George Bush & "The Greatest Country in the World"

[B_DoubleMeatWhopper]

[quote author=jonb link=board=99;num=1046679711;start=48#58 date=04/22/03 at 14:44:29]Fifty bucks says there's going to be someone even worse than Saddam in soon enough.[/quote]

I think it'd be a hard task to find someone worse than Sodomy Insane, but I know what you mean. Retired General What's-his-Ass in charge of the 'Rebuilding' of Iraq says there will be an Iraqi as the head of government in Iraq after the Americans leave. Great ... another fundamentalist Shi'ite nutcase who hasn't a notion what democracy is because he lives in an Islamic country that's never experienced democracy! (BTW, not that the US is exactly a democracy, but we make a pretty good stab in that direction.)

 

[Ralexx]

Here we go again... « France will pay for defecting ».
How ? "Punishing" economically France will equate "punishing" EU. Comrad Bush, are you sure that's something you wanna do ? Do I have to remember you 1 Euro = 1,0966 USD already ?

Powell says US "will try to reduce France's influence in NATO, will not invite France in US - EU summits Wash DC will organise and will not allow French corporations to participate in Iraq's reconstruction." I'm interested how the second mence will become a reality. As for the rest, we'll wait and see. But this is definitely a milestone in the North-Atlantic relationship.

 

[13788]

Javierdude22: Hi, ive been reading all of this at once (took me the afternoon dammit) but anyway ...i can add a Dutch perspective (its right beside Germany, above Belgium and France)

This is how we more or less ee it, and which comment we have on the US.

The problem we had with the war was that it was about oil, and not about people. Lets face it 'Finedessert' , oil is why the US went into this, if it was for people then they could start with Birma, Laos, Syria, Ivory Coast, Liberia, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, etc...LOTTA dictators, killing millions of people, but the US meanwhile yawns and hardly wanst their problems on the international agenda. They harm internal (farmer) US interest.

Lets include FRance here, casue i dont believe their government (not the people, the government) are honest either. Theyve had a very weird relationship with Hussien, and it turns out they handed over information about France,-US meetings, and told Irak how likely the chance was to get attcked, France just also had a very big oil interest there.

The European problem in sum is that the US could care less what other people think. They unilaterally cancel Kyoto, Non-proliferation treaties, etc. and dont care about theimpact cause 'Americans dont wanna have to change their lifestyles' ....when i heard that i fell off my chair.

You dont even wanna know how dumb this answer was considered here in Europe. But it sums up Bush's mediating skills.

And lets be real people, you can discard his mistakes on grammar, his total ignorance on geography (capital of Indonesia, only the fifth largest world population?), his total ignorance on world politics, and then his ego the size of Utah, but were talking danger here people. Its like letting a little kid with an average IQ of meatloaf running the globe.

And basically, finish something WELL, before you start something else...(Afghanistan-Iraq)...cause it seems that when the threat of terrorists was over in Afghanistan, the human aspect didnt matter either, cause i dO believe theyere still waiting for those 'millions in aid for the rebuilding of Afghanistan'....

Maybe he booked that money last year under the post 'aid money promise to convince world of attacking Iraq'...but not that that country is 'done' we can just ease that money under next year budget for 'aid money promise to convince world of attacking Syria/N-Korea/Iran*'

*To be decided at dinner with wife

I love the US, or maybe California cause theyre more on the Democratic side' and lived there for about 6 months, love the people ands all, but plz....vote differently next year

CU

J

 

[13788]

Finedessert: I see a lot of people yelling for peace but I have not heard of a plan for peace. So, here's one plan:

1) The US will apologize to the world for our "interference" in their affairs, past &present. We will promise never to "interfere" again.

2) We will withdraw our troops from all over the world, starting with Germany, South Korea and the Philippines. They don't want us here. We would station
troops at our borders. No more sneaking through holes in the fence.

3) All illegal aliens have 90 days to get their affairs together and leave. We'll give them a free trip home. After 90 days the remainder will be gathered
up and deported immediately, regardless of who or where they are. France would welcome them.

4) All future visitors will be thoroughly checked and limited to 90 day visits unless given a special permit. No one from a terrorist nation would be allowed
in. If you don't like it there, change it yourself, don't hide here. Asylum would not ever be available to anyone. We don't need any more cab drivers.

5) No "students" over age 21. The older ones are the bombers. If they don't attend classes, they get a "D" and it's back home, baby.

