I hate Bush!! !! !

Post Reply New Topic

Bush is a moron. He just wastes money. He went to an unneccessary was with Iraq just because his dad did it! Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, and the billions of bucks lost could have been used to fix Amtrak instead of this stuff! He should have gone to war with Saudi Arabia, as that's where Osama bin Laden, the real 9/11 mastermind who screwed up America's from! But he doesn't just because it has oil, and Texans love oil! Why do you think they drive gas-guzzling pickup trucks, huh?:? And why not go to war with Canada, too? They're just as stupid as the Iraqis! My brother likes him just because he lowered taxes, the only good thing he's done which made Congress screw up our country more! And he only cares about security and terrorism! Why do you think he made the MTA and NJ Transit have all these photobans, huh? Plus, he made the WMATA treat everyone like crap and arrest people for eating candy! And he kept Cheney, that dick, instead of choosing non-dictator McCain in 2004! And he's so stupid that at http://www.hatebush.com, he's been compared to Hitlre, Ceasar, a chimp, and the Grinch who stole Christmas! So, as you can see, I hate Bush, and I think he's the biggest moron on this earth. They should abolish the Electoral College, screw the Founding Fathers, as Gore would have been a much better president, and he would have won without it! So, members of this forum, if you voted for that Idiotic Oil-Crazy Texas Republican Redneck Dictator Moron called Bush, you are an idiot, and you did a bad thing for your country.

1) You must be easily brainwahed.
2) You're stereotyping.
3) What's wrong with Canada?
4)Amtrak, last I checked, is NOT government run, and so, there's not much Bush could have done.
5) I do agree the Electoral Collage is flawed, and that's being worked on.
6) You're being really narrowminded and I think I'll have fun replying again.

If it'll make you feel better, I'll never vote for Bush again.

Bush has only one agenda: Make the rich richer. Every move he makes is designed either to achieve that goal or to divert our attention so we won't notice that he is stealing our money.

I compare him to Hitler. His body count is lower, but Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia are still in his sights. (what a coincidence - all 3 have oil)

If the Senate changes the fillibuster rule, then we start a new era: the Bush dictatorship.

Amtrak IS run by Congress.

i used to get all heated about people like bush and subjects like the iraqi war but realized that it wasnt worth my time. this is the last political post i will make with any luck.
A

There are a lot of similarities between the two of them (ex. against free speech and personal freedoms, believing they are righteous/better than everyone else, killing people etc.) But when you look just at Germany's economy during World War II, it almost makes it seem like Hitler (who, by the way was a fantastic public speaker) was a better leader than Bush!

Note: This does not mean that I support Hitler or the Nazis at all! (Just in case my post made me sound like I did).

I voted for Bush twice and don't regret it. It became evident in his first term that his economic policies work better in theory than practice and the Democrats are usually better in that area. However, being in a recession and being unemployed is a small issue to me in comparison to his social and national security agendas, which I feel were desperately needed after the Clinton administration. While morality cannot be legislated, Bush's efforts to lead the country back to a conservative, Judero-Christian value system that was influential in the drafting of the constitution and provided a moral foundation to build it's greatness upon is of great importance to me.

As for Al Grore being better suited to the Presidency, he only understood financial matters. He would have run the government by rasing taxes in order to throw money at problems. Someone like Gore would not have responded with the kind of agressiveness terrorist understand and that would only have encouraged more attacks. It was evident during the 2000 presidential campaign that terrorist were going to be a big problem at least in foreign policy, and I was impressed that Bush had the balls to say that he was willing to use nuclear force against terrorist countries-especially if Iraq made any threats against anybody.

I will concede that there are some First Ammendment issues in his administration, but I believe that there is no long-term repercussions that cannot be undone by the democratic process and there never would have been any First Ammendment problems if the Democrats hadn't set a precedent by tampering with the Second Ammendment, but that's another thread altogether.

Everyone needs to go to this site to check out bumper stickers and t-shirts:

click here

First of all, Bush's morals make me want to puke. Starting wars for the hell of it, and favouring the death penalty, but claiming he supports the sanctity of life.

Secondly, the founding fathers of the United States were not Christians. They were Deists. To put it in my own eloquent words: they believed the Bible was crap. Christian morals are defined in the Bible. If this country was created by Deists (who didn't even believe the Bible was the word of God, divinely inspired or even true), how could it be based on Christian values? According to the beliefs of Deism, God never expressed what defines a sin or what defines a moral. Deists just believe that God gave man a brain, and it is up to man to use it. Actually, a lot of the founding fathers disagreed and even greatly opposed the very fundamentals of Christianity. The right-wing often argues that the US is built on Christian values, but it really wasn't (unless you want to discuss the Puritans who didn't build the political system...and the whole witch thing doesn't really help when arguing morals. It also bothers me when the left-wing complains about how the Constitution is a religious document. People really need to pay attention to history.

An example of some people who built this country who were Deists:

Ethan Allen
Benjamin Franklin
Thomas Jefferson
James Madison
Thomas Paine
George Washington

for source click here

Sean, you said that the Constitution was drafted using Christian values, so how could that happen when the father of the Constitution was James Madison, who was a Deist?

