NationStates Jolt Archive

Okay, I don't hate Bush but I will admit that he's an idiot. But why do so many people proclaim to hate him? Seriously, the president doesn't have that much power, the senate has most of the power. Thoughts anyone?

Okay, I don't hate Bush but I will admit that he's an idiot. But why do so many people proclaim to hate him? Seriously, the president doesn't have that much power, the senate has most of the power. Thoughts anyone?

Because we couldn't get such a great login name like yours. So we became embattled and embittered... turning to hate for solace.

I hate him for his freedom.

Yes he lacks power but with the power he has, he did some pretty bad stuff like authorize torture, and veto medical research, and lets not forget the cutting of funds for all the organizations which made America a great place like: rescue services, government orgs that inspect meat, disease prevention, ect. And last but not least he tried to pass a bill to place more taxes on non-rich people yet take taxes off the rich.

I hate him for his freedom.

Which is why he needs to take away his freedom, then you can't hate him anymore.

Yes he lacks power but with the power he has, he did some pretty bad stuff like authorize torture
Define torture.
and veto medical research
Messing around with stem cells is not right.
government orgs that inspect meat, disease prevention, ect
Government regulation is horrible and was made as a vote buyer. It basicly says that we're not smart enough to choose what to buy or have enough of a spine to boycott companys that make bad products.

Because he has completely and utterly betrayed his supposed political ideology, weakened the US on all fronts, and continues to antagonize people on all sides for reasons only he could possibly understand. Overall, he has done more damage to the United States and the office of the Presidency than any president since maybe Johnson.

I don't hate him. I don't think he is an idiot either. I simply think he really doesn't give a shit about most people.

He is the type of guy that wants the title and the respect but doesn't want to earn them.

He is a failure and he figured out his 8 years will be regarded as a joke. I thought Harding was the worst but I think this guy beat him.

People have labeled Clinton, FDR, Lincoln and Nixon as worst. Yet, they managed to accomplish something.

What has he accomplished?

Most of his "accomplishments" in Texas have been repealed or overturned by his own party.

His legacy will be remembered as being a joke.

Define torture.

Messing around with stem cells is not right.

Government regulation is horrible and was made as a vote buyer. It basicly says that we're not smart enough to choose what to buy or have enough of a spine to boycott companys that make bad products.

a) That's the fucking problem. Waterboarding isn't torture anymore huh? And what about the stuff that's so bad they won't let us hear about it?

b) In your opinion, do you have anything to back that up?

c) Alright, why don't we deregulate the meat industry, and let companies sell us meat with mad cow. And then, years later, when our brains resemble a block of cheese, we can boycott those companies.

Because he has completely and utterly betrayed his supposed political ideology
Huh? Show me a link to a few times where he has betrayed his political ideology
weakened the US on all fronts
No counterargument to that one.
and continues to antagonize people on all sides for reasons only he could possibly understand
Because he got involved in a worthless war that will probably drag on for about another decade.
Overall, he has done more damage to the United States and the office of the Presidency than any president since maybe Johnson.
Don't you mean Carter?

Government regulation is horrible and was made as a vote buyer. It basicly says that we're not smart enough to choose what to buy or have enough of a spine to boycott companys that make bad products.

Yes, because we were so good at it before the government stepped in. Those slaughterhouses and stockyards were the epitome of cleanliness, concern for consumer safety, and humane treatment of animals and workers.

Define torture.

Messing around with stem cells is not right.

Government regulation is horrible and was made as a vote buyer. It basicly says that we're not smart enough to choose what to buy or have enough of a spine to boycott companys that make bad products.

Above quote = Bushovik. Also, you obviously lied when you said you thought Bush is an idiot, since you share so many thoughts in common with him.

I hate Bush for two reasons:

1) It's fun; and

2) He is the primary reason these days that I see and hear stuff like the quote above.

Government regulation is horrible and was made as a vote buyer. It basicly says that we're not smart enough to choose what to buy or have enough of a spine to boycott companys that make bad products.

*dies from arsenic in his mayan sweet corn*
Shit! Better boycott the company next time!

In your opinion, do you have anything to back that up?

It's just my OPINON!
c) Alright, why don't we deregulate the meat industry, and let companies sell us meat with mad cow. And then, years later, when our brains resemble a block of cheese, we can boycott those companies
1. IF even one case of mad cow was reported(and don't tell me the media won't be all over any case of mad cow disease) the media would have the news all over the place until either the company was out of buisness or the company called a complete recall. Besides not everyone eats meat nor do we eat meat at the same time. The epidemic would not get any further than a few cases and the company's image would be destroyed(if it survived the massive boycotts)

Huh? Show me a link to a few times where he has betrayed his political ideology

Biggest deficits in US history (in nominal terms and some of the biggest in real terms), biggest expansion of the US government through a vote-buying prescription drug program and overall increases in spending in decades, no vetoes of any spending bills rubber-stamped by the corrupt Congress in his first six years, and huge expansion of the federal government's role in state affairs. Bush has been the biggest contributor to the big government welfare state since Johnson. Even the Department of Homeland Security is a massive money pit that has done little but create another explosion in Federal payrolls.

Also, a war in Iraq that has cost us hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of troops and stretched our military badly, weakening our ability to deal with rogue states like Iran and North Korea. This is directly opposite the conservative principles he espoused when running for office; Bush marks the beginning of another era of repressive, centralized Big Government control of civil and economic affairs.

Don't you mean Carter?

Well, for one, Carter only had one term. And he did do some good things, such as CAFE and the appointment of Paul Volcker to the Federal Reserve, who helped the Reagan administration launch the booming prosperity of the 1980's and 1990's.

Bush...I can't even think of anything.

Above quote = Bushovik. Also, you obviously lied when you said you thought Bush is an idiot, since you share so many thoughts in common with him.

1.Anything that shrinks the government is fine with me.
2. Do 3 thoughts mean you're in a politcal party with somone else? According to that logic, I would be a Democrat, but I'm not, I'm a Libertarian.

LACK OF POWER, are you guys kidding me? He's got the ideal and most of them show mental disease. check it out, the guy JUST vetoed the Health bill, which would give children better conditions, WHILE he vetoes this, he asks for money directed to the idiot war in IRAQ. OK, The health care would cost him 35 millions dollars, he's spent 500 million dollars in IRAQ... his excuse to the veto was about how expensive it would be.
He gives himself the right to invade a country and makes a whole country think he is right about it. ISN'T THAT ENOUGH??

I'm not a personal fan of Bush, but I don't think the man is horrible--just a bad public speaker.

Look back at John Adams. A fairly unsuccesful president, four horrible years in the office, but he chose not to go to war with France. At the time people believed it was a bad decision, many Americans hated the French, but it probably saved the United States from breaking up

Bush may not seem so great now, but you have to look back on events to see their true effect

Yes, because we were so good at it before the government stepped in. Those slaughterhouses and stockyards were the epitome of cleanliness, concern for consumer safety, and humane treatment of animals and workers.
And they still are :rolleyes:.You obviously don't know about this modern idea called the "factory farm", but hey, ignorance is bliss so why should I spoil it for ya!

Define torture.

Messing around with stem cells is not right.

Government regulation is horrible and was made as a vote buyer. It basicly says that we're not smart enough to choose what to buy or have enough of a spine to boycott companys that make bad products.

How are we supposed to know before people die or get sick if there is no forced testing before it gets to the consumer?

And what is wrong with stem cells

Okay, I don't hate Bush but I will admit that he's an idiot. But why do so many people proclaim to hate him? Seriously, the president doesn't have that much power, the senate has most of the power. Thoughts anyone?

People can hate him on his own merits of failings and persecutive behaviour.
If they have that kind of energy or wound, of course. And i don't fault them a bit for it. Bush is genetic trash.

LACK OF POWER, are you guys kidding me? He's got the ideal and most of them show mental disease. check it out, the guy JUST vetoed the Health bill, which would give children better conditions, WHILE he vetoes this, he asks for money directed to the idiot war in IRAQ. OK, The health care would cost him 35 millions dollars, he's spent 500 million dollars in IRAQ... his excuse to the veto was about how expensive it would be.
He gives himself the right to invade a country and makes a whole country think he is right about it. ISN'T THAT ENOUGH??
1.The senate could have overturned his veto.
2.I don't support the war either you know.

It's just my OPINON!

1. IF even one case of mad cow was reported(and don't tell me the media won't be all over any case of mad cow disease) the media would have the news all over the place until either the company was out of buisness or the company called a complete recall. Besides not everyone eats meat nor do we eat meat at the same time. The epidemic would not get any further than a few cases and the company's image would be destroyed(if it survived the massive boycotts)

a) Well my opinion is that it's fine.

b) If a person were to have mad cow, it could easily be incorrectly diagnosed as some other mental disease. And mad cow is only one example, there are plenty of other bad things that could happen with less regulation. And even then, it doesn't bring back the brains of the victims.

And they still are :rolleyes:.You obviously don't know about this modern idea called the "factory farm", but hey, ignorance is bliss so why should I spoil it for ya!

Even the factory farms are better than what existed at the turn of the century. And, also, the foods provided today are a lot safer and healthier than what was available back then. You were lucky if you were actually getting what you paid for when it came to dealing with some companies. Today, those companies would end up shut down and the guilty jailed...not back then.

It's just my OPINON!

