter was a mere .6% (http://www.incontext.indiana.edu/2002/nov-dec02/spotlight.html) As for my bold and underlined can you say conjecture much?

You see the funny thing is that people generally call Democrats "tax and spend" which is true. But under Bush Republicans have been "borrow and spend." He funds wars, education policy, etc. on borrowed money. It works in the short term but it royally F's us long term. He allows Americans to pretend that we can wage war on multiple fronts and still have nothing to give up at home. The last comment you made is pure straw and not even worth refuting due to its lack of....well anything. If you could support anything you said then maybe there could be a discussion here. However your comment are pure ideological zealotry and utter nonsense.

Well-argued! here here

What do multiple posters with less than 10 posts tell you in a thread?

"LOOK AT ME, I'M A LITTLE PUPPET" (echo echo)

silly mad person.

The Republican party was created by man (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eomGQ0zqx1o) :p

Well my opinion of him is sort of unique.

As a president/politician I greatly dislike him and consider him one of the worst, if not the worst President in the History of the United States.

However as a person, I'm more neutral, I obviously don't agree with him on the majority of things, but he's done what he thinks is right and the best for the country, now that's not to say it is, but anyways, yeah.

Doing what you think is right is not a good thing when you don't know anything and can't be bothered to learn. Whenever any knowledge is required to make a sound decision he pulls one out of his ass and attributes it to "instinct" or "divine guidance."

He may do what is, in his opinion, right, but he's passively despicable evil creature for not bothering to base that opinion on anything remotely resembling reality. All the monsters of history have done what they believed was right. No politician in all of human history has ever publicly proclaimed, "I fucked up good and proper, just like I planned." With the possible exception of the Marquis deSade. But if he ever said it it was over his shoulder while receding into the distance.

Just in case you have signatures disabled.....

It is not necessary to hate George W. Bush to think he's a bad president. Grown-ups can do that, you know -- decide someone's policies are a miserable failure without lying awake at night consumed with hatred. Poor Bush is in way over his head, and the country is in bad shape because of his stupid economic policies. If that make me a Bush-hater, then sign me up.

-- Molly Ivins

Molly Ivins FTW. May she rest in peace.

Coulda been worse though. It could have been John Kerry or Al Gore in the White House. We'd still be in a depression because they couldn't have brought themselves to cut taxes. We'd be handing out arrest warrants to terrorists instead of killing them. And we'd probably be bending over backwards to make sure we ruined our manufacturing base, in accordance with the Kyoto Treaty.

Yeah? Well, if another republican gets into office we'll all turn into closet gays looking for anonymous sex in bathrooms while running at foreigners with guns and oil in our underwear singing Toby Kieth songs while smoking crystal meth and chuckling like comicbook supervillains during the prologue.

Hah! Top that.

More of an advisory position.

Well, we've seen what a wealth of advisers has done for the Bush administration thus far.

Post #49 is babble. You don't know that there isn't a link between the two. I'm not claiming to be the foremost authority, for the third time, I'm just trying to challenge you to consider your sources and pay a little more attention before coming to such a concrete conclusion. Oh, the weapons of mass destruction thing? The whisk away to Syria comment? There was a nuclear facility just across the Iraqi/Syrian border that got taken out by Israeli jets in the very recent past. Did you miss that? That just so happens to be the most public incident. You can get angry and as worked up as you want to. What happens in war isn't just shit. You don't approve? That's fine, you don't have to.

Sir,
If you have any proof of the claims you make then assert them here. Otherwise your conjecture is no better than anyone else's. The overwhelming majority of media sources does not support your hypothesis. There was no link between Saddam and Al Quaeda, the 9/11 commission report told me that. Along with that I cite the comments of the CinC himself saying there were no links and "we never asserted there were." Now the quote is total bullshit, but I digress. I take the time to read over 30 different papers each day from multiple parts of the world. My MOS is intelligence and I'm no rookie. I could cite specific MOS codes but why waste time. Debate is only substantiated by evidence, not "what ifs?"

Yes, according to Rush Limbaugh, Clinton invented the blowjob, smuggled all the cocaine that Dubya smoked, and was married to a woman who lost money on some real estate.

