who likes G.Bush any way?

Post Reply New Topic

im just curious

He does a job I do not want. He does it the best that He can in the end for what He sees. I have seen much in this little world that We all Live in. He has done nothing against this world. That has not been anything to worry about in the end at all.

He has done His job as President of the United States of America in the end.

I will not rest until I have his head and the heads of his corporate buddies on the end of a pole on my desk!!

RobertN he will not go that easy I am sorry to say for anybody not even You RobertN. We have a different system than the British System. You are wrong in this matter. You can hate Him but that will not bring any change in America. It has to come from America RobertN. You are going the wrong way. Understanding that could give You the Understanding that You don't have in the end for sure. You don't have to like or even love Him but he is around for the term that He has been voted in to do His term set down by the Constitution of the United States of America. You will never have His head or any head of corporate America or of the World. This World that We live in is not going to change unless You have the Power to change it in the end. Do You really have the ability to change it. Then would You really change it for the better then for Us all. For that is truly Living in this World We all need to try to Live in end the end do We not. The World is a hard place to live in but it is the world. We must yet learn to live in it the best way that is there. That is for all of us is not. That is the World as it is today. If We want to change it so be it. Then Let Us change it then today for tomorrow in the end.

Being President is a heck of a difficult job for anyone. At the time of their presidency, most of the loved Presidents today (Lincoln comes first to mind) were disliked by the majority of America, yet a President like Lincoln still did a good job, looking back in retrospect.

Even if Bush doesn't seem to know what he's doing right now (and that's highly controversial), we can't really judge him too much on that. Would Kerry have handed terrorism and Iraq better than Bush? We don't know because it simply didn't happen that way. Sometimes, the well-qualified Presidents end up doing a poor job of being President, like John Adams. He was a bright man, had good experience in colonial and revolutionary politics, but he just wasn't the right kind of person to be President.

RobertN, I know you really don't like GW Bush, but remember that you also don't live in America. He has been President through a difficult time for America, which makes his job a heck of a lot more difficult than it would be during a nice time of peace and prosperity. Others may have fared better in his place, but no one knows that for certain. Bush was elected, so he became President. And he hasn't done anything bad enough to get impeached, so Congress can't even really try to get him kicked out.

Somehow I suspect that the "I'm a redneck and all I want is a gun" option was indended for me. Guns are at the top of my list of political priorities because America's founding fathers witnessed how our liberty was won with a gun and that we cannot maintain freedom without them. However, guns don't make a country. Just look at how primitive the middle east is. However, the Republicans a better at running a government than the Democrats except when it comes to labor and economics, but I rate those second last only to the environment. A nice environment is a great thing, but it's no use if you don't have time, money, and means to go enjoy it. Despite their shortcomings with economics, the Republicans still do a better job with economics than the Democrats can with the rest of the government, I am completely sold on the Republican party at least until another even more right wing party becomes a major player.

As for Bush himself, he's okay. I'm not happy about the Patriot Act, the google espionage thing, how the rebuilding of Iraq has gone, how fiendly he is with Mexico and how he hasn't done anything about illegal aliens, and how he plays along with those G8 and other ret*d summits (liberals hate them because they say they help rich nations work together to hoard wealth, I don't like them because they send the best paying blue-collar American jobs overseas).

He's done a good job funding the military and space program and held the world court and kyoto treaty at bay, he did a good job in Afghanistan and the invasion of Iraq, he scared Ghadafi into disarming, decimated terrorists in the Philipines and the Republic of Georgia, got a ban on partial birth and third trimester abortions (with a couple exceptions), got rid of that useless and ineffective federal assault weapon ban, and though nobody is likely to remember this anymore, he did a skillful job of getting that crashed electronic surveylance plane's crew back out of China without an appology and admission of wrongdoing despite their pressure and that ret*d Finstein's attempt to unilaterally appologize on behalf of the nation and pressure to do so.

All you have to do is charge past those secret service agents.

I love George Bush. He's such a cute, little man.

I did not vote for George W. Bush in 2000 because I thought that he lacked the intelligence to do the job. However, my feelings about Bush have changed since 9/11. I think he has done the best possible job that he could in the war on terror--I don't think Gore or Kerry would have done a better job on the war on terror than Bush. I am concerned about the U.S. federal budget deficits and that President Bush has not done more to try to hold down U.S. federal spending. However, since 9/11 I feel comfortable with George W. Bush as U.S. President. I realize and understand that George W. Bush is not popular outside the United States (except in Israel), just as Ronald Reagan was not popular outside U.S. borders. It all boils down to profound cultural differences between the United States and Europe (and even Canada, Australia, and New Zealand for that matter).

