who likes G.Bush any way?

Post Reply New Topic

I wished that an afterlife existed (I don't think so since I'm atheist) and more specifically HELL because I'd be able to revel in the thought that that evil S.O.B. is headed straight there, don't pass Go, don't collect $200.

the job of president is never easy. things are magnified and looked at under the microscope of the media and public opnion that can change focus on a mere whim.

Want to know the BIGGEST difference between him and other presidents?

The media is reporting more of the "bad" stuff than the good. AND we have the technology to do things now that we never before had.

ALL presidents are involved in things that with the right (or wrong) light on them is defined as a scandal, or worse.

Look at the things other presidents did to suspend rights. People of their time whined about that too.

news travels faster world wide now, and people can be "watched" more easily and tracked at the mere push of a button.

George W. Bush is not the worst president we have had. Granted, not the best either. We compare presidents when each presidency, especally those that are defined by some crisis or major scandal, is different and often the man in office is defined by the events of his time more so than anyone else in the nation. We can huff and puff and say who whould have "done better" or whatever. But the fact remains that hindsight is 20/20 and the "what ifs" and "could have dones" are a waste. We cant know because it ddint happen. Want to speculate on that, write a Alt. History book. Harry Turtledove and S.M Stirling have made plenty doing just that: exploring those what ifs. Great for entertainment, but not a valid foundation for a argument over real policies.

Are we really safer in this "war on terror"? no, they could still strike at any moment, but the major offfensives we are able to uncover somewhat better now.
Are there things we could do better in the "war on terror"? you bet, but they would suspend even more rights.
The "war on terror" isnt JUST being "fought" by the soldiers, marines, airmen, sailors and coasties of our armed forces. It is also being fought by the men and women that hit the time clock day after day as police officers, firefighers, EMT's, border patrol agents, and more. These people are your neighbors, friends, family, and maybe even you. They are out there where the "next attack" could happen. And if it is one of your loved ones that are killed or maimed by the "next attack" are you going to think we are doing enough? No, you are mostlikely going to ask why we didnt do more, why we didnt gather more intel, why didnt we train those first responders more....etc.
I will say this: this current administration has done more for training and equippting our first responders than any other in history. It is because of 9-11.
How does that affect you?
The training isnt limited to just bombs and the like. Its on firefighting, policeing, incident command, HAZ-Mat, and all those things that are needed when there is another attack. But that stuff, and training is also used EVERY DAY. Every single day. Because most of that training is also what we use to deal with the emergencies that happen more common place. Like that 18-wheeler full of some noxious gas flipped over on I-26, or that huge house fire with those people trapped on the second floor, or the people breaking into houses, or like in Graiteville, SC when a train killed 9 people and injured more in that small mill town when a tank carrying clorine gas (used in manufacturing) derailed and ruptured.
So you might not be "safer" from terrorists. but the people that are out there to help you not just in an attack, but with everyday calamities, are trained and more efficent.
you should commend the administration for that even if you despise all else. YOU ARE safer, to some degree, because of the policies that ripple-effected the services we need.

I hate Bush. I hope he dies soon. Cheney will probably die before him though.

Cheney's running the country anyways.

I don't like any politicians. The way politics is, all politicians must "sell their souls". It's all based around money and business.

I hate Republicans. I hate Democrats. I just tend to hate Democrats a little less. They seem to do less damage while in office. That's my goal: vote in the candidates who will do the least amount of damage.

Yeah, selling your soul is part of the job as politician. Politicians must cater to the interests of powerful groups because those are the people that put them in power. This is simply the nature of office too. In order to get power you must appease power, if this doesn't happen then power may get unhappy and hurt you or your cause.

First, I'd like to say F*** THE TWO PARTY SYSTEM.

There's more than two idealogues.

With that out of the way, time to get down to business.


Bush (and by Bush, I often include the Bush administration) had done a rather not good job of managing the country.