Killing hundreds of thousands of people, declaring institutionalized torture legal, and declaring the executive branch to be a government in itself doesn't even come close to the evil of fictional Clinton.

While Clinton was far better than Bush is, he was also a mass murderer. His misadventures in southeastern Europe come to mind.

silly mad person.

I'm not mad, I'm actually rather calm ;)

The sun rises mighty early and I always beat it. God Bless and good night

As to people who say we elected him, we didn't. his opponent surrendered, if you'll recall. To anyone who says we aren't being patriotic I say this- "being patriotic is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it." To anyone who believes others would have hurt the economy even more, look at the national debt figures. That basically squashes most of the arguements for him. anything against him? I'm with you.

Sir,
If you have any proof of the claims you make then assert them here. Otherwise your conjecture is no better than anyone else's. The overwhelming majority of media sources does not support your hypothesis. There was no link between Saddam and Al Quaeda, the 9/11 commission report told me that. Along with that I cite the comments of the CinC himself saying there were no links and "we never asserted there were." Now the quote is total bullshit, but I digress. I take the time to read over 30 different papers each day from multiple parts of the world. My MOS is intelligence and I'm no rookie. I could cite specific MOS codes but why waste time. Debate is only substantiated by evidence, not "what ifs?"

Mr. 02,

Must be a Marine, with the term MOS and all. There are certain boundaries and stipulations, and of all people, being in an intelligence field and all (not unlike myself) you should know that. You yourself should be more in the know than you seem to be.

Clinton invented the blowjob

that almost makes up for it

Post #49 is babble. You don't know that there isn't a link between the two. I'm not claiming to be the foremost authority, for the third time, I'm just trying to challenge you to consider your sources and pay a little more attention before coming to such a concrete conclusion. Oh, the weapons of mass destruction thing? The whisk away to Syria comment? There was a nuclear facility just across the Iraqi/Syrian border that got taken out by Israeli jets in the very recent past. Did you miss that? That just so happens to be the most public incident. You can get angry and as worked up as you want to. What happens in war isn't just shit. You don't approve? That's fine, you don't have to.

Let's see.

I can believe the 9/11 Commission, multiple CIA reports, George Tenet, multiple Senate investigations, etc., etc, etc.

Or I can believe some anonymous person on the internet that claims to have special and secret knowledge.

Boy, that's a toughie. :confused:;)

Mr. 02,

Must be a Marine, with the term MOS and all. There are certain boundaries and stipulations, and of all people, being in an intelligence field and all (not unlike myself) you should know that. You yourself should be more in the know than you seem to be.

Yes Sir, a Marine it is. I know plenty of what I am speaking about so your attempt to bait is denied. Mr. O2 (me) is not on the E pay scale just for general knowledge. I've been a few places myself and I know enough to state that things aren't always black and white. The propaganda is deep in the US, just as it is in middle eastern nations. Surely there must be some information you have that's not classified you can share with the general public.

I'm pretty sure I have clearance at least equal to yours, if not more. I understand the need to be discrete, which is why I've tried my best to remain anonymous on NSG. There's plenty of imagery over this region and no clear indication that WMD were in place or grew legs. You and I can come to terms on that can we not? Saddam Hussein was an SOB, but our SOB for a long while. Sometimes in intelligence you have to read between the lines. Near everyone in intelligence believed Saddam possessed WMD, but it seems we were wrong. So let's focus on thing we can say definitively. I'm willing to admit that I was taken with the evidence at first and I was wrong. I've been able to swallow my pride and accept that things might not have been as they seemed.

Like I said, I need to hit the rack. I'm staring down about 7 hours of sleep right now and I'm a real crank when I don't get it. Good night and good luck Sir.

Post #49 is babble. You don't know that there isn't a link between the two. I'm not claiming to be the foremost authority, for the third time, I'm just trying to challenge you to consider your sources and pay a little more attention before coming to such a concrete conclusion. Oh, the weapons of mass destruction thing? The whisk away to Syria comment? There was a nuclear facility just across the Iraqi/Syrian border that got taken out by Israeli jets in the very recent past. Did you miss that? That just so happens to be the most public incident. You can get angry and as worked up as you want to. What happens in war isn't just shit. You don't approve? That's fine, you don't have to.