6) The US will make a strong effort to become self sufficient energy wise. This will include developing non polluting sources of energy but will require a temporary drilling of oil in the Alaskan wilderness. The caribou will have to cope for a while.

7) Offer Saudi Arabia and other oil producing countries $10 a barrel for their oil. If they don't like it, we go someplace else.

8) If there is a famine or other natural catastrophe in the world, we will not "interfere". They can pray to Allah or whomever, for seeds, rain, cement or whatever they need. Besides, most of what we give them gets "lost" or is taken by their army. The people who need it most get very little, anyway.

9) Ship the UN Headquarters to an island some place. We don't need the spies and fair weather friends here. Besides, it would make a good homeless shelter
or lockup for illegal aliens. Use the buildings as replacement for the twin
towers.

10) All Americans must go to charm and beauty school. That way, no one can call us "Ugly Americans" any longer.

Now, ain't that a winner of a plan?
"The Statue of Liberty is no longer saying 'Give me your poor, your tired, your huddled masses.' She's got a baseball bat and she's yelling, 'You want a
piece of me?'"

- Robin Williams

Posted by Grandpa

 

[Ralexx]

This plan remembers me Ceausescu's attempts to make Roumania a completely autarchic state by 2000 AD. Fortunately, he was shot in 1989. (Nice & bloody Xmas...)
Seriously, it is an obvious exaggeration - no one asked America to bury herself alive in order to allow the others to breath politically. Ugh... politics...

What pesters me is the European stupidity. It is not America's fault that EU is (an economic giant yes - b.t.w., 1 euro reached 1,14 USD) but a political dwarf and a military worm, as Mark Einskens, former Belgian PM put it in 1991. This « Euro » -weakness issues both from an silly overbid of the national sovereignity and from a misunderstanding concerning the European construction. The First 3 arch-Europeans complain that Europe has no military power, but when it comes to build a United European Army none of them would renounce to the national points of view.

Europe is not built against US, Europe is built for us, those who live in the 38 states from Europe (Russia, Ukraine, Belorussia, Turkey will not be a part of a United Europe).
Again, ughhh, politics...

 

[13788]

Javierdude22: [quote author=Finedessert link=board=99;num=1046679711;start=60#63 date=05/07/03 at 05:26:58]
I see a lot of people yelling for peace but I have not heard of a plan for peace.  So, here's one plan:

1) The US will apologize to the world for our "interference" in their affairs, past &present. We will promise never to "interfere" again.

2) We will withdraw our troops from all over the world, starting with Germany, South Korea and the Philippines. They don't want us here.  We would station
troops at our borders. No more sneaking through holes in the fence.

3) All illegal aliens have 90 days to get their affairs together and leave. We'll give them a free trip home. After 90 days the remainder will be gathered
up and deported immediately, regardless of who or where they are. France would welcome them.

4) All future visitors will be thoroughly checked and limited to 90 day visits unless given a special permit. No one from a terrorist nation would be allowed
in. If you don't like it there, change it yourself, don't hide here. Asylum would not  ever be available to anyone. We don't need any more cab drivers.

5) No "students" over age 21. The older ones are the bombers. If they don't attend classes, they get a "D" and it's back home, baby.

6) The US will make a strong effort to become self sufficient energy wise.  This will include developing non polluting sources of energy but will require a temporary drilling of oil in the Alaskan wilderness. The caribou will have to cope for a while.

7) Offer Saudi Arabia and other oil producing countries $10 a barrel for their oil. If they don't like it, we go someplace else.

8) If there is a famine or other natural catastrophe in the world, we will not "interfere". They can pray to Allah or  whomever, for seeds, rain, cement or whatever they need. Besides, most of what we give them gets "lost" or is taken by their army. The people who need it most get very little, anyway.

9) Ship the UN Headquarters to an island some place. We don't need the spies and fair weather friends here. Besides, it would make a good homeless shelter
or lockup for illegal aliens. Use the buildings as replacement for the twin
towers.

10) All Americans must go to charm and beauty school. That way, no one can call us "Ugly Americans" any longer.

Now, ain't that a winner of a plan?
"The Statue of Liberty is no longer saying  'Give me your poor, your tired, your huddled masses.' She's got a baseball bat and she's yelling, 'You want a
piece of me?'"