I have to say, "It's my opinion" is a horribly poor argument for anything that moves beyond pure subjectivity. (that is, things like the sort of foods your prefer, or your favorite color, etc.) Opinions on morality and on policy should be defendable by logic, reason, and evidence, not just a gut feeling.

1. IF even one case of mad cow was reported(and don't tell me the media won't be all over any case of mad cow disease) the media would have the news all over the place until either the company was out of buisness or the company called a complete recall. Besides not everyone eats meat nor do we eat meat at the same time. The epidemic would not get any further than a few cases and the company's image would be destroyed(if it survived the massive boycotts)

What about subtler, but still quite deadly, diseases, that could sneak their way in if the food is not handled properly? What about excessive and unnecessary cruelty in slaughterhouses? Do you really think that the industry will self-regulate on such things, when there is no (profit) incentive? Of course not! You argue that public pressure will force them to self-regulate, but that's ludicrous. Did they self-regulate before such regulations were enacted? Do you think it was just that people back then wanted diseased/unsanitary meat? Really? Do you really think that the industry will self-regulate in the use of humane techniques to kill the animals in the slaughterhouse? Are you honestly that naive?

1.Anything that shrinks the government is fine with me.
2. Do 3 thoughts mean you're in a politcal party with somone else? According to that logic, I would be a Democrat, but I'm not, I'm a Libertarian.

Anything? So you'd approve, say, getting rid of the police force and fire department?

Anyway, about Bush:
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

Even the factory farms are better than what existed at the turn of the century. And, also, the foods provided today are a lot safer and healthier than what was available back then. You were lucky if you were actually getting what you paid for when it came to dealing with some companies. Today, those companies would end up shut down and the guilty jailed...not back then.
Yeah, because of improved technoligy(pardon me if I spelled it wrong I'm kinda tired) that allows them to stuff more animals in a place at once while at the same time overload them with antibiotics. Mmmm... antibiotics. And no, I'm not a vegetarian.

Look back at John Adams. A fairly unsuccesful president, four horrible years in the office, but he chose not to go to war with France. At the time people believed it was a bad decision, many Americans hated the French, but it probably saved the United States from breaking up


Pssst the Quasi-War.

Even on your claim. Adams avoided a war and the shrub is in Iraq.

The two are hardly comparable.

Bush may not seem so great now, but you have to look back on events to see their true effect

Karl Rove is already trying to preach that one. 100 years I think is his magic number.

LACK OF POWER, are you guys kidding me? He's got the ideal and most of them show mental disease. check it out, the guy JUST vetoed the Health bill, which would give children better conditions, WHILE he vetoes this, he asks for money directed to the idiot war in IRAQ. OK, The health care would cost him 35 millions dollars, he's spent 500 billion dollars in IRAQ... his excuse to the veto was about how expensive it would be.
He gives himself the right to invade a country and makes a whole country think he is right about it. ISN'T THAT ENOUGH??

There, I fixed your paragraph for you, however, it is very true that the senate and congress had the power and ability to prevent the war. There was just a lack of concrete information, and a semi-paranoid need to safeguard America. For that, he shouldn't be punished, but for staying in Iraq when its been proven beyond a doubt that there is no danger to America Proper, for that he shall be remembered as an idiot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1KGwQ1O88Y

This sums up all my reasons in one neat package.

1.Anything that shrinks the government is fine with me.
2. Do 3 thoughts mean you're in a politcal party with somone else? According to that logic, I would be a Democrat, but I'm not, I'm a Libertarian.

So you say. Political party labels mean nothing to me. You need to have torture defined for you, despite the fact that it is clearly defined in the law and has been for a very, very, very long time? Then you are someone I oppose, someone whose views I consider a threat to society. Whatever else you might claim to be is immaterial to me. I feel the same way about Bush. He can claim anything he likes about himself. I judge him by what he does, and by what he does, he is my enemy, and I am his.

And they still are :rolleyes:.You obviously don't know about this modern idea called the "factory farm", but hey, ignorance is bliss so why should I spoil it for ya!

You'd have a point, except that it is the current regulatory system that documents food as it passes through the industry thus allowing for relatively quick backtracking to uncover the sources of contaminated products.

Toss out the regulations and grocery shopping becomes a crap-shoot with limited accountability - like The Good Old Days..... of regular bouts of botulism, salmonela, and various other outbreaks.

There, I fixed your paragraph for you, however, it is very true that the senate and congress had the power and ability to prevent the war. There was just a lack of concrete information, and a semi-paranoid need to safeguard America.From Iraq? So you're saying that in dismissal of both Dueler Reports, all of the Downing Street Memos, the BND report regarding such, and many i'm not even getting around to mentioning ... besides the fact that on occasion Bush has said that he's never said there was any link between Iraq and 9/11, whereas on other ones he AND Cheney have "argued" vociferously that there was a tangible connection (upon pressing of which, of course, they were/are found sorely, sorely lacking)
For that, he shouldn't be punished,Wrong. He most certainly should.
but for staying in Iraq when its been proven beyond a doubt that there is no danger to America Proper, for that he shall be remembered as an idiot.It's not just the staying. Even his own father and Colin Powell told him not to do it, and for obviously good reason.
He doesn't deserve kid gloves. He deserves the same treatment he exhibited while gov. in Texas, say, when snickering when someone is put to death.

Toss out the regulations and grocery shopping becomes a crap-shoot with limited accountability - like The Good Old Days..... of regular bouts of botulism, salmonela, and various other outbreaks.

Hey now you know "free enterprise" wouldn't allow for that to happen.

My detestation of Bush comes from three things, all of wich I feel are legitimate reasons.

1. Gross mishandling of Iraq, and complete failure of effective foreign policy, despite having been warned of the "quagmire" situation.

2. Actions allowed that are in direct violation of the Constitution.
Allowing torture, illegal wiretapping, and not providing detainees due process of law.

3. Gross spending, wich further depreciates the economy, and decreasing the value of the dollar.

There are many others, but these are the most important ones.

I dont see these as a "Right/Left" issue.
BOTH sides should be howling for his head, and as an American, political alliances aside, I think Bush is the worst President we have probably ever had.
I dont think any other president has done more to ignore, or circumvent the CONSTITUTION, the very document we use as a foundation for HOW WE LIVE AS AMERICANS! What we base our entire government on!

It goes far worse than merely being "a failed administration" or a uneffective President, this goes against everything we as AMERICANS should stand for.

Anything? So you'd approve, say, getting rid of the police force and fire department?

Sorry I went a little overboard trying to express my opinon.
What about subtler, but still quite deadly, diseases, that could sneak their way in if the food is not handled properly? What about excessive and unnecessary cruelty in slaughterhouses? Do you really think that the industry will self-regulate on such things, when there is no (profit) incentive? Of course not! You argue that public pressure will force them to self-regulate, but that's ludicrous. Did they self-regulate before such regulations were enacted? Do you think it was just that people back then wanted diseased/unsanitary meat? Really? Do you really think that the industry will self-regulate in the use of humane techniques to kill the animals in the slaughterhouse? Are you honestly that naive?

Humane practices? Whats next, all animals must be killed by lethal injection? Are you afraid that the meat industry is going to beat animals with a whip until they die? No they won't use humane techniques to kill the animals,but they won't try to extend the animals suffering. Heck they have an incentive to make their deaths quicker so they can get them out to the stores. And deadly diseases slipping in would lead to the company being sued and then all the other meat companys would take preventive measures aganst such things. After all, it's not like the government has the only technoligy to prevent such things from slipping into meat.

Hey now you know "free enterprise" wouldn't allow for that to happen.

No, of course not. They'd just offer inflated-price "guaranteed safe" products to richer consumers and send the rotting leftovers to markets in poorer areas.

After all, what's health got to do with things when shareholder wealth is under consideration?

Sorry I went a little overboard trying to express my opinon.

Humane practices? Whats next, all animals must be killed by lethal injection? Are you afraid that the meat industry is going to beat animals with a whip until they die? No they won't use humane techniques to kill the animals,but they won't try to extend the animals suffering. Heck they have an incentive to make their deaths quicker so they can get them out to the stores. And deadly diseases slipping in would lead to the company being sued and then all the other meat companys would take preventive measures aganst such things. After all, it's not like the government has the only technoligy to prevent such things from slipping into meat.

If we don't have regulation, it will be more difficult to find the source of such a problem. You see, if everything was deregulated, all products could potentially cause this disease/problem. It would take far longer to determine the source, and in that time even more damage could be done. Honestly, regulation, at least to a certain point is nothing but beneficial. You could reasonably argue that we should have less of it, but it's illogical to say that we shouldn't have any.

If we don't have regulation, it will be more difficult to find the source of such a problem. You see, if everything was deregulated, all products could potentially cause this disease/problem. It would take far longer to determine the source, and in that time even more damage could be done. Honestly, regulation, at least to a certain point is nothing but beneficial. You could reasonably argue that we should have less of it, but it's illogical to say that we shouldn't have any.

The problem is, Conservativism isn't about logic or reason... simply about gut feeling and catering to business interests and to religion.

Because he has completely and utterly betrayed his supposed political ideology, weakened the US on all fronts, and continues to antagonize people on all sides for reasons only he could possibly understand. Overall, he has done more damage to the United States and the office of the Presidency than any president since maybe Johnson.

Johnson? What about that guy after him? Nixon, I think his name was.