Sir,
If you have any proof of the claims you make then assert them here. Otherwise your conjecture is no better than anyone else's. The overwhelming majority of media sources does not support your hypothesis. There was no link between Saddam and Al Quaeda, the 9/11 commission report told me that. Along with that I cite the comments of the CinC himself saying there were no links and "we never asserted there were." Now the quote is total bullshit, but I digress. I take the time to read over 30 different papers each day from multiple parts of the world. My MOS is intelligence and I'm no rookie. I could cite specific MOS codes but why waste time. Debate is only substantiated by evidence, not "what ifs?"

There is my/Liuzzo's counter.

Additionally, you claim that because Israel attacked some site in Syria (which cannot even be confirmed to be a nuclear site), that Syria got weapons from Saddam. First of all, I've already stated that we aren't sure whether it was a nuclear site. Second, if it is a nuclear site, it is highly unlikely (and very stupid of the Syrians) that any weapons would be stored there. Third, even if it was a nuclear site it would not necessarily have weapons from Saddam, in fact, that's highly improbable as he was believed to have chemical weapons, not nuclear ones. So basically, Israel bombing Syria has nothing to do with Saddam having weapons of mass destruction.

Also, you say that war is not all shit. Then what is it? If you know anything at all about war, then you know that war is not some game, it's all shit.

Let's see.

I can believe the 9/11 Commission, multiple CIA reports, George Tenet, multiple Senate investigations, etc., etc, etc.

Or I can believe some anonymous person on the internet that claims to have special and secret knowledge.

Boy, that's a toughie. :confused:;)


Once again, I'm not here to claim I have all the facts. As free thinking citizens you are encouraged to question your government, but you are also encouraged to question your information sources. Consider, for one minute, that all of those reports don't tell you everything. You DO NOT have access to CIA reports, try as you might. The 9/11 commission was set up to investigate a very specific area of data and information, and all of your etc. etc. etc. sources aren't know all, be all sources either. For that matter, they might as well be anonymous people on the internet who claim to have access to secret knowledge. You can choose to believe whomever you want, that's your right. But you also have the right to be mislead, and to spread your misinformation fecal matter all over the place.

The most true words about war that were ever said are these, "war is hell!" Military men and women are tools of our superiors to serve their goals. It's always hell for us.

There is my/Liuzzo's counter.

Additionally, you claim that because Israel attacked some site in Syria (which cannot even be confirmed to be a nuclear site), that Syria got weapons from Saddam. First of all, I've already stated that we aren't sure whether it was a nuclear site. Second, if it is a nuclear site, it is highly unlikely (and very stupid of the Syrians) that any weapons would be stored there. Third, even if it was a nuclear site it would not necessarily have weapons from Saddam, in fact, that's highly improbable as he was believed to have chemical weapons, not nuclear ones. So basically, Israel bombing Syria has nothing to do with Saddam having weapons of mass destruction.

Also, you say that war is not all shit. Then what is it? If you know anything at all about war, then you know that war is not some game, it's all shit.

Zayun,

Have you ever gone to sleep, and woken up in IRAQ?? Don't tell me I don't know shit about war, son.

Once again, I'm not here to claim I have all the facts. As free thinking citizens you are encouraged to question your government, but you are also encouraged to question your information sources. Consider, for one minute, that all of those reports don't tell you everything. You DO NOT have access to CIA reports, try as you might. The 9/11 commission was set up to investigate a very specific area of data and information, and all of your etc. etc. etc. sources aren't know all, be all sources either. For that matter, they might as well be anonymous people on the internet who claim to have access to secret knowledge. You can choose to believe whomever you want, that's your right. But you also have the right to be mislead, and to spread your misinformation fecal matter all over the place.

So your argument amounts to "it is theoretically possible that it's been kept very secret therefore all the public information to the contrary can't be trusted and amounts to misinformation fecal matter"?