- Robin Williams

Posted by Grandpa

[/quote]

Ok...this is interesting...

Ralexx....i dont quite get your point....what do you mean exactly?

Finedessert....now thAts talking some clear business. Very nice. I do have a couple off add-ins though ;D

1) i agree....lets hear it!
2) total agreement, lets ruffle some feathers
3) Nice idea...90 days...sufficient time....butta....free trip home huh....i think that the US would go bankrupt then though...
4)This is already the case in your country...theres only 90 days for visitors, no asylum unless you can get a greencard (finding Osama would be easier these days), and cabdrivers?...never enough!!
5)Already the case, a D means youre packing
6)Now thats how we recognize Republicans! 8) that musta been Bush you were quoting from...Alaska...hm...aint that got a buncha trees we'z all can cut down??...that ll keep our airco's, Las Vegas, and Te-le-vIsion runnin for quite sum time!...i agree...chop that m-f**ker down, dry some of them rivers and sdtart drilling dammit, my SUV dont run on air now does he!

7)Hm...that was a cute remark...10 a barrel otherwise we'll go somewhere else...and that somewhere else wOUld except 10?!....hm...

8)Now here ill try to reply without a note of sarcasm. Thew sad thing is that the US isnt ever helping those countries. Theyre DUMPING a surplus of grain they have in these countries, which makes the prices drop...then the people in that country who ARE producing something get nothing for it anymore....OR....the Us tells Zambia...we'll give you food....but genetically altered...we cant test it in our homecountry....so we'll give it to you...sthat ok?...OR....in fact....most of the times the US doenst give anything: few examples:

Afghanistan is still waiting for its promised millions to get better
The Un/Worldbank/IMF/OESO/Nato etc....are still waiting for the US its contributions from 1991 and onwards....
The US hardly gives development aid....unless theres something they get in return.

At least the EU gives food aid by buying the food in the developing country itsself. Cause its almost never that theres an absolute foodshortage in the country....but that it cant reach certain places.

9) The UN is an American creation (Roosevelt) you guys wanted it, you guys wanted the headquarters....now deal with it...the world aint an off and on switch

10)Charm school would be nice for some people...and for congress and the Bush administration in total...yes thanks...beauty school?...nah...would cause an ever bigger budgetdeficit

The statue of liberty probably would only say 'merde' and wave a baquette and some brie in the air cause im sorry....she's French (does Bush know that?...otherwise he might ask Congress to have it pulled down)

Sorry peeps...love the Us, hate some of the chauvinistic stuff flying around

 

[13788]

gigantikok: I know what i am about to rant about doesn't totally have to do with what has been discussed in the last few posts on this topic, but it is what came to mind while reading the first few and what has come to mind lately from hearing what the oppositte end of the political spectrum is saying...

First of all.  Stop bitching.  If you hate this country so much, get out.  

I am really sick of the blatant, uneducated ignorance people like you spew out in regards to the war and our president.  He may say stupid things, he may stink at grammar...that doesn't mean he isn't a smart man and isn't doing good things for our nation.  Look at yourselves, you're all acting so childish.  You are attacking a man for the way he SPEAKS.  Are you really THAT desperate to critizise him?  Some of the best presidents in the history of our nation had speaking problems, i'm not even going to bring up Lincoln.  This completely displays the childishness of the Democratic Party.  Did republicans ever make fun of Clinton?  No, it wasn't until they all found out he was a slimy, shitty, rapist, lieing asshole that they started to attack him.  If you as a political group could act like adults, you could leave him alone for his grammatical faults and either agree or disagree with his politics.  No need to proclaim hate for him, no need to insult.  Good God people, we aren't in fucking grade school anymore.

Moving on to my rant about the war copied from my other post...
In regards to the war...we are simply looking out for freedom and safety.  Why should we respect a country run by a tyrannical madman that only a few years ago was committing mass genocide among people in his country?  In regards to people saying that we are killing innocent Iraqis...In war there will be casualities, but we are far from disrespecting a country.  We are liberating a people, supplying them with food, and actually saving lives.  If Saddam had stayed in power, many many many MORE thousands of people would have died under his rule in the next few years.  We are attacking him, not becuase he didn't directly attack (which he did, but i'll get to that later), but becuase we are ending terrorism around the world.  There is direct evidence that Hussein was directly funding and providing supplies to many terrorist organizations.  Saddam had a direct hand in the Sept 11th attack, and there is documental proof.  So in reality, we ARE defending ourselves.  Without Saddam in the picture, guys like Osama won't have enough money to kill more innocent people, because they won't be getting anymore money from him!  We have now started to uncover very well hidden weapons, and we have saved ourselves and the Iraqi people from a horrible tyrannt.  In the history of the world, no one will criticize Bush becuase they will see the good that came from dethroning Hussein, too bad all of you don't see it.  

