[Guest]

This topic is to talk about bush.

i wanna know how many people hate his stinking guts,

and how many people like him.

I don't like him because he has start the war in iraq

and caused the U.S. tons of problems

People not from the U.S. can talk about this too if you know about Bush

Edited June 16, 2008 by Thuhchris

[Guest]

I only know that if the US have a bad spell UK do too, especially when arms are involved - Glad I moved to Netherlands!

Can't vote cos I don't know the politics of US to well, have not respected a US president, but then have not been involved to judge, any way judgement is not a way forward but a vote is.

Someone must like him - they voted him in, always thought he was way out of his league. Stumbles through a lot of difficult situations. The US could do with operating a full open book policy, and direct efforts towards the US problems instead of over reaching - easy for me to say

oh the cost of war

Or as Winston Churchill put it... You can count on Americans to do the right thing, after they have exhausted all other possibilities!

Bushisms

Oh the cost of war - First casualty of war is the truth!

[Brandonb]

Bush has not been a great president, but I believe he was better than the alternatives. And given the chance to vote for him vs these other two whack jobs, I would have to vote for him. ThuhChris, you gotta realize that you are blaming bush for what has been a majority of problems caused by a Democrat majority in Congress. Bush started the war, sure, but you need to realize that these recent economic problems were never in existence until the past congressional elections pushed the Dems into the majority. So when you say that "He has caused the US tons of problems" think again, do your research, and you may come to find out that though Bush has a terribly low approval rating, the Dem controlled congress has a MUCH lower approval rating.

Edit: Just to clarify, I don't like Bush, I would be one of the people that disapproves of him, but at least he is not a communist black supremacist.

Edited June 16, 2008 by Brandonb

[Guest]

I agree with that last bit there LIS, and Bushisms are always funny.

Even though I can't vote (though I can in a few years), I don't see how anyone could vote for Bush. Neither of my parents ever voted for him, and I'm glad they didn't. Ever since he has been in office, nothing good has happened, especially with starting the war. Hopefully the next president (I'm rooting for Obama) will do a better job and clean up this country.

And yes, Brandonb, it might not all be his fault, but Bush is still an idiot. The alternatives were better.

Edited June 16, 2008 by Frost

[Guest]

I don't think it matter WHO the Pres is, cuz the House and Senate make all the decisions anyway. The Pres just gets the blame for everything his advisors tell him to do too. We need to select our reps better, that's all we can do.

[Guest]

but at least he is not a communist black supremacist.

what the hell does that mean?

who's the "communist black supremacist"?

[Brandonb]

what the hell does that mean?

who's the "communist black supremacist"?

Obviously, the one who avidly promotes "From each according the their ability, To each according to their need" and who also is a supporter of the "black ideology" would in fact be a "communist black supremacist." It's pretty cut and dry. It's not an insult, but it is true.

Was that really a serious question for which you have done no research of your own? And what's with the "what the hell does that mean?" attitude? I made no false presumptions, nor any insults. Apparently you must be offended that someone has pointed it out? If so, please don't get upset when I point out that the sky is blue.

[Brandonb]

I don't think it matter WHO the Pres is, cuz the House and Senate make all the decisions anyway. The Pres just gets the blame for everything his advisors tell him to do too. We need to select our reps better, that's all we can do.

That's a total cop-out, remember the power of veto? With a fully Dem-controlled House AND Senate, and then the most liberal candidate who has ever run for office sitting in the captain's chair... It's like playing Hockey against a team with no goalie. So there is alot at stake when ANYTHING goes as far as the creation of bs laws and tax hikes. You are right though, in that we need to do a better job selecting our reps. Too bad many of the people who vote have no idea who their own state's Senators are.

Edit: Just to clarify, I am not a republican nor a conservative

Edited June 17, 2008 by Brandonb

[Guest]

Edit: Just to clarify, I am not a republican nor a conservative

well that can only seem to mean one thing, based on what you're saying

you're independant

and like most independant's I've met you just do that to seem open minded, but you're really republican

seriously, what about you is liberal?

[unreality]

a communist black supremacist.

what does being black having anything to do with it? I can respect calling someone a communist, but don't add 'black' in there as an insult- color of skin makes no difference in a person, it's a single pigment difference caused by a gene. True, earlier differences of ignorant people caused a rift that has made separate cultures based on skin color that pertain today, but continuing to accept those rifts does not help heal the wounds of slavery and such... so if you're saying Obama regards blacks over whites, than that's racism too and isn't good- if that IS what you meant, sorry for this rant

I agree with that last bit there LIS, and Bushisms are always funny.

Even though I can't vote (though I can in a few years), I don't see how anyone could vote for Bush. Neither of my parents ever voted for him, and I'm glad they didn't. Ever since he has been in office, nothing good has happened, especially with starting the war. Hopefully the next president (I'm rooting for Obama) will do a better job and clean up this country.

And yes, Brandonb, it might not all be his fault, but Bush is still an idiot. The alternatives were better.