Very convincing. :rolleyes:

Once again, I'm not here to claim I have all the facts. As free thinking citizens you are encouraged to question your government, but you are also encouraged to question your information sources. Consider, for one minute, that all of those reports don't tell you everything. You DO NOT have access to CIA reports, try as you might. The 9/11 commission was set up to investigate a very specific area of data and information, and all of your etc. etc. etc. sources aren't know all, be all sources either. For that matter, they might as well be anonymous people on the internet who claim to have access to secret knowledge. You can choose to believe whomever you want, that's your right. But you also have the right to be mislead, and to spread your misinformation fecal matter all over the place.

In a debate, or any argument, you cannot claim that your evidence is more correct if you do not provide a source. Neither of us have done so, but I (and plenty of other people) have at least named ours. You on the other hand claim that there are secret reports which prove otherwise. In a debate, if you tell the judge that you've got evidence but you can't reveal it, you're not gonna win.

Zayun,

Have you ever gone to sleep, and woken up in IRAQ?? Don't tell me I don't know shit about war, son.

I said that if you knew anything about war, then you would understand that it is shit. I didn't say that if you don't accept that war is shit, you don't know shit about war. So don't try and put words in my mouth.

In any case, you leave my argument untouched.

For the last time, I'm not here to prove anyone wrong, I'm just presenting a challenge. You've taken it upon yourselves to try to prove me wrong, which is fine. Ive already named my source, and that is first hand knowledge. And for the sake of touching your argument, if you've never been to a war, you don't know that war is shit. There you go.

For the last time, I'm not here to prove anyone wrong, I'm just presenting a challenge. You've taken it upon yourselves to try to prove me wrong, which is fine. Ive already named my source, and that is first hand knowledge. And for the sake of touching your argument, if you've never been to a war, you don't know that war is shit. There you go.

First-hand knowledge of what exactly?

Your poll sucks. It should be
George Bush:
Great President or Greatest President?

Incidentally, I Am America (And So Can You!) kicks ass.

Are you friggin' nuts?! :upyours: :headbang:

For the last time, I'm not here to prove anyone wrong, I'm just presenting a challenge. You've taken it upon yourselves to try to prove me wrong, which is fine. Ive already named my source, and that is first hand knowledge. And for the sake of touching your argument, if you've never been to a war, you don't know that war is shit. There you go.

I've got to be warmed up for my rounds ya know.

Now you claim that since I haven't fought in a war, I don't know that it is shit. But how do you explain that so many people who have been in a war say it is so? How can you claim that all those deaths and all that violence is good? Why is it that many people come back from war with mental problems? It's rather odd to call something which is intrinsically "shitty" not shitty.

Are you friggin' nuts?! :upyours: :headbang:

Sorry to be rude, but it's called sarcasm.

I'm mostly indifferent towards Bush. I think British involvement in Iraq was a big mistake, but I don't blame Bush for that, I blame Blair. I'm not particularly bothered if the US is in Iraq. It shouldn't be our problem.

Bush is alright with me.

...

Wait, we're not talking about women, are we?

No doubt somebody's done this joke already.

he's the greatest president ever in universe history

Worthless poll aside, I'd place Pres. Bush somewhere around a 6.5/10. Not outstanding, but solid - excellent work with the courts and other appointment, poor relations with the press (only partially his fault though, really).

The only thing keeping me from saying Bush as president is a fucking joke is that I can't tell for *absolute certain* if his involvement with Iraq was him finishing up his daddy's vendetta. What IS a fucking joke is the reason (the ever-changing reason) for going to slaughter - I mean war.

The only terrorist I can see is sitting in the oval office.

i have no personal emotions about anyone i don't personally know.

as for bush, his puppet masters, and what they represent, well you see that's the thing, and i don't see how anyone who hasn't been hiding under a rock can imagine them not to be a real and present threat to all of humanity, and all life on earth, even in the u.s of its own a.

=^^=
.../\...

Your Position on Bush?


My position on Bush?????

I'd have to go with squatting.

My policy on Bush trimming/removal? Take a razor to it, or electrocute it.;)

serated metal spoon?

splintery wooden salad spork.

In all seriousness, he is a terrible president. However, I wouldn't say he's the worst we've had, as we've suffered through some pretty awful ones.