I just can't fathom how you people would be happier in a world where this pyscho is in power and terrorists and running around rampant.  I just can't understand.  Are you guys TRYING to find a reason to critizise Bush?  We are saving the lives, making the world a better place, and are some of the most privaleged people in the world.  We have one of the best living condition, have the ability to express ourselves, be free, get educated, and have enough money to even be able to sign online on our COMPUTERS and log into this LPSG (if you shrank the world to 100 people, only 1 would own a comp and the internet) and all you people can do is bitch about our president in a completely childish and ignorant way.  Wow.

Well, whatever, on this website I'm a minority when it comes to my political opinions.  I might as well shut up now becuase no one is going to listen to me.

 

[jay_too]

gigantikok

"I am really sick of the blatant, uneducated ignorance people like you spew out in regards to the war and our president. He may say stupid things, he may stink at grammar...that doesn't mean he isn't a smart man and isn't doing good things for our nation."

hey man, while i don't use spell check and reread all my posts for syntax and logic, i also do not disparage another's education and intelligence. the quote above is offensive in tone and da grammar ain't too gooder [that most republican of terms].

i am not reassured by your statement that "he may say stupid things. . .that doesnt mean he isn't a smart man and isn't doing good things for our nation." at first, i thought you meant smart as a synonym for intelligent but that cannot be since verbal skill is a basic measure of intelligence (ya know like on iq tests, sat's, gmat's and gre's). so after consulting a dictionary, i settled on this interpretation, "he's a smart [ass] doing gooder."

how's he doin' gooder? let me count the ways: 2 million jobs lost during his presidency, one of the longer recessions in u.s. history, winning a war against a fourth rate military power (but not finding stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction), alienating our allies, obligating the u.s. to years of occupation of an arab nation and the taxpayers to billions in aid, cutting federal aid to education, tax relief for the rich, screwing the environment.....and the list goes on.

AND oh yeah, the bush administration was late in recognizing the al queda as a terrorist organization with scores to settle with the u.s. remember that after 9-11 all the magazines and most papers reported that the clinton administration had identified this as the major security problem which would face the bush administration. so nine months after taking office and about the time of 9-11, staffers convinced bush et al. that al queda was a valid concern. could have anything have been done to prevent the world trade center attack? i do not know, but inaction was not the solution.

i read with interest your comment about the california votes. since they were not counted, one can never be certain what the outcome would be. right? the results might be inferred from statistical sampling of other overseas ballots, BUT republicans do not like statistical sampling to improve census numbers so they would certainly not like statistics to improve vote counts. i was living in california during this time and remember this had a very short life on the news....the only meaningful discussion i heard was in my stat class.

First of all. Stop bitching. If you hate this country so much, get out.

man, i am not intimidated. my family like many others came here to make a better life and to escape intolerance and intimidation. they were here from the beginning (literally the 1620's and 1630's in a few cases). i intend to stay and to fight the good fight AND to try to listen to all viewpoints (hey, i might be wrong and have to change my position.)

jay

 

[13788]

Dantesco: [quote author=gigantikok link=board=99;num=1046679711;start=60#66 date=05/09/03 at 23:02:35]If you hate this country so much, get out.[/quote]

I don't hate this country. In fact I love it so much that I hate the fact that Baby Bush is tarnishing its image.   

He may say stupid things, he may stink at grammar...that doesn't mean he isn't a smart man

The main language of our nation is English. You would think that the supposed leader of the USA would be sufficiently versed in English. "Gooder" makes him sound like a Jerry Springer guest.  

This completely displays the childishness of the Democratic Party.  Did republicans ever make fun of Clinton?  No

Lay off the drugs, man. It might improve your memory. The Republicans started attacking Clinton as soon as he was sworn in. It's their job: they're Republicans, he's a Democrat.

you could leave him alone for his grammatical faults and either agree or disagree with his politics.

I disagree with his politics as well as his grammar. And its my right to do so.

we aren't in fucking grade school anymore.