I agree with you ;D

[Brandonb]

what does being black having anything to do with it? I can respect calling someone a communist, but don't add 'black' in there as an insult- color of skin makes no difference in a person, it's a single pigment difference caused by a gene. True, earlier differences of ignorant people caused a rift that has made separate cultures based on skin color that pertain today, but continuing to accept those rifts does not help heal the wounds of slavery and such... so if you're saying Obama regards blacks over whites, than that's racism too and isn't good- if that IS what you meant, sorry for this rant

You completely misread what I wrote. I said nothing about anyone being black, why are you making it a racial issue? (BTW, for the record, the candidate to whom you are referring is not black). I said that he is a black supremacist, which means that he supports an inclination that blacks deserve more accommodations than other races. Yes, I am saying that he "regards blacks over whites (and every other race)", and you are right, that does make him a racist. But I don't want to knock someone for their beliefs, everyone has the right to believe what they want. He can be a racist if he wants to be, but I'm not going to support it. You can barrage me because I pointed it out, though I don't know why you want to. Obviously there are people who do not know these things.

[Brandonb]

well that can only seem to mean one thing, based on what you're saying

you're independant

and like most independant's I've met you just do that to seem open minded, but you're really republican

seriously, what about you is liberal?

I'm not an independent. I am a libertarian. In my book people should be able to do whatever they want to, both personally and economically. So long as it does not interfere with anyone else's rights to Life, Property, or Liberty. I do not support Republicans, first, the Republican party has turned into a bunch of hypocrites for what they stood for in the first place as far as economic policies go. Though even if they hadn't I could never support them because of their desires for control of the personal aspects of people's lives. As for the Dems, they believe that government is what makes America great. So they push to expand the government control over all economic issues. As we can see, it's not working out so well.

I get what you're saying, normally "independent" is a Republican's way of supporting his party from the other side of the fence in order to get others to sway their ideals. People like that get on my nerves also, but they are easily found out when you discuss key issues. Anyways, you can consider me a "liberal" on personal issues. Such as the ownership of one's body, free speech, defense of civil liberties and free expression, and the tolerance of diverse lifestyles.

People should be able to do what they want. And the Government is overstepping if they do anything, at all, outside of directly protecting the lives of the citizens. At least in my book.

[akaslickster]

Seems that no one can be a good president to the entire country. I am in favor of strong defense and Homeland security. Some people can't be trusted to behave. Like Saddam Hussein. We cannot be to careful because they can start some trouble at anytime. We don't want anymore 9/11's.

[Guest]

Seems that no one can be a good president to the entire country. I am in favor of strong defense and Homeland security. Some people can't be trusted to behave. Like Saddam Hussein. We cannot be to careful because they can start some trouble at anytime. We don't want anymore 9/11's.

You can fool all the people some of the time and you can fool some of the people all the time .... etc

The fault lies in the system (all over the world) those in power loose sight of the real goal and get caught up in the web of deceit that is required to keep it going, it's like having T Rex as a guard dog (guard dinosaur) and trying to keep it fed - if it's too successful you have nothing too feed it on, so it becomes part of the self fulfilling prophecy - that made sense as i typed it but not after i read it????

[Guest]

Seems that no one can be a good president to the entire country. I am in favor of strong defense and Homeland security. Some people can't be trusted to behave. Like Saddam Hussein. We cannot be to careful because they can start some trouble at anytime. We don't want anymore 9/11's.

True, we don't want anymore 9/11's, though the one we had could have been prevented. There was actual evidence that it would occur and yet the government did nothing to stop it.

[itachi-san]

It seems to me that the cold truth is that the President's identity doesn't really matter. Big money controls almost all the politicians, and definitely the ones with a lot of power. So much money is being made off of the war and off of our horrible medical/health care system, wasted tax dollars and social security, etc... Things would be the same whether Bush was ever president or not. The two parties have developed opposite connotations, but that is just a facade. They all listen when the big money talks. How else could anyone get elected in the US? Ron Paul tried to run on morals and standards and got laughed off the stage by the media and most of America.

As for Bush, he's just a figurehead who listens to and does as those around him say. He seems like a good guy and I believe that he cares for the country and has gotten a bad rap as being a bad person. Bad president - yes, but I think any candidate in about the last half-century has been pretty bad. Obama and McCain are both awful candidates. Senators shouldn't even be allowed to run for president (at least no one should vote for senators in the primaries).

[Guest]

It seems to me that the cold truth is that the President's identity doesn't really matter. Big money controls almost all the politicians, and definitely the ones with a lot of power. So much money is being made off of the war and off of our horrible medical/health care system, wasted tax dollars and social security, etc... Things would be the same whether Bush was ever president or not. The two parties have developed opposite connotations, but that is just a facade. They all listen when the big money talks. How else could anyone get elected in the US? Ron Paul tried to run on morals and standards and got laughed off the stage by the media and most of America.

As for Bush, he's just a figurehead who listens to and does as those around him say. He seems like a good guy and I believe that he cares for the country and has gotten a bad rap as being a bad person. Bad president - yes, but I think any candidate in about the last half-century has been pretty bad. Obama and McCain are both awful candidates. Senators shouldn't even be allowed to run for president (at least no one should vote for senators in the primaries).