Disliking Bush is fashionable. Like wearing certain shoes, having a certain color hair or eating a certain kind of food - it's just the popular thing to do. Blind hate for Bush shows complete political ignorance, but hey, nobody said the masses were smart. The fact of the matter is, Bush isn't the problem, it's the whole damn system. It's broken. It's not working as intended. Bush is just a figurehead and a focal point for the growing national hatred for how our country is run.

He's just one man. He doesn't call all the shots, he doesn't make all the decisions. This isn't a monarchy. It's a so-called Democracy. While that doesn't mean you or I can effect major decisions in foreign policy, defense, healthcare, etc., it means that there is not one person alone who can make said decisions. Bush isn't a bad person. He may not be a very smart person, but it's not like he's sitting there, plotting to screw us all over. If you want to see a bad person, look at Cheney. Dick Cheney is a terrible, corrupt, corporate puppet and I'd bet ten shed cat hairs and a ball of pocket lint that he's the one responsible for most of this country's worst decisions and policies over the past few years.

Bush may be stupid, but ignorance does not equal evil. Evil takes a clear, well-defined intent to do no good. I don't like Bush, but I have a hard time deciding which I dislike more: Bush or the people who constantly whine about and make fun of him. We get it. You don't like Bush. The horse is dead, folks.

Meh, a little hair never hurt anyone.




Oh, that Bush.

As a gay man, I don't like any kind of Bush.... :eek:

How this idiot ever got voted in as President is truly amazing as it must go then that the electorate are just as thick as him. The Christian far right and the other evangelical Christians are mainly to blame for voting him in.

Bush should be indicted on war crimes but he's too fucking stupid to know what is going on in the world. He's a fucking drunk and a shit businessman as the companies he headed whilst a regular citizen failed and were bought out be the Arabs.

More of an advisory position.

Well, we've seen what a wealth of advisers has done for the Bush administration thus far.
Hm...

That name + "advisory position" + grandiose claims about his own abilities + no actual credentials in sight + coy little hints that he knows stuff no one else does = Paul Wolfowitz, is that you?

The most true words about war that were ever said are these, "war is hell!" Military men and women are tools of our superiors to serve their goals. It's always hell for us.
Which is why the human resources of war should never be misused or wasted. When their so-called "superiors" waste the lives and abilities of those men and women in silly, unnecessary adventures and bad strategies and tactics, when they fail to give them the tools and support they need, when they put them in a position where they cannot avoid violating international treaties and law, and worst of all, when they renege on the post-war debts of money and services owed to those who put everything they had on the line for us -- those "superiors" are guilty of crimes, in my opinion. This is why I say that every US death in Iraq has been a murder for which George Bush is responsible.

Zayun,

Have you ever gone to sleep, and woken up in IRAQ?? Don't tell me I don't know shit about war, son.

You were kidnapped? Or do they call it renditioning these days?

It's very difficult to judge the quality of a president until at least a few decades have passed. We're too close to it now to look at his presidency objectively. Furthermore, some of the things he has done, such as the WoT, are still ongoing (and will probably continue for decades to come, regardles of who wins the presidency), so we can't determine their effectiveness.

I disliked Clinton and thought that he was a disgrace as a president, but I don't think history will be ready to judge him for a few more decades.

And let's remember that Reagan, Roosevelt and Kennedy were hated by significant percentages of the American population during their presidencies, but historians now put them in the top tier of 20th Century presidents. Heck, historians have given Nixon a second look and grudgingly accept that, at least in the field of international relations, he did a lot of good.

I don't like him on several levels. anyone who has committed treason shouldn't be president. much like anyone who was the CEO of halliburton shouldn't be the vice president. wait, F#@k that already happened. well i guess we are already screwed. man i hope we make it to 2008 and we get a green party election (pipe dream, I know) or at least someone who wont drag our asses into another political waste of money and lives.

I am not anti-establishment, I'm pro-proletariat

I been wondering if anyone else who plays NS shares such a deep hatred to George W. Bush. Even in my school's school news paper I make fun of him. I got into such a rant about him in one article that after it was published I was called into the principals office. so just vote and voice your oppinion.

My opinions on Pres Bush is the same for any President. The President recieves all the blame, and very little credit. they have the hard decisions to make on information given to them by other people and should that information prove false, it's the President who is held accountble.