This, I would love to see you try. Watching another idiot get caught along the white house being dragged off by police is pretty funny.

The war on terror is a joke (actually its really a clever way for Bush to trick the majority of the american public into thinking he's actually doing something about "terror" which is also a joke.

We aren't any more safer than we were when 9/11 happened. The only difference is that people now have to wait longer to get on the airplane. I seem to remember that the terrorists were legally in the country (they didn't sneak in) and they didn't even have any prohibited items on the plane with them (they used plastic box cutters).



You mean you think they wouldn't invade a country based on a lie propagated by their administration? I'd like to think they wouldn't, but democrats aren't the only evil politicians. However, I don't think they'd fail so miserably.

I have a particular interest in the social sciences, so i take politics quite seriously. I am hard to categorize poilitically, because I really dont fit so easily into rigid notions of conseravitism/liberalism or left/right. So, regardless of who is in the presidency, I would always have some gripe about him or her. The question for me is, who is the best person at a particular point in time to lead the U.S., or, if we cant get the best person, who at least will create the least amount of damage.

I do think that Bush is the best choice among recent candidates to lead the U.S. at this point in time. I dont agree with everything Bush does, but that would be the case with any president. At present, the Democratic Party does not appear to be offering anybody, in the way of leaders, that I beleive would do the job better. John Kerry, Bush's opponent in the last election, seemed indecisive and feckless, giving me the impression that he would have been a weak leader. Bush, at the very least, has been decisive in seeking out terrorists and taking action to remove terrosit threats. I think his invasion of Taliban-led Afghanistan, which was harboring Al Qaida, was correct.

The war in Iraq, on the other hand, was difficult for me. I actually did not support the invasion. I felt that there was not sufficiently strong evidence that Iraq was affiliated with Al Qaida (the terrorist organization that attacked the U.S. on 9-11), nor that its government was sucessfully producing weapons of mass destruction, nor that its government was a danger to the US in any other way. I think Bush made an error in jumping so quickly into the war.

However, that having been said, I also beleive that to say that Bush made a mistake in jumping into the war on flimsy evidence is not the same thing as saying that Bush outrightly intentionally misled the public . . . it only means that he was gravely mistaken about the reliability of the available evidence, and was too much in a hurry to give greater consideration to the possibility that this evidence might be faulty. Thats a major fault of Bush, and I agree with criticism that says Bush misjudged his evidence. And yes, he did push the case for war too insistently on this bad evidence. Thats another fault of Bush. But "lied" is a bit too strong a word when so many others, even leaders who opposed the war, were similarly taken in by the same evidence.

Furthermore, as much as i opposed the invasion of Iraq, the fact is that we're there now. Bush at least is doing the practical thing (not perfectly, I will admit) of moving Iraq toward elections and a government. The Democrats and other opponents of Bush dont appear to have any bright ideas for how deal with Iraq other than to just say "get out now," or to just attack anything the Bush administration does.

Lastly, I dont think Bush is nearly as "right wing" as some of his opponents say he is. If he were, I would be against him myself because, while Im certainly no doctrinaire liberal either, I'm definitely not on the far right. His policies on domestic issues have actually been more in the center. The problem with the Democrats at this moment is that they lack an agenda other than to criticize Bush and to cling to a doctinaire and rigid set of beleifs that have no originality to them, and which dont appeal to a majority of mainstream Americans. I've voted Democrat before, but theres nothing very appealing in their agenda at present.

I was one who was always willing to guve bush the benifit of the doubt. But since the katrina mess, i've lost my faith in his ability to do the right things when need be.

I hate George W. Bush, but I am mostly frustrated by the so-called 'Religious Right' for supporting him. Bush and his cronies have distracted conservative Christians with issues like gay marriage, abortion, and prayer in school, so they don't even notice the poor jobs his administration has done with the economy, foreign policy, etc.

I've elaborated more about this on other threads, and frankly, reciting about it over and over again is exhausting.

He seems a bit too far to the right and cozy with the religous nuts in our contry I too figured to have a wait and see attitude but he's not doing to good. still I'd rather go to his ranch for a bbq than some stuffy party with Kerry. One thing when he has speachs he has these pauses and I'm not sure if he's done or not I think he would be confusing to talk to. Really didnt expect him to win the second time about. Don't really think his war on terror is going well enough to justify the cost both life and money. But you just cant stop in the middle pull out and leave those places to fend for themselves till they can handle it themselves since we destroyed them to begin with.

I hope that works out for you.