All I can say is:

Bush is a puppet. And we've had too many presidents as puppets already.

Gore would be a puppet. So would Clinton. So would Obama, and every other candidate.

Because special interests, whether of the people or otherwise, control what happens. That's how democracy works in practice, every single dang time.

What we need is someone to really shake the hell out of 'the way things are done' and press the reset button on American government. But I'm one of those crazy people, doncha know.

What we need is someone to really shake the hell out of 'the way things are done' and press the reset button on American government.
Oddly enough, that's pretty much the same bullshit platform the rightwingers put Bush on, which arguably helped make things as bad as they are.
:(

Okay, I don't hate Bush but I will admit that he's an idiot. But why do so many people proclaim to hate him? Seriously, the president doesn't have that much power, the senate has most of the power. Thoughts anyone?

Hate him? I don't hate him sir.

I find it disturbing that half our nation's debt was accumulated under his terms, but I don't hate him.

Okay, I don't hate Bush but I will admit that he's an idiot. But why do so many people proclaim to hate him? Seriously, the president doesn't have that much power, the senate has most of the power. Thoughts anyone?

With the power he does have one could almost swear he's trying to do as much damage as possible, and he does everything he can to keep congress from doing anything just because he's mad that it's a democratic congress, never mind the fact that if him and a republican congress didn't feel the need to be such idiots it would still be a republican congress.

Besides, the guy loves it when people are hurt. Why else would he go to war for the hell of it, continue to defend the war for no reason, yet turn down any chance for child health care to have more money?

Bush is not evil, merely stupid. And he himself has virtually no power of his own. De facto power is in the hands of Cheney.

Johnson? What about that guy after him? Nixon, I think his name was.

History will smile upon Nixon. He was a genius. An unprincipled, egomanical, paranoid genius, but a genius. When we look back several decades from now, I'm positive Tricky Dicky will have a better image.

As for Bush. Well, honestly, you can't actually tag him on the Constitution. You can get angry, but he's done nothing wrong. We're in war-time, and during war-time you can play fast and loose with the document (look at Linclon).

What I don't like is that he embodies the new, neocon trend. As a more traditional conservative I find his spending a bit too liberal, and his policies with a bit too much emotion behind them.

With the power he does have one could almost swear he's trying to do as much damage as possible, and he does everything he can to keep congress from doing anything just because he's mad that it's a democratic congress, never mind the fact that if him and a republican congress didn't feel the need to be such idiots it would still be a republican congress.

Besides, the guy loves it when people are hurt. Why else would he go to war for the hell of it, continue to defend the war for no reason, yet turn down any chance for child health care to have more money?

On the fucking head. *bows*

As for Bush. Well, honestly, you can't actually tag him on the Constitution. You can get angry, but he's done nothing wrong. We're in war-time, and during war-time you can play fast and loose with the document (look at Linclon).
You mean that "just a goddamn piece of paper"?
You're wrong.
He declared the "war" on "terror" instead of dealing with Bin Laden. Don't give that bullshit about "they declared war on us" because we've already "been at war" for a long fucking time, and everything we did before would be under that pretense, as well as from now.
Fuck that excuse for his behaviour.

Johnson? What about that guy after him? Nixon, I think his name was.

Actually, the bastard child of Nixon and Johnson is a good mix. At least Nixon got us out of Vietnam instead of in to another war...

You mean that "just a goddamn piece of paper"?
You're wrong.
He declared the "war" on "terror" instead of dealing with Bin Laden. Don't give that bullshit about "they declared war on us" because we've already "been at war" for a long fucking time, and everything we did before would be under that pretense, as well as from now.
Fuck that excuse for his behaviour.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I never insulted the Constitution, I just said Bush has the legal standing to do what he wants with it, to a certain extent. He can't toss it out the window, but during war, and the Iraq War does indeed qualify, things like torture can be greenlighted. It's not good, perhaps, but its within his bounds.

Please don't put words in my mouthI wasn't. Bush has been reported to have called it "just a goddamn piece of paper". I wasn't implying you said it.
I never insulted the Constitution,Tis okay, i didn't imply that either.
I just said Bush has the legal standing to do what he wants with it, to a certain extent. He can't toss it out the window, but during war, and the Iraq War does indeed qualify, things like torture can be greenlighted. It's not good, perhaps, but its within his bounds.Well, not exactly, hence the FISA/warrantless tapping fiasco that even involved the sickbed of that prick Ashcroft. And, of course, resulting in our new "Attorney General".
No worries about personal qualms with you, i just have a severe problem giving any leverage to that diseased excrement Bush, from the get-go, and especially now.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I never insulted the Constitution, I just said Bush has the legal standing to do what he wants with it, to a certain extent. He can't toss it out the window, but during war, and the Iraq War does indeed qualify, things like torture can be greenlighted. It's not good, perhaps, but its within his bounds.

No. Torture is never appropriate, and there's nothing in the Constitution that says that it can be authorized in wartime.

. . . . . because frankly nobody else would bother reading all the lengthy entries in these forums unless you are a snoop.

Ok reasons for hating Bush (some of which have probably been contemplated by others).

(and no nothing to do with moses . . . he's not a burning bush. . . but he's a bush that should burn! BURN IN RIGHTEOUS FIRE!)

Ok. . . concrete arguements:

1) First and formeost: KYOTO!

I mean the world is polluting and a feeble attempt to redress the problem is boycotted by the US. The US is the world's top polluter if I am not mistaken.

2) International tribunal against human right abuses 8the one backed by Italy by the way).

Old hat. . . but bush has not changed his policy. . and thus boycotts this. . .this fom a coutnry that preaches human rights around the world. (Hipocrisy?. . . I mean if you work for the CIA resign for you are a slimy being to be employed by such a repugnant community).

3) Abu ghraib. . . in line with point 2

4) Dentention camps in Cuba. . . I mean you cant theoretically torture on US soil and you send them to Cuba????? I mean is the US consitutional court marred by the blessings of Imbecillity and incoherence with principle? Ah yes .. . they will say . . find where in the constituion is torture forbidden?

Well I reply with the universal declaration of Human Rights:
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

"Article 5.

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."

The Us is a permanent member of the Security council (quite often pays it dues with many a year of delay) .. and by the way is a founder member.

Oh the treaty is to be ratified by congress and signed by the president thus has full force of law. . thus is binding to US policy.

Rumsfield. . . may you be decapitated and may your head be puton a pole outside the Lincoln memorial (good old days). (oh by the way capital punsihment is allowed in the US. . . so no American dare protest).

To note that it these treaties require ratification and siganture on the part of the president of the Us and have teh force of law (at least membership to the UN requires this! Thus at least the charter fo teh un has full force of LAW).

3) United Nations credibility down the drain.

Preamble

"to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and"

I stress "nations large and small"

Chapter 1
Article 1.

“The Purposes of the United Nations are:

To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;”

I stress "in conformity with the principles of justice and international law"

For other infractions see:
Chapter two article 2

"All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered. "

I stress the concept of justice

"All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

"Article 2 point 2

All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter."

Article 33

"The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice."

For international intervention and the right hereof, in part, look at procedures dlineated by chapter VII articles 39 to 51.

You see ladies and gentlemen . . . . the Un HAS an international tribunal. . its never used but shouldn't the US in the name of goodfaith explore it before acting? In line withth eprupsoes of the Un which it adheres to?

Something it failed to do.

“Article 93
All Members of the United Nations are ipso facto parties to the Statute of the International Court of Justice.”

“Article 94
Each Member of the United Nations undertakes to comply with the decision of the International Court of Justice in any case to which it is a party. “

Proves lack of god faith on the part of the US i mean why didn't they appeal to the un court of justice? The Un inspectors where still inspecting! The French where right! The French exercised good will and where in line in the purpose and the principles of the UN.

Give up your nationality US citizens! BE coherent, for you pay taxes to the forces of EVIL. Renounce your passport and save your souls in the eyes of Heaven! Else may Plague, Death, Fammine and War touch your country and yourselves (in line with the good old bible which if I am not mistaken ol' Bush seems to cherish so much . . he goes to chrch doesn't he?).

(for the snoops. . . ANUBIS .. look him up if you are new. . . www.wikipedia.org).

Chapter XIV

In the name of the Iraqi children and all the other nations that have to live in fear of the US. May the US be no more for it breaks its oaths and it denies its commitments.
Reason given.

In God we trust! (all the rest need pay cash!)

As a citizen of the world I protest and Demand action from a Higher Authority.

Allah, JHVH how is Bali? Nice resorts, eh? give my regards to Vasuna (and Mitra by the way !)

Anubis is checking the scales.

No. Torture is never appropriate, and there's nothing in the Constitution that says that it can be authorized in wartime.

This is a fun slipperly slope arguement. However, since it boils down into anger, I'm just going to steer clear of it. Trust me, it would end with both of us yelling and accomplishing nothing.

However, more interesting, in my opinion, is the Constitutionality of it. Lincoln was able to suspend Habeas Corpus during the Civil War without penalty, so why dose Bush not have the precedent? The Constitution says that these rights can not be infringed upon, much like how I believe you find torture morally reprehensible, but the problem is that Linclon made precedent. Why can't Bush do the same thing? From a legalistic standpoint, I really can't determine why not.

He's an idiot that is technically the high commander of one of the most misused and destructive armies in the world.

Bush-level answer: OMGZ0RS, HE GOTS NUKES!