Even in grade school I knew that "gooder" was wrong.

In regards to the war...we are simply looking out for freedom and safety.

And oil.

In regards to people saying that we are killing innocent Iraqis...In war there will be casualities

The question remains whether or not there should even be a war. The WMA, Bush's justification for the war, still hasn't surfaced. We shouldn't be occupying another country. Hey, doesn't anyone remember that the US produced the Monroe Doctrine?

Saddam had a direct hand in the Sept 11th attack, and there is documental proof.

No. There is evidence, not proof, that Saddam had some al-Qaida ties. There is no concrete evidence that he had any hand in 9-11 beyond the suspicions of some political analysts.

Without Saddam guys like Osama won't have enough money to kill more innocent people, because they won't be getting anymore money from him!

Osama bin Laden is a cult figure among Muslims. He can rally support and funding from any Islamic country.  

I just can't fathom how you people would be happier in a world where this pyscho is in power and terrorists and running around rampant.

There are plenty of tyrants and dictators in power in other countries that are just as bad as Saddam. That doesn't mean that I'm going to suggest overthrowing every government that doesn't meet my approval.

I just can't understand.

Nor do you want to. You've made that clear.

Are you guys TRYING to find a reason to critizise Bush?

Bush gives us enough reasons without us trying to find them.

We have the ability to express ourselves, be free, get educated

Not that your spelling indicates education. Sorry, but I couldn't refrain from mentioning it; te spelling makes me cringe. Can't even spell "because". No wonder Bush's grammar doesn't bother you.

Well, whatever, on this website I'm a minority when it comes to my political opinions.

And we're all entitled to our opinions, but we can't assume that our opinion is the only viable opinion. For the record, I'm a Republican. That doesn't mean that I think Baby Bush's handling us tis situation is any less deplorable.

 

[jonb]

[quote author=gigantikok link=board=99;num=1046679711;start=60#66 date=05/09/03 at 23:02:35]First of all. ?Stop bitching. ?If you hate this country so much, get out. ?[/quote]

Translation: I don't like critics so I want to make sure none of my critics can vote.

[quote author=gigantikok link=board=99;num=1046679711;start=60#66 date=05/09/03 at 23:02:35]You are attacking a man for the way he SPEAKS. ?Are you really THAT desperate to critizise him?[/quote]

Not at all. I prefer to attack a man for the fact that he's a whore to oil companies, the fact that he keeps special pleading about 9/11 when it comes to al-Qaeda, the fact that he plans to have state-sponsored religion...Hello?

[quote author=gigantikok link=board=99;num=1046679711;start=60#66 date=05/09/03 at 23:02:35]?Some of the best presidents in the history of our nation had speaking problems, i'm not even going to bring up Lincoln.[/quote]

Lincoln was only interested in preserving the Union.

[quote author=gigantikok link=board=99;num=1046679711;start=60#66 date=05/09/03 at 23:02:35]?No, it wasn't until they all found out he was a slimy, shitty, rapist, lieing asshole that they started to attack him.[/quote]

Um, gigantikok? Rape is without consent. When Monica's flashing him her thong, I think she's consenting.

[quote author=gigantikok link=board=99;num=1046679711;start=60#66 date=05/09/03 at 23:02:35]
In regards to the war...we are simply looking out for freedom and safety.[/quote]

Against a country with no weapons. Why don't we attack one that can cause some real damage, like North Korea? Anyway, the US has more weapons than the rest of the world put together; let he who is without sin cast the first stone and all that.

Face it: "Non-aggressive pre-emptive strikes", aren't.

[quote author=gigantikok link=board=99;num=1046679711;start=60#66 date=05/09/03 at 23:02:35]?Why should we respect a country run by a tyrannical madman that only a few years ago was committing mass genocide among people in his country?[/quote]

It wasn't until Clinton that IHS forced sterilizations ended, so everyone from Washington to Bush Sr was also a tyrannical madman - and you know he's influencing his son. This doesn't make it "right" or any shit like that; it just means that you shouldn't enforce.

[quote author=gigantikok link=board=99;num=1046679711;start=60#66 date=05/09/03 at 23:02:35]?In regards to people saying that we are killing innocent Iraqis...In war there will be casualities, but we are far from disrespecting a country. ?We are liberating a people, supplying them with food, and actually saving lives.[/quote]

If we wanted to save lives, we wouldn't have imposed those sanctions in the first place.