Just a side note: Even though Abraham Lincoln was not a founding father, he was also a Deist.

Last edited by Bec on 13 Apr 2005, 6:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Good thing we didn't elect Gore; If we'd gone to his tax-and-spend policies , we might have run a budget deficit! At least with a fiscal conservative like Bush we don't have to worry about that!

But instead, he lowered taxes for the rich at the expense of the poor.

P. S. I'm Jewish...I hope Dubya doesn't kill me!

Bush's wars are better than waiting around for another terrorist attack or waiting until there's ICBMs inbound from Iraq to find out if Saddam was telling the truth about dismatling his weapons programs. Also, the war in Iraq convinced Ghadafi to disarm as a bonus. As for the death penalty and the sanctity of life, would you prefer that Bush saved the murderers and murdered the babies?



You are half right. Lincoln was not a founding father, but he was not a deist. He was raised as a Baptist and attended New York Avennue Presbyterian Church while President though he never formally joined any church. While he conveyed very few of his beliefs on doctrinal matters, he did speak of asking God's intervention and did speak of God intervening in man's affairs in public speaches as well as private conversation (not very Deist-like).

http://www.adherents.com/misc/Lincoln.html


I pay close attention to history. In fact, my preceding statements about the founding fathers come from variouis texts that predate 20th century revisionism.



Benjamin Franklin was an Agnostic who cared little about any Religion, it conflicted with his ego.
Thomas Jefferson was a Unitarian who did not openly oppose Judeo-Christian morality until the early 1800's, when Unitarianism became more popular in some social circles.
Contrary to popular belief, George Washington was a devout Christian, as was Samuel Adams.
All were well-versed in the Bible, some only to apppease the Christian majority.

The religious beliefs of the Deists an what they wrote and ratified in the Constitution are poles apart. They believed in momral relativism and John Locke's philosophy about man being inherently good, yet they envisioned and ultimately ratified a system of government with a comprehensive justice system and checks and balances for all aspects of governent; consistent with the Puritanincal, Judeo-Christian view of man being inherently evil (I'd be happy to address the Salem whitch trials in a seperate thread).

Furthermore, on June 11th 1787 during the Constitutional Convention, the delegation reached an impasse on the apportioning of representation. The debate had become eated and the New York delegation had already left, believing the conventinon had become futile. On this day, Benjamin Franklin arose and Said:

"In the beginning of the contest with Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayers in this room for Divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered. all of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a super-intending Providence in our favor ... And have we now forgotten this powerful Friend? Or do we imagine we no longer need His assistance?
I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth: that God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?
We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in the political building no better than the builders of Babel; we shall be divided by our little, partial local interests; our projects will be confounded; and we ourselves shall become a reproach and a byword down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing government by human wisdom and leave it to chance, war, or conquest.
I therefore beg leave to move that, henceforth, prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven and its blessing on our deliberation be held in this assembly every morning before we proceed to business."

All the human wisdom of the Christians and Deists alike had failed them, All had to call upon upon God for His divine intervention- despite Deism's claim that God is impersonal to our problems.
That afternoon, The Great Compromise was conceived.

Now hold on a minute! I am half Canadian and damn proud of it! I used to hate Bush, but his moral stance on abortion, Terry Schiavo, and other things make him a good president. You are entitled to your opinion as much as ia m entitled to mine, but COME ON! What have the Canadians do to you?

One more thing, George Washington was not a deist, he was Episcopalian

My main problem with Bush is how he can claim to go around spreading democracy and freedom when he still executes his own citizens. For any of Bush’s moral arguments to be valid he must stop the state from murdering his citizens. By saying that one life is worth more than annother (exectuion/abortion) he is playing god.

But Jesus was never even a God!

Bush's "trickle-down" economic policies work better in theory than in practice. Economic and labor issues are the only areas were I could possibly be seen as a moderate. As for your second concern, Bush dosen't have a problem with Jews. In fact, I think he as acted in better faith toward Israel than Clinton did by not pressuring them to give up west bank territory in exchange for peace until the next negotiations.



While it does seem like the genes to make the Iraqis smart seem to heve been bred out since the time of the Babylonians, what does that have to do with Canada? I also happen to come from a Canadian lineage (I have a French surname with Canadian spelling that would make me identifiable if I used it herre). If you spend enough time browsing through the forums and chatroom, you will find an equal proportion of intelligent Canadians and Intelligent Americans.



What your argument dos not consider is the nature of the people that get executed. These are people that, in addition to killing their vicim(s), have usually robbed, raped, or tortured them as well. Rarely are they first offenders either. These are the kind of peope who have done nothing with their lives but be a detriment to civilized society. If it were up to me, I'd have the National Guard go into the prisions, line the worst of the convicts against a wall, and have them shot rather than pay $50,00/yr. each to have them incarcerated.



Please elaborate, I am very interested in hearing your reasoning, especially if you have some type of theological support for your claim.