In God we trust! (all the rest need pay cash!)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust
Stupid fuckers. (not you)

It's just my OPINON!

1. IF even one case of mad cow was reported(and don't tell me the media won't be all over any case of mad cow disease) the media would have the news all over the place until either the company was out of buisness or the company called a complete recall. Besides not everyone eats meat nor do we eat meat at the same time. The epidemic would not get any further than a few cases and the company's image would be destroyed(if it survived the massive boycotts)

Well, considering that practically all companies are about the bottom line, very few would even care to put safe practices in. Most food would be so utterly contaminated, it would be, for all intensive purposes, inedible. A company or two may pop up with actually edible food, but it would be likely they would charge a premium for their better quality food. Thus, the poor would be left with shitty food, which is damn near inedible, as that would be the only food they could buy. As well, regulations are put on the produce industry as well, meaning that without regulation, they would follow the same route.

As such, most consumers would have one of two choices:

A)Eat more than likely very poor quality food stuffs, as that would be affordable

B)Starve

I wouldn't exactly call starving a very good option, even given the alternative. Infact, it's really not a choice at all, when you get down to it.

This is a fun slipperly slope arguement. However, since it boils down into anger, I'm just going to steer clear of it. Trust me, it would end with both of us yelling and accomplishing nothing.

However, more interesting, in my opinion, is the Constitutionality of it. Lincoln was able to suspend Habeas Corpus during the Civil War without penalty, so why dose Bush not have the precedent? The Constitution says that these rights can not be infringed upon, much like how I believe you find torture morally reprehensible, but the problem is that Linclon made precedent. Why can't Bush do the same thing? From a legalistic standpoint, I really can't determine why not.

Precendents aren't always good, nor are they right.

As well, those were very different times, and he could get away with infringing a few rights, if he wanted to(Not saying it was right, just that times are different). We basically live in a completely different day and age, where Globalization, not isolation, is paramount, and quite frankly we cannot afford to further destroy our international image, for various reasons.

THAT SAID, torture, whether you agree with it morally or not, is quite simply damn near useless. Torture someone long enough, and they will tell you exactly what you want to hear, regardless of whether it is true or not. The information is suspect, at best, and worthless most commonly. Give me 2 hours, and I could have anyone claim that the Queen of England danced naked on Lincoln's grave, while saying "Death to the infidels", and snorting a line off of a slave's back. Given a couple days, you could very easily make someone believe they actually saw that, or at least doubt that they didn't. Just because someone says something doesn't mean it's true, especially when coerced into saying it.

4) Dentention camps in Cuba. . . I mean you cant theoretically torture on US soil and you send them to Cuba????? I mean is the US consitutional court marred by the blessings of Imbecillity and incoherence with principle? Ah yes .. . they will say . . find where in the constituion is torture forbidden?



No, they aren't "tortured"(In what most people consider torture, I don't agree with most people, and would say they are tortured there, but that's not important) in Cuba.

We send them to Egypt and Syria for that. They are more than happy to torture anyone, under anyone's definition of torture, no questions asked.

Which is, I believe, against the Geneva Conventions to send prisoners of war to countries known to torture, but that sure as hell hasn't stopped our government in the past, several times over.

Or kidnapping people for several years, because they have the same, or similar, name to someone who is a terrahrist. That's another one. Because God only knows that a name can be used once, and only once, ever, and once someone has it, no one else ever will. Of course.

S

Okay, I don't hate Bush but I will admit that he's an idiot. But why do so many people proclaim to hate him? Seriously, the president doesn't have that much power, the senate has most of the power. Thoughts anyone?

If everyone hates Bush they can all be popular, and part of the 'in' crowd if they hate him... I'm pretty sure that really is it, it started with some criticsism, and then everyone jumped on the bandwagon... sad, but hey, whatever, if these sheep in America want popularity to tell them what to think that is their own business.

Wait, correction, sheep don't do business, they pretty much eat grass all day. *nods*

Actually, the bastard child of Nixon and Johnson is a good mix. At least Nixon got us out of Vietnam instead of in to another war...

Ya know, if he weren't such a bastard coated bastard with a deep nuggety center of bastard, he would actually be very well remember. Then the whole watergate thing happened, and it was revealed he was one hell of a paranoid egotistical prick, and he took the "high" road(More like saving face) of resigning.

Really, he did do quite a lot that was good. Doesn't excuse his behavior, at all, but it at least you could agree on many things he did, but still loathe him.

Bush... I just can't the bright side. It's just a giant ball of shit.

For comparison, Nixon was a giant ball of shit, with a tiny, 1 karat diamond buried deep inside.

Bush just has a kernel of corn in there.

If everyone hates Bush they can all be popular, and part of the 'in' crowd if they hate him... I'm pretty sure that really is it, it started with some criticsism, and then everyone jumped on the bandwagon... sad, but hey, whatever, if these sheep in America want popularity to tell them what to think that is their own business.

Wait, correction, sheep don't do business, they pretty much eat grass all day. *nods*

No, I hate Bush because he a goddamn arrogant moron, who thinks he is some sort of King, and every one needs to bow to his whim(As was clearly seen when he pretty much told Congress to pass his "emergency budget" for Iraq early this year, which they idiotically did). Kind of like a six year old spoiled brat, whose parents finally tell him he can't have that shiny new toy, but they buy it for him anyway to shut up his tantrum.

Okay, I don't hate Bush but I will admit that he's an idiot. But why do so many people proclaim to hate him? Seriously, the president doesn't have that much power, the senate has most of the power. Thoughts anyone?

Looks to me that he has a lot of power, including the almost-total control on the military.

Anyway, why I dislike Bush (not hate, that's too much):

1.He's a religious fundamentalist (lots of examples of it)
2.He's a liar (see Iraqi WMD)
3.He's an incompetent (example: although he said that Osama and Omar were THE targets, they're still at large and islamic fundamentalism is on the rise, also because of his actions)
4.He's authoritarian (see PATRIOT act)
5.He's a warmonger (and he got more US citizens killed in his "war on terror" than US citizens killed in 9/11)

...
I might add the suspects about BOTH the 2000 and 2004 elections, but these are just allegations.

personal animosity has nothing to do with it.
i'd simply prefer to see the human species not arrogantly commit mass suicide.
(which is the logical conclusion of the course he seems to be cheerfully accepting credit for setting)
(people like rumsfield, cheney and rove, probably deserve more credit for making the actual decisions)
(they in turn, riding the uncontrolled and uncontrollable doomsday machine of little green pieces of paper seeking more little green pieces of paper in total oblivion to any real effect on any real person, place or thing, anywhere)
(in the proccess of all this, he HAS signed off on, and voiced and encouraged support for (and even, supposedly directed, at least we know rumsfield did, and, again, supposedly, rumsfield was under bush's command when he did), mass murder and torture on a scale exceeded only by the truely notable villans of human history, such as hitler and pol pot, among others. admittedly he is still a piker in their company, but his public statements would seem to indicate an aspiration to join them)

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

I personally despise Bush, but --just to open a new door in this debate -- how much better could Al Gore or Kerry have done? I'm not sure that everyone who hates Bush could like Gore or Kerry.

Who's Bush?

Define torture.
Definition
torture Show phonetics
noun
1 [U] the act of causing great physical or mental pain in order to persuade someone to do something or to give information, or as an act of cruelty to a person or animal:
Half of the prisoners died after torture and starvation.
He revealed the secret under torture.
Thats whats happening to those in the bay

2 [C or U] INFORMAL a very unpleasant experience:
The rush-hour traffic was sheer torture as usual.

Thats whats happening to those in ''the bay''



Messing around with stem cells is not right.
Pretty sure hes claiming the USA is spending loads on aids research but it works out less than most other well know developed countries

Government regulation is horrible and was made as a vote buyer. It basicly says that we're not smart enough to choose what to buy or have enough of a spine to boycott companys that make bad products.

Pretty sure its taken until recently for MicroSoft to admit there is a problem with the Xbox ..... and everyone has been reporting complaining about 'the ring of death' on it for yonks (and i believe all though they admit its still a problem they havent found a fix for it but are just switching the parts for new ones


cant see an option for 'how on earth did he get voted back in' so voted meh

Okay, I don't hate Bush but I will admit that he's an idiot. But why do so many people proclaim to hate him? Seriously, the president doesn't have that much power, the senate has most of the power. Thoughts anyone?

Oh, I don't hate him. Most of the time, I pity him. And overall, I'm severly concerned and worried about an electorate that would give someone like him so much power. Nothing to do with him, though. He's just an idiot.

Messing around with stem cells is not right.

Saving people's lives is not right? Wow...


Government regulation is horrible and was made as a vote buyer. It basicly says that we're not smart enough to choose what to buy or have enough of a spine to boycott companys that make bad products.

You're clever enough to test every hamburger you buy for possible parasites, contamination or infection? Really? Wow.
I can just see you sitting at McDonalds with your little lab kit...

Who's Bush?

I am Bush

Please don't put words in my mouth. I never insulted the Constitution, I just said Bush has the legal standing to do what he wants with it, to a certain extent. He can't toss it out the window, but during war, and the Iraq War does indeed qualify, things like torture can be greenlighted. It's not good, perhaps, but its within his bounds.

This is a fun slipperly slope arguement. However, since it boils down into anger, I'm just going to steer clear of it. Trust me, it would end with both of us yelling and accomplishing nothing.