 

[jonb]

Moving on...

[quote author=gigantikok link=board=99;num=1046679711;start=60#66 date=05/09/03 at 23:02:35]?We are attacking him, not becuase he didn't directly attack (which he did, but i'll get to that later), but becuase we are ending terrorism around the world.[/quote]

Physician, heal thyself!

[quote author=gigantikok link=board=99;num=1046679711;start=60#66 date=05/09/03 at 23:02:35]?There is direct evidence that Hussein was directly funding and providing supplies to many terrorist organizations.[/quote]

So's Saudi Arabia. More importantly, so's the US.

[quote author=gigantikok link=board=99;num=1046679711;start=60#66 date=05/09/03 at 23:02:35]?Saddam had a direct hand in the Sept 11th attack, and there is documental proof.[/quote]

There is? Please cite this s00per sekrit proof. Oh, wait, it's classified. I have plenty of evidence that an invisible pink unicorn exists too, but it's classified. :-/

[quote author=gigantikok link=board=99;num=1046679711;start=60#66 date=05/09/03 at 23:02:35]?Without Saddam in the picture, guys like Osama won't have enough money to kill more innocent people, because they won't be getting anymore money from him![/quote]

No, they'll still have the Saudi royal family. And they'll still have the US Department of Defense.

[quote author=gigantikok link=board=99;num=1046679711;start=60#66 date=05/09/03 at 23:02:35]?We have now started to uncover very well hidden weapons, and we have saved ourselves and the Iraqi people from a horrible tyrannt.[/quote]

See above remark about the invisible pink unicorn.

[quote author=gigantikok link=board=99;num=1046679711;start=60#66 date=05/09/03 at 23:02:35]?In the history of the world, no one will criticize Bush becuase they will see the good that came from dethroning Hussein, too bad all of you don't see it.[/quote]

Funny, they even criticize FDR's policies. I'm sure you're not saying Hussein was worse than Hitler.

[quote author=gigantikok link=board=99;num=1046679711;start=60#66 date=05/09/03 at 23:02:35]?I just can't understand. ?Are you guys TRYING to find a reason to critizise Bush? ?We are saving the lives, making the world a better place, and are some of the most privaleged people in the world. ?We have one of the best living condition,[/quote]

Not compared to Japan, Europe, or any other industrial nation. More importantly, the peoples who have been trampled for your living conditions oftentimes had better health than you do today, according to anthropometric data. Today, many of these peoples live in conditions comparable to Sierra Leone.

[quote author=gigantikok link=board=99;num=1046679711;start=60#66 date=05/09/03 at 23:02:35]have the ability to express ourselves,[/quote]

Not according to the USA PATRIOT Act.

[quote author=gigantikok link=board=99;num=1046679711;start=60#66 date=05/09/03 at 23:02:35]be free, get educated,[/quote]

Well, actually, Ashcroft can spy on which books you're reading.

 

[13788]

gigantikok: I only skimmed through the many comments I received in response to what I said. In many ways I find it completely useless to even respond since you "intelligent" gentleman are so lost in your political ignorance that nothing i say will make a difference, but I will say this much:

-President Bush is not a good public speaker, that is evident. He mixes up words, probably becomes nervous, and the right grammar doesn't come to him at the right times. That, however, does not give you any right to judge him as a leader. He is a president, he is not writing a novel. His abilities to govern this country have absolutely nothing to do with his ability to speak well IN PUBLIC ( since, of course, you have no idea what he is like while working and speaking in his private life). For god sakes, find more mature reasons to criticize him. Criticize him for the way he is doing his job, not the way he is speaking. Almost seems like democrats are desperate to find reasons to lash out at him, so they make fun of the way he speaks. Just like little children.

-Hey smart guy, there IS DIRECT EVIDENCE that Saddam had a hand in the 9/11 attack. When his quarters were raided, they found direct documental evidence (ON PAPER THAT YOU CAN READ) that showed he was directly involved with the terrorists. I.E. we attacked to defend ourselves... maybe oil was another more minuscule reason as to why we went to war, but we won with minimal causalities (less than 50). Oil prices are down, the world is safer (whether it be a big step or a small step). How could you have any reason to complain? Stop criticizing him because he is a republican president, and actually appreciate what he has done for this country.