No other Government office is as closely watched by the media and scrutinized by the public. Frankly, I'm surprised anyone wants the position.

Personally, I don't like a lot of bush, but I also find completely shaven rather unsettling.

My opinions on Pres Bush is the same for any President. The President recieves all the blame, and very little credit. they have the hard decisions to make on information given to them by other people and should that information prove false, it's the President who is held accountble.

No other Government office is as closely watched by the media and scrutinized by the public. Frankly, I'm surprised anyone wants the position.However, not every president has started wars out of personal gusto. And that's not an effect of media attention.

However, not every president has started wars out of personal gusto. And that's not an effect of media attention.
See.

the only office to recieve all the blame for the entirty of the Government.

See.

the only office to recieve all the blame for the entirty of the Government.

Well said. The president is more of a scapegoat and spokesperson than a leader. It's like when you break a door or something. You're opening it up and it falls off. Well, it starts at the bottom. People at the bottom rungs of the government break the door, but put it back carefully so it looks like it's not broken and the next person to come along opens it, breaks it and thinks he's at fault, while the first person says "Wow, it worked fine a minute ago." That keeps on going up the ladder until the president tries to open the door with a hundred cameras pointed at him and he can't just put it back. The door was broken a long time ago, but now everyone thinks he did it.

Democracy is the one of the few, laws-of-physics-defying places where shit rolls UPhill.

See.

the only office to recieve all the blame for the entirty of the Government.Because that's where the blame belongs. The president makes the decisions that the government only carry out. It's like Sauron and his Ringwraiths...

Because that's where the blame belongs. The president makes the decisions that the government only carry out. It's like Sauron and his Ringwraiths...

thanks for supporting my point UB.

It's very difficult to judge the quality of a president until at least a few decades have passed. We're too close to it now to look at his presidency objectively. Furthermore, some of the things he has done, such as the WoT, are still ongoing (and will probably continue for decades to come, regardles of who wins the presidency), so we can't determine their effectiveness.

I disliked Clinton and thought that he was a disgrace as a president, but I don't think history will be ready to judge him for a few more decades.

And let's remember that Reagan, Roosevelt and Kennedy were hated by significant percentages of the American population during their presidencies, but historians now put them in the top tier of 20th Century presidents. Heck, historians have given Nixon a second look and grudgingly accept that, at least in the field of international relations, he did a lot of good.

I disagree with that you cannot judge the quality of a Presidency until years have passed. President Bush would agree with you but he said that stupid line of saying people are still debating President Washington. No one is debating whether President Washington was good or not. There are ways measure a successful Presidency by looking at History that has shown us the results. "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." Albert Einstein

The War on Terror is exactly the same as the Cold War. Back then and today citizens both are told that anytime a nuclear weapon could be detonated in our U.S. cities. Both periods of time we lend money to enemy nations (Past: Soviet Union, China) in hope of changing them (Now: Saudi Arabia, Pakistan.) We never won the Cold War so can we win the War on Terror? The name Soviet Union is gone on maps but Gorbachek has helped create the Earth Charter for a greater Socialist society that is at odds with our ideals. The Communist changed to Social Democrats and pushed back their hard liners and substituted them with the lesser knowns from the same party. Was Hamas winning elections in the Palestinian election the same thing?

President Bush has done a great job at weakening the dollar. Without Fiat Currency we could never been sucked into this War in Afghanistan and Iraq plus war by proxy by aiding Ethiopia and the Philippines. There would be no talk about war with Iran because the money wouldn't be there. In history, fiat currency was created perpetual war in England from 1689 to 1815 which half of those they were at war and the other have they were preparing for war. This was accomplished only from the Bank of England issuing fiat money which became worthless at the end of 1815. Presently, anyone can tell how weak the dollar is and you can see it when we purchase a gasoline. The barrel of oil is very high because the value of the dollar is low.