However, more interesting, in my opinion, is the Constitutionality of it. Lincoln was able to suspend Habeas Corpus during the Civil War without penalty, so why dose Bush not have the precedent? The Constitution says that these rights can not be infringed upon, much like how I believe you find torture morally reprehensible, but the problem is that Linclon made precedent. Why can't Bush do the same thing? From a legalistic standpoint, I really can't determine why not.
You wrong on the facts.

Both US law and international law prohibit torture even during wartime. Period. Even the War Powers Act does not override the prohibition against torture. The US is doubly bound by such prohibition because it is in both US law and international laws to which the US is bound by treaties.

Even your appeal to precedent fails because Lincoln was wrong to suspend habeus corpus. It was an illegal act. The fact that he was not prosecuted and/or impeached for it did not make it legal. The same goes for Bush. Everything he has done -- torturing prisoners, renditioning, detention without charges, warrantless surveillance within the US, etc. -- are clear violations of the law. The fact that Congress has not impeached him for them and that there is no special prosecutor building a criminal case against him (and Cheney) just means that Congress is also guilty, of dereliction of their duty to the nation. It does not mean that it's okay for Bush to do this shit.

You wrong on the facts.

Both US law and international law prohibit torture even during wartime. Period. Even the War Powers Act does not override the prohibition against torture. The US is doubly bound by such prohibition because it is in both US law and international laws to which the US is bound by treaties.

Even your appeal to precedent fails because Lincoln was wrong to suspend habeus corpus. It was an illegal act. The fact that he was not prosecuted and/or impeached for it did not make it legal. The same goes for Bush. Everything he has done -- torturing prisoners, renditioning, detention without charges, warrantless surveillance within the US, etc. -- are clear violations of the law. The fact that Congress has not impeached him for them and that there is no special prosecutor building a criminal case against him (and Cheney) just means that Congress is also guilty, of dereliction of their duty to the nation. It does not mean that it's okay for Bush to do this shit.

Problem is, impeachment is an unlikely course. Even with Bush's stupidly low approval rating, the chances of having a republican backlash is just to high for the Democrats to do, and the republicans cannot afford to lose their loyal religious right by impeaching him. As such, impeachment is just to unlikely to occur, even though he is very deserving of it. Idiotic, yes, it is, that we can't actually impeach someone who rather obviously has done actions worthy of it, just due to Congressmen/women trying to save their own ass.

I have to say, "It's my opinion" is a horribly poor argument for anything that moves beyond pure subjectivity. (that is, things like the sort of foods your prefer, or your favorite color, etc.) Opinions on morality and on policy should be defendable by logic, reason, and evidence, not just a gut feeling.


What about subtler, but still quite deadly, diseases, that could sneak their way in if the food is not handled properly? What about excessive and unnecessary cruelty in slaughterhouses? Do you really think that the industry will self-regulate on such things, when there is no (profit) incentive? Of course not! You argue that public pressure will force them to self-regulate, but that's ludicrous. Did they self-regulate before such regulations were enacted? Do you think it was just that people back then wanted diseased/unsanitary meat? Really? Do you really think that the industry will self-regulate in the use of humane techniques to kill the animals in the slaughterhouse? Are you honestly that naive?



Anything? So you'd approve, say, getting rid of the police force and fire department?

Anyway, about Bush:
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

well said

also look at this poll:
He's an idiot, but not as bad as most people think. 26 people 34.21%
BUSH IS A NAZI! 32 people 42.11%
Meh. 10 people 13.16%
Bush is our Lord and savior! 1 person 1.32%
He's okay. 7 people 9.21%

42 persent say he is a nazi. i personsally think he has caused alot of

:mp5: and :sniper: and :gundge: and especially the :mad: :headbang: of the American people

Why do people hate Bush?

Because since he took power, Americans have become dangerously unpredictable, acted seriously crazy and invaded two random countries for no reason at all.
I don't care if you guys issue passports to stem-cells, shoot up highschools and pray to the mighty BushChrist, as long as you do it in your own country. Just don't go all Ghengis Khan on the rest of us.

Anyone at all familiar with American politics and the current state of the country, knows without any doubt that it is the democrat party promoting the Nazi ideas and trying to convert America to a communist/socialist country. The responses to this vote indicate several things. The majority of the respondants are either ignorant college children, or Brit's, or both.

If you can't respond with intelligence, don't respond at all. the ignorance demonstrated in this poll result should embarrass all of you who responded to the Nazi option.

Here's a quarter, buy a clue.

Anyone at all familiar with American politics and the current state of the country, knows without any doubt that it is the democrat party promoting the Nazi ideas and trying to convert America to a communist/socialist country. The responses to this vote indicate several things. The majority of the respondants are either ignorant college children, or Brit's, or both.

If you can't respond with intelligence, don't respond at all. the ignorance demonstrated in this poll result should embarrass all of you who responded to the Nazi option.

Here's a quarter, buy a clue.

Socialism isn't communism, and neither communism nor socialism are nazism.

The American democratic party is so right wing that no party in my country comes even close to being as extremely right wing as they are. But then, I'm a dangerous foreigner and live in hippy-socialist-communist-atheist-nazi-pinko land.

If you don't already know perfectly well why we hate him then you are already beyond help.

Why do people hate Bush?

'Cause he is drinking little children their blood!

Anyone at all familiar with American politics and the current state of the country, knows without any doubt that it is the democrat party promoting the Nazi ideas and trying to convert America to a communist/socialist country. The responses to this vote indicate several things. The majority of the respondants are either ignorant college children, or Brit's, or both.

Nazi=National Socialism. Marked largely by an extreme belief in Nationalism, particularly against immigration of any kind, and in a sense, keeping the status quo, to the extreme.

Doesn't sound at all like the Democrap party, moreso the Republishit party(Although, I'm not saying that the Repubs are fascist, just that if you want to go down the road of what is more Nazi, the Repubs fit the bill moreso than the Dems, barely).


If you can't respond with intelligence, don't respond at all. the ignorance demonstrated in this poll result should embarrass all of you who responded to the Nazi option.

Here's a quarter, buy a clue.

The problem is the idiocy of the poll, not those who voted for it. I despise Bush with all my heart. The only option is the Nazi one, as I do not believe he is just some harmless idiot that the other option stated. Thus, I had only one option available, the most extreme, albeit poorly portrayed, one.

Why do people hate Bush?

'Cause he had sexy time with our sisters!

Anyone at all familiar with American politics and the current state of the country, knows without any doubt that it is the democrat party promoting the Nazi ideas and trying to convert America to a communist/socialist country. The responses to this vote indicate several things. The majority of the respondants are either ignorant college children, or Brit's, or both.

If you can't respond with intelligence, don't respond at all. the ignorance demonstrated in this poll result should embarrass all of you who responded to the Nazi option.

Here's a quarter, buy a clue.

Even Indiana Jones couldn't find the point in that post.

Why do people hate Bush?

'Cause he had sexy time with our brothers!

However, more interesting, in my opinion, is the Constitutionality of it. Lincoln was able to suspend Habeas Corpus during the Civil War without penalty, so why dose Bush not have the precedent? The Constitution says that these rights can not be infringed upon, much like how I believe you find torture morally reprehensible, but the problem is that Linclon made precedent. Why can't Bush do the same thing? From a legalistic standpoint, I really can't determine why not.

It wasn't right when Lincoln did it, and it's not right now. The fact that he wasn't stopped doesn't make it legal.

Why do people hate Bush?

'Cause he's eating dogs with his bare hands!

Define torture.

Messing around with stem cells is not right.

Government regulation is horrible and was made as a vote buyer. It basicly says that we're not smart enough to choose what to buy or have enough of a spine to boycott companys that make bad products.

I'd say "simulated drowning" is torture.

There's a difference between adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells. Learn it, live it, love it. Further, the creation of a zygote/embryo (whatever the hll you want to call it) strictly for the purpose of using it to do research is morally wrong in my opinion. The use of stem cells from embrionic sources such as abortion clinics where they would just go to waste anyway is just God damn common sense. Once again, this is just my opinion. The use of stem cells from mutliple test tube conversions in a fertility clinic where the parents have recieved what they wanted and abandoned the search for creation of a life seems to make snese to me as well.

As for bad products, it's hard to boycott a product if it kills you.

Why do people hate Bush?

'Cause he's black, no?

Okay, I don't hate Bush but I will admit that he's an idiot. But why do so many people proclaim to hate him? Seriously, the president doesn't have that much power, the senate has most of the power. Thoughts anyone?
Bush is an embarassment. Every time I see him speak in public, I am humiliated and ashamed. That's why I can't stand him, because he's an epic failure and a stain on the history of my country.

Doesn't help that he's killed thousands of people needlessly, either.

If you can't respond with intelligence, don't respond at all. the ignorance demonstrated in this poll result should embarrass all of you who responded to the Nazi option.

Here's a quarter, buy a clue.

Oh wow. Here, have a fiver - you're gonna need it.

Nobody who selected option 2 literally meant he's a nazi, you nitwit. That is the only option which portrays an actual hate of Bush. If the guy who started this poll had any real sense, the options would've been more like this:

- He's a terrorist, warmongerer, authoritarian, and idiot.
- He's done some really dumb things, but he's not that bad.
- Bush has been a solid president, if nothing else. I can't hate him.
- Bush has been a great president. I support him all the way.