-There is also no direct proof Bush did know about Osama before we were attacked. If you are going to criticizes him for that, I shouldn't even have to bring up the fact that the whole 8 years Clinton was in office he did absolutely nothing about terrorism or Osama. It isn't like osama suddenly came into existence when Bush came into office. Osama had actually truck bombed the Twin Towers in the mid to late nineties while Clinton was STILL IN OFFICE and he didn't do SHIT. He proceeded to ignore the conflict in the middle east until the problem escalated. If you are going to blame anyone for the 9/11 attack, Bush is not your man.

- Ever heard of Jennifer Flowers? I guess not, I guess the LIBERAL media covered it up, didn't they? Yes, he (Clinton) RAPED Jennifer Flowers WITHOUT her consent.

There, that's all I'm going to say because no matter how many good points I bring up, no one will change their minds about political opinions they developed their teenage and adult lives.

 

[jay_too]

Hey man, the purpose of a discussion is not to get angry but to refine knowledge or define the scope of an issue or policy.

I believe that one makes points by making cogent points and not unfounded accusations such as the Jennifer Flowers story. Yeah, I remember the flap; but I also know that criminal charges were never brought. In this country (and perhaps in the days before Bush/Ashcroft), one is innocent until convicted. If one believes in American principles of law and jurisprudence, Clinton is innocent.

Apparently, you do not remember the Camp David Peace Accords or the Nobel Peace Prizes that resulted from the Clinton negotiations. Until after 9-11 the Bush administration was not interested in a solution for the Israel-Palestine problem.

jay

 

[jay_too]

Criticize him for the way he is doing his job, not the way he is speaking. Okay

A key point of his 2000 campaign was not to get involved in nation building. Hello. I for one can think of a better way to spend the hundreds of billions of dollars that may be required to support the long-term occupation of Iraq, humanitarian efforts and rebuilding infrastructure. I believe the long-term presence of American military in Iraq will result in alienation of the Arab and Moslem worlds against America. One result is likely to be less cooperation of Moslem governments in rounding up and identifying terrorists.

In foreign policy, he has alienated two of his good buddies, Fox of Mexico and Putin of Russia (remember the visits to the Crawford ranch). France, China, Canada, and Germany also have major reservations about the emerging policies being cobbled together at the Pentago or wherever. To alienate major trading partners and traditional allies cannot be judged as a successful foreign policy. Is this leadership? I think not.

In economic policy, well, even Bush recognized that it was a failure so he fired all his economic advisers early this year. Even some Republican politicians are concerned about the increasing job loss (two million during his presidency), the ballooning federal deficit, and the failing to undertake Medicare reform. In his early months Bush wanted to be known as the Education President. Like it or not education is a driver for technology, health care, financial, and many other industries. Failing to increase funding to education and placing restrictions on foreign students coming to the U.S. may result in a future shortage of technically trained labor pool; this is a major concern among large technology companies. Because of its association with increasing productivity, technology has been a traditional driver of the U.S. economy.

In tax policy, the driver is to satisfy his reactionary base of political support and not to create jobs. If job creation was the purpose of the proposed tax policy, then the centerpiece would be to encourage capital investment by business. Why? With capital investment comes increases in productivity. Capital depreciation schedules would be accelerated. But No, let’s give a tax break to the rich. Rationale: They will either spend or invest in new businesses. Cool, except based upon past studies of what the rich do after tax “relief,” they tend to stick the majority into savings. C’mon you can only have so many Rolls. Yeah, Kennedy did reduce the capital gains tax, but most economists say the driver for the recovery was the adoption of accelerated depreciation schedule.

In law and jurisprudence, this is the first area that really set me off. He appointed a third-rate lawyer to head Justice and unfortunately, Ashcroft would trample fundamental rights to pursue his own political and social convictions if they would give him headlines and news space. Decisions are not made on the basis of the law but find the legal argument to support these decisions. Why could we not have a decent person such as a Thurgood Marshall-type to lead us through the quagmire of the conflict between security and individual rights.