Another way we can judge his Presidency currently is how he deals with the infrastructure of the country. It has been said the first thing to go in a nations decline is their infrastructure. Recently he vetoed a much needed water bill to preserve numerous water sources. He has not provided in his budget adequate resources for Louisiana that would be incorruptible by FEMA and no bid contractors. He has sent the National Guard away that with them in the country the fires in California would have been less severe. He has lifted the oil drill ban in Alaskan wildlife. Remember the whole Dubai company renting our port infrastructure? Not to mention foreign investors who are buying American property.

thanks for supporting my point UB.I don't.

I don't.

you've been providing exceptional examples of my point. please keep it up.

shave it.







Oh you mean the president. :p meh.

Disliking Bush is fashionable. Like wearing certain shoes, having a certain color hair or eating a certain kind of food - it's just the popular thing to do. Blind hate for Bush shows complete political ignorance, but hey, nobody said the masses were smart. The fact of the matter is, Bush isn't the problem, it's the whole damn system. It's broken. It's not working as intended. Bush is just a figurehead and a focal point for the growing national hatred for how our country is run.

He's just one man. He doesn't call all the shots, he doesn't make all the decisions. This isn't a monarchy. It's a so-called Democracy. While that doesn't mean you or I can effect major decisions in foreign policy, defense, healthcare, etc., it means that there is not one person alone who can make said decisions. Bush isn't a bad person. He may not be a very smart person, but it's not like he's sitting there, plotting to screw us all over. If you want to see a bad person, look at Cheney. Dick Cheney is a terrible, corrupt, corporate puppet and I'd bet ten shed cat hairs and a ball of pocket lint that he's the one responsible for most of this country's worst decisions and policies over the past few years.

Bush may be stupid, but ignorance does not equal evil. Evil takes a clear, well-defined intent to do no good. I don't like Bush, but I have a hard time deciding which I dislike more: Bush or the people who constantly whine about and make fun of him. We get it. You don't like Bush. The horse is dead, folks.

Clearly, you do not realize that Bush is The Decider. He even said so himself.

you've been providing exceptional examples of my point. please keep it up.

Yeah, nice job helping the other side JuNii. Maybe next time you could help your own side a bit.

Click Stand;13200029']Yeah, nice job helping the other side JuNii. Maybe next time you could help your own side a bit.

please tell me, since it seems you know. what is "my side" on this issue concerning my opinion of President Bush?

please tell me, since it seems you know. what is "my side" on this issue concerning my opinion of President Bush?

Don't know, I was just making a point that if you are going to tell people that what they are doing is helping you, it should at least be backed up especially if they don't think so.

Sorry, I was just miffed at the Whole "thanks for helping me out UB" thing.

Bush is the greatest president ever. He keeps our taxes low and he's freeing the Iraqi people.

The only people who hate him are dumb Liberals who want to kill babies and prevent us from using our 2nd amendment rights.

Click Stand;13200061']Don't know, I was just making a point that if you are going to tell people that what they are doing is helping you, it should at least be backed up especially if they don't think so.

Sorry, I was just miffed at the Whole "thanks for helping me out UB" thing.
No biggie. here is my stance.
My opinions on Pres Bush is the same for any President. The President recieves all the blame, and very little credit. they have the hard decisions to make on information given to them by other people and should that information prove false, it's the President who is held accountble.

No other Government office is as closely watched by the media and scrutinized by the public. Frankly, I'm surprised anyone wants the position.

So if you read UB's replies where he says that the President started wars... he completely forgets that Congress has to ok the use of Military Force on Foreign soil. Something that was put in place long before 9/11.

and his claim that all blame lies on the President... all supports my position that the PotUS is nothing more than the Government Scapegoat should anything go wrong.

Now, don't mistake. I'm not saying that President Bush is Blameless. just saying that when the shit hits the fan, it's not only one person that gets splattered.

No biggie. here is my stance.


So if you read UB's replies where he says that the President started wars... he completely forgets that Congress has to ok the use of Military Force on Foreign soil. Something that was put in place long before 9/11.

and his claim that all blame lies on the President... all supports my position that the PotUS is nothing more than the Government Scapegoat should anything go wrong.

Now, don't mistake. I'm not saying that President Bush is Blameless. just saying that when the shit hits the fan, it's not only one person that gets splattered.