So true. It's all about the money these days.

[Brandonb]

It seems to me that the cold truth is that the President's identity doesn't really matter. Big money controls almost all the politicians, and definitely the ones with a lot of power. So much money is being made off of the war and off of our horrible medical/health care system, wasted tax dollars and social security, etc... Things would be the same whether Bush was ever president or not. The two parties have developed opposite connotations, but that is just a facade. They all listen when the big money talks. How else could anyone get elected in the US? Ron Paul tried to run on morals and standards and got laughed off the stage by the media and most of America.

As for Bush, he's just a figurehead who listens to and does as those around him say. He seems like a good guy and I believe that he cares for the country and has gotten a bad rap as being a bad person. Bad president - yes, but I think any candidate in about the last half-century has been pretty bad. Obama and McCain are both awful candidates. Senators shouldn't even be allowed to run for president (at least no one should vote for senators in the primaries).

Eh, I can't totally agree that they are the exact same. Both parties have basic ideals that they must tout to retain the support of the people. That is why the Republicans are falling apart. Anyway, because both parties need to support certain ideals, they are supported by different "big money." Sure, they listen when big money talks, but there's different "special interest" money involved for different parties. I mean, I'm sure Halliburton is not funding many, if any, Democrats. Just like with Democrats, mad money from medical companies is pouring in, in favor of stem cell research. So the figure head of choice comes with certain favoritisms (actually, they are returning the favors ) for certain "big money special interest groups." So a big difference is made depending on who gets in. Not so much because of the person, but because of what "big money" they decide to give the government corporate welfare and tax breaks to. Not to mention, the President picks those people who give advise around him.

[Guest]

I agree with that last bit there LIS, and Bushisms are always funny.

Even though I can't vote (though I can in a few years), I don't see how anyone could vote for Bush. Neither of my parents ever voted for him, and I'm glad they didn't. Ever since he has been in office, nothing good has happened, especially with starting the war. Hopefully the next president (I'm rooting for Obama) will do a better job and clean up this country.

And yes, Brandonb, it might not all be his fault, but Bush is still an idiot. The alternatives were better.

Can you even name the alternatives

[Guest]

Ahh, politics. A topic about which everyone presumes to an educated opinion and noone is correct. My OPINION is PRESIDENT Bush did the best that could be done given the circumstances. My problem is with the lack of respect afforded the person in the highest office in the nation whoever s(he) might be. I would even stoop to calling Obsama President Obama because that is what is expected. I dislike President Bush because he delegated too much decision making to underlings. Were they more qualified than their Democrat counterparts? Of course. Democrats are and have been for all of my life and all of recorded history the samaritans handing out goodies from the one hand in front while they stab you in the back with the right hand(predominant). An honest assessment of their "accomplishments" since 1900 and the implications of everything they have "achieved" would leave any intelligent person trembling with anger and would signal the end of the party. Alas, not to be. While I advocate a Libertarian viewpoint and am wholly skeptical of government intervention being beneficial in any way when they purport to intervene in peoples lives for any reason since the end result is a LCD answer, I find the Republicans better only in that they do what they say or held to that position before they attempted to move to the center around 1998 or so. Their actions since are indefensible as well. The problem boils down to the influence of the Juris Collegiate. In short, lawyers DONT make good leaders. They may be fluent in bureauspeak but they are profoundly deficient in real world economics and social issues. Add to that a egocentric "I am better therefore I can help the paeans" philosophy and Karl Marx is dancing on the brimstone.

In summary both parties are infected with self centered elitists who forget why they were elected and would make good shark fodder but President Bush is far from the worst. Witness the prolonged agony of former President Jimmy Carter inciting giggles amongst the Islamic world as they lower their opinion and fear level of the west. Save this post for 8 years and print it for posterity once the left rules the roost. Remember I told you so. (pulling my chair up to the mensa).

[Guest]

By the way, LCD is least common denominator. I would be glad to debate anyone on this subject as it is a favorite, here or elsewhere. Be prepared for your most heartfelt assumptions to be challenged logically and with undeniable reality. This includes those friends from elsewhere who would like a refreshing perspective on American reality not available through the fourth estate or its overseas associates. Just message me.

[Guest]

Can you even name the alternatives

I can name the major ones in the two presidential elections, Al Gore and John Kerry. I'm not big on politics to be honest, and true, they wouldn't have been much better, but I still think they could probably have done a better job then Bush. I guess we'll never know.

[Guest]

I can name the major ones in the two presidential elections, Al Gore and John Kerry. I'm not big on politics to be honest, and true, they wouldn't have been much better, but I still think they could probably have done a better job then Bush. I guess we'll never know.

a surprisingly honest answer. Your right we will never know.

[Guest]

well that can only seem to mean one thing, based on what you're saying

you're independant

and like most independant's I've met you just do that to seem open minded, but you're really republican

So if I disagree with key aspects of both parties and therefor can't get in bed with either I'm a Republican?