First of all, the economy. I don't care about the analysists views on how "good" our economy is going. I don't care about macroeconimics, I care about what the common person is seeing out of it. Tell me, are any of us actually seeing any of it? My family is in the red financially. My step-dad works in as a welder for a big company, and pulls barely enough to support us. Let's see. The company's response to complaints about pay is "Work somewhere else". Mhmm. If the workers were to unionize, the company would just pack up and leave. Yah. And those nice tax cuts are only going to the richest people in the country. Tell me, how has any Bush economic policy helped? Lower prices on goods? In the past couple of months, I have seen gas and milk prices rise (of course, it could just be a distributor problem for milk). Heck, at Mc.Donald's the price of nuggets has actaully risen. And gas...oh boy. If the government would pour even half as much money into R&D for alternative fuel as it is for the war... I can't even begin to imagine the tech breakthroughs we'd have. We are being forced to rely on foreign oil and foreign companies that have the ultimate control over prices. OPEC nations wanna slow production? Cha-ching for them!

Next, the war on terror. At first, I supported Bush's venture into Afghanistan. Taking out Osama and the Taliban, good idea! But, what went wrong? Oh yeah, we took a U-Turn and plowed into Iraq (more on that later). Why aren't we utilizing more of our military to find Osama? Osama was the capital threat, not Hussein. As for comestic security. I don't like knowing that the government can find out whatever porn I've been surfing for on the internet (exaggeration, I know). I for one do not like the idea of trading my privacy for safety. But, that topic has been more than exhausted. How about the color system? That has got to be the most innefeciant tool for fighting terror I have ever seen. Tell me, if the alert were red, how EXACTLY would you prepare for anything? I just think Bush approved it just because it was "purty". The bottom line is, all of the anti-terror intel gathering methods are inneffective because terrorism is based on unpredictability, and I'd think terrorist groups are going to take a lot of care in making sure it stays that way. The best way to deal with terrorism is to prepare FOR and after the event, rather than just focusing on preventing it (like the passengers on 9-11 that fought against the terrorists).

Next up, Iraq. I don't care about the whole "lies vs. ignorance" debate, one fact still remains. The war was waged on bad intel. Period. In fact, critical thinking can help take down two of the biggest arguments for, Osama ties and WMDs. Simply put, if Saddam worked with Osama, wouldn't it have been somewhat noticable? Just think. You're a dictator POed at the U.S. If someone (for fun, I'm gonna call him Billsama) offered to help you take them down, wouldn't you accept their help?. Yes. Now, Billsama has a plan, he's going to have some poeple smash planes into buildings. Now, you have stockipled many weapons capable of killing a lot of people. If you are working with Billsama, wouldn't you use them in conjunction with the plane attack (Examples of which would be housing a weapon of some sort on the plane, or (even better) launching a long-distance strike timed with the attack?). Yes, you most likely would. Now, lets take Billsama out of the picture, he's working on his own. You still hate America. You caught wind of Billsama's plan, and you have a crap load of weapons. Will you:

A) Launch a strike while the country is confused/feaking out/reeling and hasn't regrouped
or
B) Wait for about a month. When the country would be on high-alert, and waiting for something else to happen.

I think the choice is pretty obvious.

Now on a few other things about the war. Liberation? I don't buy it. The main reason used to going to war was that Iraq was a threat. Iraq had nukes (and, right now, I still find it strange that we haven't even so much as warned Iran or N.Korea to "disarm or face our wrath", even though they are doing what we accused Iraq of doing), and was linked to Al Queada. Liberation came into the picture as cristism was mounting against the administration abuot the war, and who wouldn't like to liberate people? I think the whole point of adding liberation to the picture (and also, the whole "If you're not with us you're against us" thing) was added in to try to manipulate people's emotions towards the war (not agreeing with a war of liberation would seem barbaric, and "If you're not...against us" speaks for itself). I don't like being toyed with, and I don't like being told what to think.

I'll end this right now, seeing as how it's 3 am and I'm sleepy. I'll probably add more later.

I jest loves Georgie Bush! I jest loves him to death!