While I agree that the congresspeople who okayed the war are partially to blame too, I'd argue that the President is more so to blame-- without Bush, there wouldn't have been a war. You can't say that about any single congressman/congresswoman. Thus, he is more to blame than any member of congress.
Furthermore, some of them, at least, have tried to rectify their mistake and have admitted their mistake. Bush still claims that he was entirely right to invade Iraq, only admitting that said invasion was "mishandled."

i heard that bush recently reached 50% strong disapproval

have i ever mentioned that the dems collaborationist and capitulationist strategy is like totally awesome and certainly going to make them win forever? smart collaborationists at least have the good sense to try to cover up their collaboration once the other side is on the retreat. not these geniuses though.

50% disapproval means also 50% approval! ;)

Worst President ever? That's a pretty subjective position to fill. Useless? Prone to mistakes? Out of touch with reality? Yes.

Vetoes stem cell research.
Wants to ban abortion.
Managed to pass one of the stupidest education reforms ever.
Spends way to much money.
Has somehow managed to piss off most of the world.
Has failed miserably to make any headway in Iraq. (whether the war was a good idea or not is debatable.)
Has some crazy idea that his religious beliefs are the single most important deciding factor in making decisions.

On the bright side:
You always know where he stands on an issue.
He never backs down.
You can always count on having good material for your comedy routine.

Bush the worst president ever?? It usually takes several decades to determine a president's ranking. In that space of time we can see the full ramifications of a president's policies. Abraham Lincoln was absolutely hated in his time but he's considered one of the best now. Not that I'm comparing Bush to Lincoln...:rolleyes:

While I agree that the congresspeople who okayed the war are partially to blame too, I'd argue that the President is more so to blame-- without Bush, there wouldn't have been a war. You can't say that about any single congressman/congresswoman. Thus, he is more to blame than any member of congress. at the same time, it could be said that had the info been accurate, then there wouldn't have been a case for President Bush to push for war.

as for a single Congress person? Congress acts as one body. thus they as a whole, hold as much responsiblitiy as the President.

Furthermore, some of them, at least, have tried to rectify their mistake and have admitted their mistake. Bush still claims that he was entirely right to invade Iraq, only admitting that said invasion was "mishandled." hence why I also said the President is not blameless. ;)

at the same time, it could be said that had the info been accurate, then there wouldn't have been a case for President Bush to push for war.

as for a single Congress person? Congress acts as one body. thus they as a whole, hold as much responsiblitiy as the President.

hence why I also said the President is not blameless. ;)

So... had Bush not encouraged intellectual dishonesty in the intelligence community, there'd be no war? ;):p

While Clinton was far better than Bush is, he was also a mass murderer. His misadventures in southeastern Europe come to mind.

Most people there, including a lot of the people who are actually there, think that that one went pretty well. It's really just a few wing-nuts here who were yelling "wag the dog, no blood for Monica."

The more perspective that time lends to his legacy the more I begin to suspect that he got Monica to blow him so that people would be so busy yelling about the sex that they wouldn't pay attention to him fighting a war to save the lives of persecuted Muslims.

Let's see.

I can believe the 9/11 Commission, multiple CIA reports, George Tenet, multiple Senate investigations, etc., etc, etc.

Or I can believe some anonymous person on the internet that claims to have special and secret knowledge.

Boy, that's a toughie. :confused:;)

Well you have to admit that he has a point. Just because there's no evidence of something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. I'll bet that if you were in Heaven's Gate you wouldn't even have amputated your genitals.

To quote the IBD (it said something like this): "To say George Bush spends like a drunken sailor is to insult every sailer, in every drinking establishment, in every port."

Mind you, this is a obscenely conservative paper we're talking about.

Nobody is worse than William Jefferson Clinton. But Georgey-porgey does come close second.

For NS I'm extremely conservative, but I have to say: Clinton was better then Bush, albeit still a undesirable president.

So... had Bush not encouraged intellectual dishonesty in the intelligence community, there'd be no war? ;):p

only if you also believe that officers performing a sting operation are encouraging criminal acts to make their arrests.

(on a side note: WHOOT... the computer I just put together from scratch WORKS!!! *Dances*)

The various assertions and acts of W. are Hanlon's Razor incarnate.