As a leader, it is easy to be disappointed in Bush. During his campaign, he promised to bring a new civility to D.C. and to work with all viewpoints. Reality: civility is observed generally if the President gets his way. Openess? Well, in January 2003 Lindsey (the chief economic adviser) got into serious trouble for estimating that an adventure in Iraq would cost between $100 and $200 billion dollars in the first year. He was taken to the woodshed not because he was wrong…but because it might influence tax relief for the rich that was pending in Congress. The first appropriation for Iraq was a stop-gap (with the understanding that more will come) for a modest $80 billion. This does not include re-supply of munitions used in the war. Disinformation: America got to see the president in baggy aviator garb and was told that the reason he flew on a plane was because the aircraft carrier was beyond the range of the marine helicopter. Unfortunately, this did not fly because a reporter could see San Diego from the deck. So they changed the story. This photo op only cost an additional million dollars. The only good thing that came out of this was some apologist on CNN this morning saying, dressing as an aviator is a good sign, he should be encouraged to do more role-playing; it enhances imagination. I hope they take this to heart in the White House and send him out in black mesh stockings and a red mini to lead the D.C. Gay Pride Parade.

jay

 

[13788]

Javierdude22: Uhm...yeah....what jay said!... ;D
Majoring in Politics are we?

But seriously giganti, this IS a discussion board, so ya cant blame us for giving an opinion...and thats the only thing it is....an opinion. But i think, for the dynamics of the discussion sake, that it would be cooler to try to refute some of the things thats been said about Bush, that you think is not true, and not saying the things that have been said already on 7 pages on this thread, the general stuff that has been refuted already.

Cause lets face it, Clinton might have done some stuff under the table that i might not agree with personality wise, but he's been a hell of a leader. The economy was booming, he past some good bills, and he was extremely good in sensing the difficulty of foreign politics. Back then America truely was the world leading country, cause it received respect (maybe except for certain Mid Eastern countries) voluntarily....on the basis of achieved results and negotiation. Now its all about : 'severe repercussions if you dont do this or that...

Im sorry, for a second there i was under the impression we had civilized ourselves over the past hundred thousand years.

im not saying i can predict a future, maybe it WILL all be for the best eventually...but im judging on what i see now. Afghanistan still in ruins...(true, it was alwyas like that, but Bush promised to change that), Iraq is in ruins (same story) The Korea conflict is about to surge again. The israelian problem is NOW being handled...after its been left for three years...France is being threatened by the US (trade-wise), Kyoto (thats about the environment) has been canceled, just like that. The US is in SERIOUS debt problems....i dont wanna alarm you but alot of the money the US has as a deficit is coming from Europe (The economist). And thats just the international part...i dont exactly know whats going on nationally, but what ive just heard above me.....doenst sound good...i hope the Us 'll vote wisely next year...

Laterz

 

[MisterMark]

Ugh...I was listening to the news yesterday - GW was speaking.  For a brief moment, I thought that he, yet again, was talking about people wanting "a gooder service".  After a split second, I realized that what he was saying was "a good or service", except that when GW says those words, it's all slurred together as "a-good-er-service."

I can take some comfort in the fact that I wasn't the only one "fooled" by his unique style of speech.  Here's a passage from a story in the Baltimore Sun:

In late August, he told an audience in Oklahoma that tax cuts are desirable because, "if you let people have their own money, they will demand a gooder service", and, "when somebody produces that gooder service, somebody is more likely to find jobs".

As it turns out, Mr Bush's Texas drawl masked the fact that he was really speaking of "a good or service". He corrected the problem in later speeches, referring to "a good or a service".


So, what can I say...I guess I misunderestimated ol' George.  

 

[Ralexx]

But I'll tell you this one:

In 2000, smiles appeared on the faces of some European leaders when Bush jr. said : "to my surprise, I found out that a great part of out foreign trade is done with foreign countries."

Geez, helloooooo !!! That's why it is called "foreign" !...
Funny, though...

 

[MisterMark]

Oh, there's lots more where that came from! It's called "Bushlexia." Check it out: http://www.bushwatch.org/english.htm

 

[Ralexx]

This is unbelievable OMG, this is completely unbelievable, Mark !!! The purest "ROFLMAOPMP" of the day, for me !!!! Well, maybe he is just trying to communicate, LOL, please be comprehensive

 

[jonb]

[quote author=Raal Lexx link=board=99;num=1046679711;start=72#78 date=05/25/03 at 07:56:31]This is unbelievable OMG, this is completely unbelievable, Mark !!!   The purest "ROFLMAOPMP" of the day, for me !!!! Well, maybe he is just trying to communicate, LOL, please be comprehensive [/quote]
All I have to say is "All your Bush are belong to us. You are on the way to depression."