Seriously: I agree with Alex. Bush has used 9/11 to create a police state in America, where he and his Cabinet can run amuck and entertain their delusions of creating another Roman Empire without being responsive or responsible to the citizens of America. Accountability, to them, is a foreign word in a language they don't speak. Meanwhile, they've created a climate of terror that has millions of Americans walking around in a state of perpetual low-grade anxiety for which they are being sold Prozac, Luvox, etc. when all they really need is to kick the bastards out and apologize to the world for our lies, delusions and deceptions.
In short: Yes, there are terrorists. In many cases, our government created them. Uncle Sam sold weapons to Saddam to use against Iran. Uncle Sam sold weapons to Osama and looked the other way when he could have been caught. And if the objective truly was to "get" Saddam, how come we didn't do that in 1991? We kicked the Iraqi Army's butt in 3 days and yet we couldn't get Saddam?
To paraphrase the words of the immortal Zippy the Pinhead, I wish Bush and his entire Cabinet would throw pies at themselves and run away.

For more on this subject:

http://www.crispinsartwell.com
http://www.crispinsartwell.com/drewhome.htm

Deleted since the mods won't lock the "RAGE" thread

...and now he calls for Americans to rely less on foreign oil and accuses us of being addicted to oil. So says the man who has family ties to an oil company and a vice president who has ties to an oil company. His SotU (State of the Union) Address is going to be another BS-ridden grammatical catastrophe as was his other ones. Fire up the TiVo kiddes.

I'm not a big advocate of Bush. In 2000, I voted Constitution Party.

In 2004, I voted for Bush because 1) I thought he was handling the war on terror correctly, and 2) I thought he'd do less damage than John Kerry, who's primary policy seemed to be to say or do whatever would make the most people happy and cause the least amount of disturbance. Kerry leading the War on Terror would have been catastrophic for the US troops.

Perhaps the reason I continue to support Bush is because the far left that opposes him fills me with rage and disgust. People call for Bush's head on a pike, but they're unable to debate - they can call him a chimp, complain that he's inarticulate, chant no blood for oil or whatever, but they sure can't say what they'd do if they were in his place... or when they manage to, it's so obviously wrong and stupid that I don't even need to debate it.

That being said, when I voted for Bush in 2004, I was a supporter for him, and now I am not. I think the war in Iraq has preempted the War on Terror, and that even if the War in Iraq was justified, it has been bungled horribly. Our problem is fairly simple - if we don't crack down, we embolden the Terrorists, but if we do, we create more terrorists out of the people who's family members, whether terrorists themselves, terrorist sympathizers or simple civilians, were killed. The bungling of the Hurricane Katrina ordeal cut majorly into my support for him, and I honestly think Kerry would have handled that crisis better than Bush, if only because he would have been terrified of the negative PR if he didn't leap right on it.

Yet, there's another reason I will never vote Democrat.

Democrats are at war with morality, and with white men.

Democrats are the ones pushing the mentality that minorities have the right to be racist against whites and women prejudiced against men, but not vice versa.

Democrats are the ones that equate morality with Christianity, and then stereotype it as the "Religious Right" to turn average people against it. They're the ones that cast the hip hop lifestyle of flunkies, bling and drugs as an ideal to live up to. They're the ones that say that gayness should be celebrated. They're the ones that push the "physical attractiveness = personal worth" image in Hollywood, and the ones that push the "sexual promiscuity = cool" agenda on television.

Democrats stand for keeping people poor and ignorant to keep them from thinking for themselves, because people who are poor and ignorant and then get smart and stop being poor, wonder why that was, and inevitably realize it was because the Democrats were encouraging them not to work or get an education by giving them handouts, and become Republicans.

Oh yeah, and if they quit being ignorant, they'll realize that everything bad in their lives isn't the fault of the Religious Right.

Wake up, people... THERE IS NO RELIGIOUS RIGHT. The "religious right" consists of a few mouthpieces like Falwell and Robertson that no one respects or listens to, and a handful of fundamentalists given a disproportionate amount of press time because the liberal media loves to demonize the conservative elements in the US, and painting them all as fanatics is an effective way to do so.

So I'm not so much a Republican as I am an anti-Democrat. And all people should be anti-Democrat.

George cares about you.