Instead, we get some stupid, emotion-driven poll options. What do you expect? Try to not take everything so literally and see past the 4" span of your hooked damned nose.

The Molly Ivins quote in The Black Forests sig pretty well says it--

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

RIP, Molly.

Okay, I don't hate Bush but I will admit that he's an idiot. But why do so many people proclaim to hate him? Seriously, the president doesn't have that much power, the senate has most of the power. Thoughts anyone?

The Senate is supposed to have most of the power, but the Republican Senate handed pretty much all of that power over to Bush junior. In fact, the entire federal government seems to have developed collective Constitutional amnesia since he came along.

Things like how Mit Romney is saying that he'd have to let his lawyers decide if he can go to war without Congressional approval or not. Or Bush proclaiming that the executive branch makes the law. Or our Attorney General claiming that the the President can violate any Federal law he chooses as long as he pretends that its to protect the country.

He is an evil and stupid person, but there are lots of those in government. What's the biggest problem about him being president is that similarly stupid evil people with a lot of power are now getting everything they ask for out of the government. It's being treated like a giant piggy bank for oil companies, weapons manufacturers, and pharmaceutical companies.

For all of you who have voiced various opinions of Bush, let me say this...

For all who say the War on Terror is worthless...
Let me remind everyone that a majority of Americans supported the goals of the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan. So if anyone has betrayed anyone, the American people have betrayed Bush, not the other way around. And what exactly has Bush done that the annals of history will remember?

Well,
He brought democracy to Afghanistan and ended a brutal tolitarian regime.
He toppled the regime of Saddam Hussien and helped Iraq take steps toward democracy, and for all who says that goal has failed, we have been in Iraq close to 5 years. It took the Founders of the United States 7 years from declaring Independance to actually winning that independance and another 6 years before the Constitution of the United States as we know it today was actually agreed on and implemented after the original failure of the first attempt at government through the Articles of Confederation. Americans had the mistaken belief that democracy in Iraq would happen overnight and when it didn't, many blamed Bush for it, citing failure.

On the home front...
He cut taxes... for everybody not just the rich.
The US economy is still strong even after 9/11.

In foreign relations...
Currently, Bush and French President Nicholas Sarkozy have worked to repair the strained relations between France and the US. Other world leaders are more friendly as well. So the argument "Bush has made the world hate us" is far from the truth.

And in the poll for the 44% that said Bush was a Nazi, if he is a Nazi why has he been one of the world's strongest supporters of Israel?

If Bush is remembered as a terrible president, then all it means is that the liberal media has accomplished its goal, that the Democrat party has accomplished its goal of turning the nation and the world against a man willing to continue to do what he thinks is right and best for America regardless of what the majority says. That is the mark of a great leader, when they don't yield to peer pressure. Sometimes they have to go against the grain to do what is right whereas someone like Hillary Clinton flows with the passions of the time. When the majority of Americans supported the Iraq war, she did as well, and even voted to approve it. When Americans began to become frustrated with the war, she was suddenly against. Sounds familiar. Just like flip-flopper John Kerry. Willing to say anything to stay in that position of power.

For all of you who have voiced various opinions of Bush, let me say this...~snip~

LOLZ

I love Bush.

'Cause I'm paying less taxes now.

I'm sorry for the Iraqi people and the world pollution.

But nothing matters as much as my personal taxes.

I love Bush.

'Cause I'm paying less taxes now.

I'm sorry for the Iraqi people and the world pollution.

But nothing matters as much as my personal taxes.

Aren't you Belgian? How would you be paying any US taxes? Or, how is anything Bush is doing lower taxes in Belgium?

Aren't you Belgian? How would you be paying any US taxes? Or, how is anything Bush is doing lower taxes in Belgium?Edwinasia is frequently inconsistent. So I've learned not to take him/her very seriously since his/her sincerity and versimilitude are questionable.

Bush, like his father, just doesn't "get it." He's so comically out of touch with reality that it's frightening. Watch the documentary No End In Sight, and you will see what I mean with regard to Iraq.

Edwinasia is frequently inconsistent. So I've learned not to take him/her very seriously since his/her sincerity and versimilitude are questionable.

So I've noticed. I think I'll take your tack on the guy. Thanks.

Okay, I don't hate Bush but I will admit that he's an idiot. But why do so many people proclaim to hate him? Seriously, the president doesn't have that much power, the senate has most of the power. Thoughts anyone?

BUSH IS AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HE HAS SAVED THIS WORLD A HUNDRED TIMES OVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I know he's made some bad choices, but I can't imagine why people don't like him. My mom doesn't, but she's never given a really good explanation. And no, the SENATE DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER. Bush has managed to keep the Iraq war going full strenght, has managed to keep most of his vetos vetoed, he's managed to get a good general in leadership of the army. BUSH IS THE POWER! Admitedly he's not nearly as good as Reagan, but only one man in history came to being that great.

I hate him for his failures. Massive and tragic failures.

After 9/11 he had such a big mandate and the whole country and even most of the world were looking up to him and what he does he do? He takes the support and mandate and runs in the exact opposite direction killing a few hundred thousand people on the way.

Hard not to hate the guy. I don't think he is particularly evil in the ranks of Hitler, Stalin etc....but somewhere in the ranks of Churchill etc who just don't give a shit about other countries / people than their own.

You're clever enough to test every hamburger you buy for possible parasites, contamination or infection? Really? Wow.
I can just see you sitting at McDonalds with your little lab kit...
Actually, they have a table just for me!... Being serious, the companies would regulate themselves for fear of the consumer(thus consumer regulation) suing them. For once I am happy to have so many lawyers in the US!

Aren't you Belgian? How would you be paying any US taxes? Or, how is anything Bush is doing lower taxes in Belgium?

I'm Belgian, so?

And do you think the actions of lady Bush aren't interfering my life?

If he's invading Iraq, then I will have cheap fuel the next 20 years.

If he's hunting down terrorists and when he's lucky then it's influencing my Belgian economy and thus my taxes...

Why do you act as the smartest child of the classroom?

First of all, let me just say that I am a social worker. I am currently completing work on my master's degree in social work. My wife is working on her PhD at the number one school in the country for social work (Michigan). We both come from families of educators. We have good reason to dislike Bush. Let me count the ways in which I not only dislike the man, but also the reasons for which I have no respect for him.

1. He misled the entire country by campaigning as a "moderate conservative." As such, he should have had some appeal to liberals post-election. However, he has shown that his policies are far more conservative than one would think of as "moderate."

2. Almost immediately upon taking office, he came up with this wonderful education policy called "No Child Left Behind." This...document...is about 800 pages of "educational asphalt," as it has been called (so called because of its good intentions, which we all know are what the highway to hell is paved with). I could go into excruciating detail about the shortcomings of this policy (I've written a couple of analyses of this policy), but I prefer not to do it here, unless called upon to do so.

3. He has invaded two sovereign nations, one with (semi-) good reason (Afghanistan), and one under false pretenses (Iraq). He is therefore a warmonger, and I have no use for people like that.

4. His handling of the entire Hurricane Katrina fiasco was inept at best, and uncaring, callous, and/or malicious at worst. Granted, it was not entirely his fault, but he appointed the person who was mostly at fault (the head of FEMA). And yes, I know that his appointment was okayed by Congress. The fact that nearly all Republicans were (at that time) expected to fall in line behind him (and dealt with very real consequences for not doing so) also does not escape my notice.

5. The previously-mentioned veto of the Children's Health Bill, which he called "irresponsible" due to its cost. Congress tried to overturn his veto, but was unable to come up with the 3/4 support to do so, mainly because of the Republicans who still adhere to the "support the president regardless of his policies" line of thinking.

6. The nation's budget went from balanced under Clinton to having the largest amount of debt the country has ever seen, even when accounting for inflation. This is primarily because of his war in Iraq (you know, the one that was started under the false pretenses of finding WMDs and an imagined tie between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaida, both of which no evidence has ever been found).

Shall I continue? If anyone wants, I can probably find references to support everything I've said here, too. It would probably take me awhile, though, as research takes time, and that is something that I have in very short supply these days.

Oh, and by the way....someone mentioned Nixon earlier. Nixon was, in fact, a genius (his IQ was estimated to be around 155 or so....George Bush's IQ, by contrast, has been estimated to be around 88, and Clinton's has been estimated to be around 160), and he did do what Johnson was unable (or unwilling) to do....he pulled the US out of Vietnam. I agree that he wasn't the most likeable person to ever hold the office, but he was a good president.

Plus, how can I support a president who, despite having control of a vast arsenal of nuclear weapons, STILL cannot pronounce it correctly. It's noo-clee-ar, NOT noo-kyoo-lar. Argh!

Okay, I don't hate Bush but I will admit that he's an idiot. But why do so many people proclaim to hate him? Seriously, the president doesn't have that much power, the senate has most of the power. Thoughts anyone?

Because he sucks at being President, and he's done a lot of bad things to the reputation and condition of the United States.

If Bush had pursued a career as a stand-up comic and not a politician, I would love the man.

First of all, let me just say that I am a social worker. I am currently completing work on my master's degree in social work. My wife is working on her PhD at the number one school in the country for social work (Michigan). We both come from families of educators. We have good reason to dislike Bush. Let me count the ways in which I not only dislike the man, but also the reasons for which I have no respect for him.

1. He misled the entire country by campaigning as a "moderate conservative." As such, he should have had some appeal to liberals post-election. However, he has shown that his policies are far more conservative than one would think of as "moderate."

2. Almost immediately upon taking office, he came up with this wonderful education policy called "No Child Left Behind." This...document...is about 800 pages of "educational asphalt," as it has been called (so called because of its good intentions, which we all know are what the highway to hell is paved with). I could go into excruciating detail about the shortcomings of this policy (I've written a couple of analyses of this policy), but I prefer not to do it here, unless called upon to do so.

3. He has invaded two sovereign nations, one with (semi-) good reason (Afghanistan), and one under false pretenses (Iraq). He is therefore a warmonger, and I have no use for people like that.

4. His handling of the entire Hurricane Katrina fiasco was inept at best, and uncaring, callous, and/or malicious at worst. Granted, it was not entirely his fault, but he appointed the person who was mostly at fault (the head of FEMA). And yes, I know that his appointment was okayed by Congress. The fact that nearly all Republicans were (at that time) expected to fall in line behind him (and dealt with very real consequences for not doing so) also does not escape my notice.

5. The previously-mentioned veto of the Children's Health Bill, which he called "irresponsible" due to its cost. Congress tried to overturn his veto, but was unable to come up with the 3/4 support to do so, mainly because of the Republicans who still adhere to the "support the president regardless of his policies" line of thinking.

6. The nation's budget went from balanced under Clinton to having the largest amount of debt the country has ever seen, even when accounting for inflation. This is primarily because of his war in Iraq (you know, the one that was started under the false pretenses of finding WMDs and an imagined tie between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaida, both of which no evidence has ever been found).

Shall I continue? If anyone wants, I can probably find references to support everything I've said here, too. It would probably take me awhile, though, as research takes time, and that is something that I have in very short supply these days.

Oh, and by the way....someone mentioned Nixon earlier. Nixon was, in fact, a genius (his IQ was estimated to be around 155 or so....George Bush's IQ, by contrast, has been estimated to be around 88, and Clinton's has been estimated to be around 160), and he did do what Johnson was unable (or unwilling) to do....he pulled the US out of Vietnam. I agree that he wasn't the most likeable person to ever hold the office, but he was a good president.

I'm sorry, I agree with your argument, but I have to say that based on his SAT scores (http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=292960), it's about 129.

Problem is, impeachment is an unlikely course. Even with Bush's stupidly low approval rating, the chances of having a republican backlash is just to high for the Democrats to do, and the republicans cannot afford to lose their loyal religious right by impeaching him. As such, impeachment is just to unlikely to occur, even though he is very deserving of it. Idiotic, yes, it is, that we can't actually impeach someone who rather obviously has done actions worthy of it, just due to Congressmen/women trying to save their own ass.
Both impeachment and prosecution are impossible courses because the Congress have abdicated their powers to the Executive (also in violation of the Constitution), and have made it clear they have no intention of calling for enforcement of the law. I agree with Thomas Jefferson that sometimes, "a little revolution is good for the soul," and I think it is about time for a serious housecleaning.

I have only one issue with the US Constitution -- just one amendment I would like to see added -- and it is a way to declare no confidence in an administration and to force a general election before the 4-year term is up. In other words, a legal way for the people to try to oust an administration that is not doing its job. I've been wanting this since Reagan (which is when I got old enough to vote). I used to think that the 4-year term limit was good enough, but we have seen how much damage a bad administration can do in just 4 years.

Why do people hate Bush?

'Cause Bush is having sexy time with dogs

Both impeachment and prosecution are impossible courses because the Congress have abdicated their powers to the Executive (also in violation of the Constitution), and have made it clear they have no intention of calling for enforcement of the law. I agree with Thomas Jefferson that sometimes, "a little revolution is good for the soul," and I think it is about time for a serious housecleaning.

I have only one issue with the US Constitution -- just one amendment I would like to see added -- and it is a way to declare no confidence in an administration and to force a general election before the 4-year term is up. In other words, a legal way for the people to try to oust an administration that is not doing its job. I've been wanting this since Reagan (which is when I got old enough to vote). I used to think that the 4-year term limit was good enough, but we have seen how much damage a bad administration can do in just 4 years.
I do agree that that's a very good idea. I would personally like to see two routes possible for it, too: a congressional vote of no confidence and one based on popular vote. (Or maybe one route that incorporates the two.) The problem with only having a congressional route is the same one that we currently have with impeachment: that it can horribly backfire on those going for impeachment, meaning that politicians will be unwilling to risk it.

It'd certainly make the president a whole lot more accountable than he currently is.

I do agree that that's a very good idea. I would personally like to see two routes possible for it, too: a congressional vote of no confidence and one based on popular vote. (Or maybe one route that incorporates the two.) The problem with only having a congressional route is the same one that we currently have with impeachment: that it can horribly backfire on those going for impeachment, meaning that politicians will be unwilling to risk it.

It'd certainly make the president a whole lot more accountable than he currently is.
I would favor the 2-in-1 approach -- a congressional vote of no-confidence could be the trigger that would start the special general election process. This would make not only the president but also the Congress more directly accountable to the people. This is because voters can more easily "get at" their Congresspeople, who are more intimately connected to their home constituencies.

Voters will be able to apply serious pressure to Congress to seek a no-confidence vote, or not to seek one in the event special interests try to sneak one through. If fear of voter backlash and the punishment of losing their cushy jobs is what makes Congresscritters afraid to seem too radical, let's see if the same threat can be used against them for not seeming radical enough.

Also, I would suggest that a successful vote of no-confidence should lead to a request for a special election being put as a referendum on the next upcoming election day ticket. This would let the people decide with their votes whether to actually hold a special general election to replace the current admin. After that, a procedure and time frame for the special election would begin.

This would give the threatened presidential administration more than enough time to mend its ways and save itself, if it can.

Well, He brought democracy to Afghanistan and ended a brutal totalitarian regime. He toppled the regime of Saddam Hussien and helped Iraq take steps toward democracy, and for all who says that goal has failed, we have been in Iraq close to 5 years. It took the Founders of the United States 7 years from declaring Independance to actually winning that independance and another 6 years before the Constitution of the United States as we know it today was actually agreed on and implemented after the original failure of the first attempt at government through the Articles of Confederation. Americans had the mistaken belief that democracy in Iraq would happen overnight and when it didn't, many blamed Bush for it, citing failure.

What has been done in Iraq is take a stable (if not very nice) government and replace it with anarchy


In foreign relations...
Currently, Bush and French President Nicholas Sarkozy have worked to repair the strained relations between France and the US. Other world leaders are more friendly as well. So the argument "Bush has made the world hate us" is far from the truth.

A large part of the problems with France were created by Bush and his belief that the only purpose of the U.N. is to further the goals of the U.S.A.

And in the poll for the 44% that said Bush was a Nazi, if he is a Nazi why has he been one of the world's strongest supporters of Israel?

Hopefully most of the people who responded that way realize that the Nazi part was just some sensationalism (At least I hope it was)

If Bush is remembered as a terrible president, then all it means is that the liberal media has accomplished its goal, that the Democrat party has accomplished its goal of turning the nation and the world against a man willing to continue to do what he thinks is right and best for America regardless of what the majority says. That is the mark of a great leader, when they don't yield to peer pressure.

So the mark of a great leader in a republic where the elected officials are supposed to be the servants of the people is someone who doesn't care what the will of the people is?

1.Anything that shrinks the government is fine with me.

Global thermonuclear war would REALLY shrink the government (what with most of it - and everyone else - being dead). Are you really sure that ANYTHING that shrinks the government would be fine with you?

I hate him because he is stupid.

I believe stupidity is a disease, and stupid people are subhumans.

This is a fun slipperly slope arguement.

Do you even know what a slippery slope argument IS? The poster didn't say "If we allow torture now we'll allow child sacrifice next!" or anything that would constitute a slippery slope argument. They simply stated that torture is never justified. In absence of the posters own input I assume their arguments are much the same as mine, the primary ones being that it is a violation of international law, the US Constitution, and human rights and because it doesn't produce reliable information

<SNIP> The same goes for Bush. Everything he has done -- torturing prisoners, renditioning, detention without charges, warrantless surveillance within the US, etc. -- are clear violations of the law. The fact that Congress has not impeached him for them and that there is no special prosecutor building a criminal case against him (and Cheney) just means that Congress is also guilty, of dereliction of their duty to the nation.

Yeah, it's gotten to the point that next election my rule of thumb is going to be "vote against the incumbent".

A better question,

Why do people love Bush?

A better question,

Why do people love Bush?

The same reason people love Larry the Cable Guy.

The problem is the idiocy of the poll, not those who voted for it. I despise Bush with all my heart. The only option is the Nazi one, as I do not believe he is just some harmless idiot that the other option stated. Thus, I had only one option available, the most extreme, albeit poorly portrayed, one.

This is prevented by not voting in horribly biased polls.

Bush is like a lovable retard in 80's after school special. That’s why people love him, he has no problem playing the fool.

His atrocious actions as President are ignored because he wags his oddly shaped head, grins his dumb redneck grin and ads an 'ism to a word that doesn’t exist. Meanwhile his administration takes civil liberties away, one by one. When all is said and done there'll be a few of those liberties that we will not get back, and I don’t think most of America, be it the general public or the Congress, realizes the implications.


:sniper:

Yeah, it's gotten to the point that next election my rule of thumb is going to be "vote against the incumbent".
It's time for all those votes that the Congresscritters keep explaining and apologizing for ("Oh, when I voted to authorize Bush to declare war, I never thought he'd actually do it!") come home to roost. Every candidate on the ballot in my district is going to have his or her voting record examined very carefully before I cast my vote.

If Bush is remembered as a terrible president, then all it means is that the liberal media has accomplished its goal, that the Democrat party has accomplished its goal of turning the nation and the world against a man willing to continue to do what he thinks is right and best for America regardless of what the majority says. That is the mark of a great leader, when they don't yield to peer pressure.

That to me does not sound like democracy at all...

well heres the thing, i dont know about the American populace but overseas ect people are more angry at Americans as a whole then Bush himself, we are angry at the people for the same reasons you are angry at Bush, now make no mistake im not fond of bush but heck elect someone like Hiliary Clinton and wellyoull be looking back on this era saying "god it was better back then"

Medical resrearch: messing with stem cells is wrong O.K? its a human being and well if you are all so high up about freedom of choice where is that babys choice huh? dosent the baby get a say in all of this?? Now i can understand the point linked with abortion and everything but frankly i think that should be illegal to, its downright murder.

Wars in the Middleast: well frankly this is what ticks off most people i know.
When America said it was going to war people cheered all around the world including most of America. Now because things have gotten rough you guys want out. i know its hard to loose someone trust me i know, but think about it. Those people who gave thier live will all go to waste if you guys pull out now. They will have died for nothing. If America stays and finishes the job they will finally be some stabability with the reagion, leave and things will be worse then when you guys came in, that and Anti-American terrorist factions will be on your doorstep.

Well sure Bush has made some mistakes but frankly who hasnt? keep that in mind before you reply.

Okay, I don't hate Bush but I will admit that he's an idiot. But why do so many people proclaim to hate him? Seriously, the president doesn't have that much power, the senate has most of the power. Thoughts anyone?

Because he's a frontman, not a leader. Ronald Reagan, for all of his faults, was at least a good leader in the aspect that people believed in his version of America, even when they weren't benefiting from that vision.

Lied about Iraq. Say what you want about it, I'll just say it outright, he was lying. You can only claim ignorance so much, but when everything is pointing in the other direction, I'll just call a spade a spade and call it bullcrap.

He's not a stand-up guy, and has rarely if ever said "hey, that's my fault" after his numerous screw ups. This is also systematic.

Depends on propaganda instead of positive results.

He's not a stand-up guy

I agree with the rest, but not this.
Bush is an absolute comedian. No lie.

Messing around with stem cells is not right.
"Messing around"?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUwnMX8ht3U

I know this video has some political/economic inaccuracies, but I'm referring to the points it makes about embryonic stem cell research in general.

"Messing around"?


Hey man, I've gotten pretty freaky with some stem cells in my day.
Down and funky even.

Because he's a frontman, not a leader. Ronald Reagan, for all of his faults, was at least a good leader in the aspect that people believed in his version of America, even when they weren't benefiting from that vision.

Lied about Iraq. Say what you want about it, I'll just say it outright, he was lying. You can only claim ignorance so much, but when everything is pointing in the other direction, I'll just call a spade a spade and call it bullcrap.

He's not a stand-up guy, and has rarely if ever said "hey, that's my fault" after his numerous screw ups. This is also systematic.

Depends on propaganda instead of positive results.
Very minor issue with that first paragraph: Not all of us bought into Reagan's Hollywood crap.

But as to the rest: Right on.

Why do people hate Bush?

'Cause Bush is having sexy time with dogs

...after that my anus hang loose like mouth of tired dog.
<.<
>.>

Admitedly he's not nearly as good as Reagan, but only one man in history came to being that great.

Jesus?
Or Nixon?

If Bush had pursued a career as a stand-up comic and not a politician, I would love the man.

He's ripping off Jerry Lewis.

I am Bush

The nerds got you .... twice.

He's ripping off Jerry Lewis.

OY! Hey, CHENEY!!!

c) Alright, why don't we deregulate the meat industry, and let companies sell us meat with mad cow. And then, years later, when our brains resemble a block of cheese, we can boycott those companies.




wait a minute, then we could SUE the meat companies for millions of dollars! good looking out, Bush!

OY! Hey, CHENEY!!!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-kelly/george-bush-and-jerry-lew_b_45185.html
Speaking of theatre, President Bush's special guest at Fort Irwin was California congressman Jerry Lewis. While not a veteran himself, Lewis is the ranking Republican on the House Appropriations Committee. And, more poignantly, he's the man federal prosecutor Carol Lam announced she wanted a search warrant for, the day before she was fired.

(For some totally non-political reason, but it's unclear what. I think she may have photocopied her ass or something.)

Lam had already convicted Randy "Duke" Cunningham. Her new investigation might have tied Lewis to the lobbying firms and contributors he and Cunningham shared, and three decades of pork and kickbacks from defense contractors, including one case that may or may not have involved a software contract for a Lewis crony to digitize the original plans of the Panama Canal. And, you know, the rent-free yacht and the Rolls and the prostitutes and all that.

Money they would have otherwise just wasted on Walter Reed.

But I guess we'll never know.

So we have to give the president the benefit of a doubt, when he lets Lewis review the troops. He's arguably not using the soldiers for a cheap photo opportunity, or a Kremlin style demonstration of political support for a (suspected) thief and war profiteer who (allegedly) should be in jail.

Because that would be evil. :p
http://www.internetweekly.org/iwr/parody_france_jerry_lewis.html
http://www.internetweekly.org/images/dubya.jpg
http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/clown.jpg
...scary where some things go here on NS.

why isnt idiot nazi a choice?

why isnt idiot nazi a choice?

I suspect the "debate"-able aspects would have been resolved at that point.

That to me does not sound like democracy at all...That's because you're misunderestimating what democracy is.

The private sector of the US funds two parties, owns the media, and convinces everyone that these two parties are the only viable ones.

This leads to the very democratic idea that both parties has to cater to the entire political spectrum, and the public has to understand that because the parties have to do this, the parties can't actually act in accord with their voters, so the most "fair" policy is whatever their sponsors want.

This, of course, is what you mistake for democracy. It isn't. It's called corporate fascism. The US democracy is the completely free elections that occur every so often. These elections are about how the corporate fascism is presented to the world. Like a beauty pageant, just for old rich murderers instead of pretty stupid women.

My detestation of Bush comes from three things, all of wich I feel are legitimate reasons.

1. Gross mishandling of Iraq, and complete failure of effective foreign policy, despite having been warned of the "quagmire" situation.

2. Actions allowed that are in direct violation of the Constitution.
Allowing torture, illegal wiretapping, and not providing detainees due process of law.

3. Gross spending, wich further depreciates the economy, and decreasing the value of the dollar.

There are many others, but these are the most important ones.

I dont see these as a "Right/Left" issue.
BOTH sides should be howling for his head, and as an American, political alliances aside, I think Bush is the worst President we have probably ever had.
I dont think any other president has done more to ignore, or circumvent the CONSTITUTION, the very document we use as a foundation for HOW WE LIVE AS AMERICANS! What we base our entire government on!

It goes far worse than merely being "a failed administration" or a uneffective President, this goes against everything we as AMERICANS should stand for.YES I TOTALLY AGREE WITH EVERYTHING YOU SAID ^_^
More power to you man and Bush just makes me mad every moment I see him on the T.V. giving a lame speach and think he is bettering the world when all he is doing is making it just worse. I think he should be alot more concerned about the other three world countries then IRAQ and he should totally stop spending money for a war that is completely wasted at this point. He should focus on the more important things and not just on one. I'm all for making the environment a better place to live in. *__&

That's because you're misunderestimating what democracy is.

The private sector of the US funds two parties, owns the media, and convinces everyone that these two parties are the only viable ones.

This leads to the very democratic idea that both parties has to cater to the entire political spectrum, and the public has to understand that because the parties have to do this, the parties can't actually act in accord with their voters, so the most "fair" policy is whatever their sponsors want.

This, of course, is what you mistake for democracy. It isn't. It's called corporate fascism. The US democracy is the completely free elections that occur every so often. These elections are about how the corporate fascism is presented to the world. Like a beauty pageant, just for old rich murderers instead of pretty stupid women.
Well done. :) :)

if the guy had any balls or brains or accept responsbility then he would
be more acceptable. hate is too strong a word. i don't hate the schmuck,
but rather what he represents. born in maine, prep school bred, grandfathered into ivy league schools by the mighty bush-trust, bailed out by his father for major fiasco (AND BRO neil bush of the savings & loans debacle that nearly brought the country to its knees but daddy bush was president so he bailed his lil weasle son out of that one), yeah bush jr. is a eunuch.
he can't walk the talk, and has the social skills of a frat or is that a fart boy.
anyhoo, we were stuck with this two term moron, are now trillions in debt, have destroyed one country but whether iraq is truly a nation-state is rather titillating and cause for hope for that region provided we pull out and leave them to their own resources! Poor lil whiney Bush will go down in history as the worst president ever: misguided, ill-conceived, retarded, short-sighted, uninformed, a pushover, pathetic, weak minded, where every medical checkup including his polyps are pronounced benign, kind of like his mind - nothing going on upstairs.:eek: