Bush [Archive] - GovTeen Forums

DURF

Nov-30-2004, 03:22 PM

For starters, Dubya is the stupidest person to be president since Warren G. Harding.
If Cheney didn't tell him what to do on the morning of 9/11, he would have peed in his pants.

Apart from that, he's a tool of the hardline Christian fundamentalists as well of big oil.
His campaign used fear, mendacity, and propaganda to get votes.

The best overall description of his policies comes from the book, Made in Texas: George W. Bush and the Southern Takeover of American Politics::
• The Texas conservatism of George W. Bush combines seventeenth-century religion, eighteenth-century economics, and nineteenth-century imperialism.
--Michael Lind
first even kerry said when he first found out about 9/11 he was so stunned he couldn't think..

going by your bush hatred im assuming you were for kerry.. a tool of the trial lawyers and the special interests groups who tried to use lies about his service record to get elected? yeah hes a MUCH better candidate.. [/sarcasm]

as you can probably tell i voted for bush.. aside from some topics where i disagree with his stances hes been a good president and was right in going to war with iraq..

Mosquito

Nov-30-2004, 03:37 PM

going by your bush hatred im assuming you were for kerry.. a tool of the trial lawyers and the special interests groups who tried to use lies about his service record to get elected? The very easy counterpoint being, of course, that at least Kerry has a service record.

optid

Nov-30-2004, 03:53 PM

first even kerry said when he first found out about 9/11 he was so stunned he couldn't think..
1) Back that statement up with documentation from a non-Republican source.
2) On the other hand, everybody knows exactly what Bush was doing when New York City was attacked. The commander in chief of the US armed forces was zoning out over a book on goats while people were dying in the World Trade Center.

going by your bush hatred im assuming you were for kerry.. a tool of the trial lawyers and the special interests groups who tried to use lies about his service record to get elected? yeah hes a MUCH better candidate.. [/sarcasm]

The only lies about Kerry's Vietnam service came from the Smear Boats for Bush who were financed by Republican oil money in Texas and headed by a guy who was an assistant to a convicted Watergate felon in the Nixon White House.
Dubya has yet to account for his time in the National Guard in 1972-1973. Why will he only say that he hasn't done coke since 1974? He could always say that he snorted it before 1974, but didn't inhale.

as you can probably tell i voted for bush..
OMG, YOU'RE KIDDING!

aside from some topics where i disagree with his stances hes been a good president and was right in going to war with iraq..
Wrong war, Wrong time, Wrong place.

Bush hater and proud! :D

rockerok44

Nov-30-2004, 03:56 PM

he is better than kerry hes a fucker he wouldnt make it a stronger america he make it a weaker 1

wewt

Nov-30-2004, 04:02 PM

he is better than kerry hes a fucker he wouldnt make it a stronger america he make it a weaker 1
God forbid that happens.

*cough*

Nanodesu

Nov-30-2004, 04:10 PM

I like him, Kerry would have been just as corrupt but he's smarter so he would be able to carry out his evil plans with more aptitude, also Bush makes the world know laughter again.

Free Blowjobs

Nov-30-2004, 04:11 PM

Fuck Bush. He shouldn't have been the president in the first place.

wewt

Nov-30-2004, 04:14 PM

Also do realise this has everything to do with how you like Bush, not how you like Kerry.

Bush sucks.

DURF

Nov-30-2004, 04:16 PM

1) Back that statement up with documentation from a non-Republican source.
2) On the other hand, everybody knows exactly what Bush was doing when New York City was attacked. The commander in chief of the US armed forces was zoning out over a book on goats while people were dying in the World Trade Center.

The only lies about Kerry's Vietnam service came from the Smear Boats for Bush who were financed by Republican oil money in Texas and headed by a guy who was an assistant to a convicted Watergate felon in the Nixon White House.
Dubya has yet to account for his time in the National Guard in 1972-1973. Why will he only say that he hasn't done coke since 1974? He could always say that he snorted it before 1974, but didn't inhale.

Wrong war, Wrong time, Wrong place.

1 it was in a speach kerry made.
2 what do you expect bush to do? leap into russel crowe stance and shake his fist at the middle east? you really are a moron arent you?

the only lies about kerry's vietnam record came from kerry.. if you want to believe that assclown was a war hero and went into cambodia when NO ONE went into cambodia then be my guest.. stay ignorant to the facts..

if you knew anything about the war or had friends or family in the service you would shut the hell up right now..

let me just ask you are you even old enough to vote? my guess is no.

DURF

Nov-30-2004, 04:18 PM

Also do realise this has everything to do with how you like Bush, not how you like Kerry.

Bush sucks.
no this is the same as the election.. its those that hated kerry or those that hated bush.. it wasnt a popularity contest this time.. it was which candidate had most of the country despise him and it happened to turn out more people didnt like kerry..

Martin0934

Dec-04-2004, 08:46 PM

he's a fucker.

i think that sums it up.
Took the words right out of my mouth!!! Thanks Davo

CarolinaThunder

Dec-04-2004, 09:36 PM

no this is the same as the election.. its those that hated kerry or those that hated bush.. it wasnt a popularity contest this time.. it was which candidate had most of the country despise him and it happened to turn out more people didnt like kerry..true.
I love Bushes' statement he made while campaigning "Some of our are trying to find votes in hollywood, but i think we can find it right here in Insert City here" it was around them lines... it's so true.

optid

Dec-04-2004, 11:00 PM

"Some of our are trying to find votes in hollywood, but i think we can find it right here in Insert City here"

That sounds like Dubya all right. :D
"Fool me once..."

Spanky

Dec-05-2004, 10:31 AM

They're both crap. Oprha should run.

Sprachbund

Dec-05-2004, 02:15 PM

He's a decent guy, although far from perfect. I tend to think that his decision to go to war with Iraq was a wrong one and that he perhaps spends too much. However, he was a much better choice than the "other" candidate on issues of gay marriage and abortion, so I voted for him last month.

John24

Dec-05-2004, 02:55 PM

LEts just say he is by far better then kerry. kerry is a idiot.(no offense btw my reason is b/c he doesnt support the military)

PWNAGE

Dec-05-2004, 03:15 PM

he's better than Kerry. That's all that matters!word my Philly native brother. PHILLY REPRESENT! lol

Wrong war, Wrong time, Wrong place.

beacuse I'm sure you know a whole bunch on the times that war shoud be conducted. you are a a jack ass, and you dont know shit, about fuck. i wouldnt Fuck with DURF when it comes to war and shit, he has this shit down to a science

optid

Dec-05-2004, 04:05 PM

LEts just say he is by far better then kerry. kerry is a idiot.(no offense btw my reason is b/c he doesnt support the military)

That's a bunch of Republican BS.

John Kerry enlisted in the US Navy when he didn't have to. He volunteered for duty in Vietnam when he didn't have to.
George W. Bush was on the verge of being drafted when he got his powerful daddy to pull strings to get him into the Texas Air National Guard where he served with the sons of other Texas politicians in what was known informally as "the champagne unit (http://www.motherjones.com/news/outfront/2003/01/ma_217_01.html)" of the Texas Air National Guard.

Dubya has yet to attend a funeral of any of the 1,270 Americans killed in the Iraq War.

Here's what Sen. Kerry did last week, well after the election.

http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20041202/i/r3878479840.jpg

Crossfire

Dec-05-2004, 04:42 PM

For starters, Dubya is the stupidest person to be president since Warren G. Harding.Back that statement up.

If Cheney didn't tell him what to do on the morning of 9/11, he would have peed in his pants. Back that statement up

His campaign used fear, mendacity, and propaganda to get votes. Compare the rhetoric of the respective campaigns objectivly and you will see whose used fear to get votes out more (hint, it isn't the candidate who was a governor)
http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20041202/i/r3878479840.jpg

Good for Kerry. However, Presidents, by and large, have not attended funerals of soliders killed. The exceptions are those who are known by presidents such as:
According to the Johnson Library, LBJ attended two funerals for soldiers who died during the Vietnam War. The first funeral was for Captain Albert Smith, son of White House correspondent Merriman Smith, which was held February 28, 1966. The second was for Major General Keith R. Ware, held September 17, 1968. LBJ had met Ware while visiting Vietnam.
Take a look at this page: http://hnn.us/articles/1784.html

So your point is a moot one.

PWNAGE

Dec-05-2004, 06:05 PM

John Kerry enlisted in the US Navy when he didn't have to. He volunteered for duty in Vietnam when he didn't have to.
how about when he got out? when he SLANDERED every man who faught in vietnam? my dad served 4 years on his own free will. and wound up serving a few years as a POW, then when he gets home he finds out some fucking hippy bitch is slandering all of his fellow soldiers dead and alive? yea if he is such a good man, why did he take some other veterans purple heart and throw it into the river? yea he's such a good man isnt he... that good old john Kerry. hes so good, he makes you look like you actually know what your talking about

CarolinaThunder

Dec-05-2004, 06:13 PM

there is NO WAY that Kerry got 3 purple hearts in 4 months.
He's a dirty thief.

DURF

Dec-05-2004, 06:14 PM

yeah gotta love when someoe thinks a man that got purple hearts for what were SCRATCHES basically compared to the wounds of some servicemen i know that tried to REFUSE the purple heart.. ohh and this hero "chased down a machine gun nest" aka shot the vietnamese in the back as they were running away.. yeah some leader he would be.

PWNAGE

Dec-05-2004, 06:19 PM

optid

Dec-06-2004, 03:15 AM

Back that statement up.
I think it's pretty self-evident, but if you insist...
From Slate (http://slate.msn.com/id/9102):

Over the years, it's become almost a given that Democratic nominees are brighter than their Republican rivals. The GOP has even tried to turn that perception into an advantage, as when George Bush portrayed Michael Dukakis as a high-falutin' Cambridge intellectual.

The perception has a solid foundation in fact. Gore, for example, scored a 625 on the verbal portion of the SAT compared to Bush's 566, and he has personally written articles and a book on serious subjects while W.'s aversion to serious reading is undisputed. In terms of IQ and intellectual curiosity, Democratic candidates have long enjoyed a conspicuous edge. Presidential historian William Leuchtenburg of the University of North Carolina says that to find a Republican who was clearly smarter than his rival, "you probably would have to go back to 1928" when Herbert Hoover defeated Al Smith.

Presidential historian Robert Dallek quoted about George W. Bush in The Daily Free Press (http://www.dailyfreepress.com/news/2002/10/03/News/Dallek.Blasts.Bushs.Presidential.Reign-288512.shtml) of Boston University:
"the least qualified man to be in the White House since Warren G. Harding"

And you may recall this portion of an article in Salon (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/09/16/tsurumi/index1.html) where one of Bush's professors said:
"At first, I wondered, 'Who is this George Bush?' It's a very common name and I didn't know his background. And he was such a bad student that I asked him once how he got in. He said, 'My dad has good friends.' " Bush scored in the lowest 10 percent of the class.

Of course, there are always the fabled Bushisms to remind us of his great intellect. This list was just updated last week.
http://slate.msn.com/id/76886/

If you want to know how it was Cheney who managed the crisis on the morning of 9/11 while Dubya stared blankly at his goat book and was then flown from airbase to airbase, read Richard A. Clarke's book "Against All Enemies". Clarke was in the White House with Cheney, Rice, and some essential others after most of the staff had been evacuated. Just so you don't have to read more than necessary, pages 2 to 20 (hardcover edition) will fill you in on who was really running the show that morning.

Speaking of Cheney, during the campaign he tried to win votes by scaring people in a speech (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5936960/).
DES MOINES, Iowa - Vice President Dick Cheney says the United States will risk another terrorist attack if voters make the wrong choice on Election Day, suggesting Sen. John Kerry would follow a pre-Sept. 11 policy of reacting defensively.

“It’s absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on Nov. 2, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we’ll get hit again and we’ll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States,” Cheney told supporters at a town-hall meeting Tuesday.
In other words, "Vote Republican or you'll get killed!"

The whole Smear Boats for Bush thing was a premeditated effort which was financed by Republican money in Texas.
The instigator of the project was the infamous John E. O'Neill. In the early 1970s O'Neill was an aide to Watergate conspirator and convicted felon Charles Colson.
Columnist Joe Conason did some excellent investigative work in uncovering this Republican link to an attempt to smear Kerry's service record. It's the Kerry campaign's own fault that they didn't take Conason's work more seriously last May.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2004/05/04/swift/
http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2004/05/14/gannon/

One of the more blatant Bush propaganda efforts was when videos were made by the Dept. of Health and Human Services and paid for by taxpayer money which were misleading. The videos were targeted at senior citizens and essentially gave the Bush-Cheney party line disguised as a news story on medicare.
Florida, of course, has a large number of old people.
The story is still available here...
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/20/politics/20medicare.html

Presidents, by and large, have not attended funerals of soliders killed.
Why not? Arlington is only a short ride away. Perhaps Kerry could give him a lift over there.

optid

Dec-06-2004, 04:00 AM

how about when he got out? when he SLANDERED every man who faught in vietnam?
You spoke to EVERY Vietnam vet in America and they ALL said to you,
"SARGE, I feel slandered by John Kerry."?

Well, I have to say you missed a few, probably quite a few.
Of the eight people I know who are Vietnam vets, 5 voted for Kerry, 2 voted for Bush, and one slacker probably didn't vote. None of them have ill feelings about Kerry's activities during or after the war.
Sen. John McCain, a Vietnam vet and ex-POW, still considers himself a friend of Kerry. Send him an email and ask him how HE feels.
http://mccain.senate.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=Contact.Home

The one exit poll I saw four weeks ago that tracked veterans showed that the breakdown of their votes was similar to the national percentage.

The only Vietnam vet who was really slandered this year was John Kerry whose service record was lied about by the Republican Smear Boats for Bush.

As a retired officer who fought in that war, John Kerry had not just a right, but a duty to speak out about the conduct of that war. If something's going wrong in a war and the politicians are ignoring it, then it's time to turn up the volume.
The First Amendment is not just a touchy-feely afterthought to the Constitution to make us feel good about ourselves. A free flow of information is vital to the functioning of a democracy. One of the reasons the Soviet Union collapsed was that nobody felt free to speak out when something was going wrong.

PWNAGE

Dec-06-2004, 03:56 PM

You spoke to EVERY Vietnam vet in America and they ALL said to you,
"SARGE, I feel slandered by John Kerry."?

Well, I have to say you missed a few, probably quite a few.
Of the eight people I know who are Vietnam vets, 5 voted for Kerry, 2 voted for Bush, and one slacker probably didn't vote. None of them have ill feelings about Kerry's activities during or after the war.
Sen. John McCain, a Vietnam vet and ex-POW, still considers himself a friend of Kerry. Send him an email and ask him how HE feels.
http://mccain.senate.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=Contact.Home

The one exit poll I saw four weeks ago that tracked veterans showed that the breakdown of their votes was similar to the national percentage.

The only Vietnam vet who was really slandered this year was John Kerry whose service record was lied about by the Republican Smear Boats for Bush.

As a retired officer who fought in that war, John Kerry had not just a right, but a duty to speak out about the conduct of that war. If something's going wrong in a war and the politicians are ignoring it, then it's time to turn up the volume.
The First Amendment is not just a touchy-feely afterthought to the Constitution to make us feel good about ourselves. A free flow of information is vital to the functioning of a democracy. One of the reasons the Soviet Union collapsed was that nobody felt free to speak out when something was going wrong.

Yea, but have you ever been to a Vietnam veterans meeting/reunion. I would hear all of them guys going at it about how much prople like John Kerry pissed them off. all the vets had a positive reaction when they came home, much the the Ideal WWII soldier comming home, people saw it as soldiers doing thier duty. as soonn as Kerry came home, all the Vietnam vets were scoffed at, anyone in the military was looked at differentlyt on by some actavist while he sat in a hospital recooperating from the 7 or 8 years he did in nam.

now this is just speculation, so don't flame me for this. a lot of vets say that had it not been for Kerry, the NVA would have wound up surrendering, but seeing as how Kerry started all this comotion that they thought it was a good way to bring America down with a crashing fall. so had it not been for Kerry, maybe the NVA really would ahve pulled out.

Mosquito

Dec-06-2004, 04:23 PM

If they're really suggesting that Kerry was influential enough to change the outcome of a war, then that sounds like something of a compliment.

optid

Dec-06-2004, 05:05 PM

Yea, but have you ever been to a Vietnam veterans meeting/reunion. I would hear all of them guys going at it about how much prople like John Kerry pissed them off. all the vets had a positive reaction when they came home, much the the Ideal WWII soldier comming home, people saw it as soldiers doing thier duty.
In a country as large as ours there can be a lot of regional and local variations in opinion.

WWII vets had the GI Bill in addition to a grateful public. The impact of this can't be overstated. Millions were able to go to college, buy homes, and start businesses. In a way, middle class America got its biggest boost ever after 1945. Nothing quite like the GI Bill has existed since. This certainly added to the frustration of those coming home from Vietnam to a country which had mixed feelings about that war.
Some gave in to the temptation to just blame those who disagreed with the conduct of the war. But I think that a series of miscalculations and bad judgements by politicians of both parties was responsible for the war going badly. The Vietnam War influenced a young Colin Powell into later formulating the Powell Doctrine which was aimed at avoiding the mistakes of Vietnam.

now this is just speculation, so don't flame me for this. a lot of vets say that had it not been for Kerry, the NVA would have wound up surrendering, but seeing as how Kerry started all this comotion that they thought it was a good way to bring America down with a crashing fall. so had it not been for Kerry, maybe the NVA really would ahve pulled out.
I think that Kerry's influence on the war has been hugely overstated by his political opponents.
His testimony before Congress was in 1971. The anti-war movement had been very big since at least 1967. I think Lt. Kerry was still in the Mekong Delta in 1967.

I like looking at old news magazines. You can get a reasonable idea of what news the public was preoccupied with by just looking at the contents. If you are at the library and have some time to kill, glance at TIME and Newsweek from the years 1967 through 1971. By the end of 1971, the economy was starting to get as much attention as the war.
After the invasion of Cambodia caused an uproar in 1970, President Nixon pretty much decided to steadily withdraw troops from Southeast Asia. I suspect that the Viet Cong paid far more attention to Nixon's policies than to Kerry's speeches.
But anyway, there may be a good topic here for Historical Discussions, as long as it doesn't look like a hatchet job on John Kerry.

PWNAGE

Dec-06-2004, 05:38 PM

as much as I see your points, which are pretty valid, i will not bring myself to like a man who puts his fellow soldiers down, to make himself look righteous

John24

Dec-06-2004, 10:07 PM

That's a bunch of Republican BS.

John Kerry enlisted in the US Navy when he didn't have to. He volunteered for duty in Vietnam when he didn't have to.
George W. Bush was on the verge of being drafted when he got his powerful daddy to pull strings to get him into the Texas Air National Guard where he served with the sons of other Texas politicians in what was known informally as "the champagne unit (http://www.motherjones.com/news/outfront/2003/01/ma_217_01.html)" of the Texas Air National Guard.

Dubya has yet to attend a funeral of any of the 1,270 Americans killed in the Iraq War.

Here's what Sen. Kerry did last week, well after the election.

http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20041202/i/r3878479840.jpg

News FLash!! KErry protested against the war and hes is a dumbass!! period!!!:proud:

optid

Dec-06-2004, 11:37 PM

hes is a dumbass!! period!!!:proud:
Havin' fun in the glass house?

swany

Dec-07-2004, 08:05 PM

he portrays US poorly though out the rest of the world

screaming

Dec-10-2004, 09:55 PM

I don't particularly care for Bush. This war sucks. I'm losing people left and right. :-(

FlyBoy89

Dec-11-2004, 10:58 PM

Besides his bad economic policies, which my family has lost a lot of money over, I realy lost all if any respect for that man, when he did not commit forces in Afghanistan, and completly get rid of the Taliban, to go into Iraq, which has no WMDS, no connectons to the Taliban, and worst of all, he was Against the 9/11 comision, and was originaly against the Dept. of Homeland Security. But this is me, a Democratic New Yorker, that relates more with Intelligent Northern Democrats, than Moronic Southern Conservatives.

Alphonse

Dec-11-2004, 11:08 PM

he is better than kerry hes a fucker he wouldnt make it a stronger america he make it a weaker 1
Thank you for your meaningful input. MORON.

Anyway, what is up with everyone being Anti-Bush? I know he is not the greatest president ever, but why are mtv and all those fuckers jumping on the Anti-Bush bandwagon? Eminem recently joined, greenday is doing it. What is up with that? Is that the cool thing to do now? Being Anti-Bush? Being anti-Republican?

FlyBoy89

Dec-12-2004, 12:52 AM

What is up with that? Is that the cool thing to do now? Being Anti-Bush? Being anti-Republican?Obviously, only with mainstream celebs is Bush Hating a passtime. Bush did get re-elected, so what's the big deal? it didn't hurt him in the election

xox Venessa xox

Dec-18-2004, 06:51 PM

I think Bush is not a very good public speaker, and he stammers too much. But I like how he dealt with 9/11.

GP_64

Dec-25-2004, 01:06 AM

I think he sucks, If I was 18 on election day, I would have voted for Kerry.

WhoAmI8505

Dec-28-2004, 02:18 AM

does anyone else think that something real dumb and bad must be getting ready to happen, considering how many people have stepped down since he got re-'elected'?

Mecher

Jan-04-2005, 10:58 PM

I say its about time we have a presindent that is a little girl when it comes to responding to terrorist attacks. Im talking about Bill, I hear many people calling him a great presindent, fact is he wasn't. Countless terrorist attacks happened that killed 100's of Americans and if he did anything in response it was the wasting of 2 million dollar cruise missiles on 10 dollar tents that probably was some normad family and not a bunch of terrorists. Bill is the reason why 9/11 happened, OBL called the US and the American people soft because we can't take the lost of life and are afraid to go to war. Had we taken OBL out while Bill was in office 9/11 would just be someones nightmare.

optid

Jan-05-2005, 12:35 AM

I say its about time we have a presindent that is a little girl when it comes to responding to terrorist attacks.
But we do! I'm so glad that we finally agree.
:D

Maybe you finallly got around to reading "Against All Enemies" by Richard Clarke.
For those who don't know, Clarke was appointed Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence by Ronald Reagan. George H.W. Bush made Clarke Assistant Secretary of State for Politico-Military Affairs. Bill Clinton named him the first ever National Coordinatorfor Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counterterrorism (or Counterterrorism Czar for short). George W. Bush retained Clarke in that position until he resigned in 2003.

Clarke was one of the few people who remained in the White House with Dick Cheney and Condi Rice on the morning of 9/11. He was the hands on manager of that crisis.

Few people are as qualified as Clarke to give an objective opinion on which of the past four presidents did the best job on fighting terrorism.
And Richard Clarke says that Bill Clinton was clearly the best of the four.

On top of the stuff he wrote about in his book, Clarke has had access to information that is still classified. Clarke hints that Clinton took actions unknown to the public that prevented Bosnia from falling under the control of al-Qaeda.

People will have a more accurate view about the recent history of the fight against terrorism by listening to Richard Clarke than by watching Fox News.

JMac

Jan-05-2005, 01:59 AM

Kerry came back to the US and spoke his mind on the war, along with other vets who thought something there was wrong. He followed his conscience, and I can't fault him for that and shame on the man who would. If more german soldiers, gestapo, SS and generals had listened to their conscience then then maybe those atrocities would never have occured. I don't want to sound like I'm badmouthing all Vietnam Vets, but do you think those that so rabidly defend the reightousness and mission in southeast asia are the most intelligent and informed about world politics? What do those men have to lose by saying that the 2, 4 or 6 years they spent in the bush comitting the ultimate taboo in the name of something greater? Everything. Vietnam is, or was, thier world, and to have anyone try to say that thier sacrifice was for nothing is utterly devestating, so why not delude yourself? Instead of buliding veterans (especially vietnam vets) up as infalliable martyrs, you need to look at them for what they are- human. They were sent to a war by other humans with a human purpose, and that purpose is not beyond scrutiny. Thier actions aren't beyond scrutiny. We owe it to ourselves and the members of our armed forces to never forget that.

larka_wolf

Apr-28-2005, 10:31 PM

He's one million times better than Kerry, but I still hate him. Maybe four years from now, one of the top two candidates will have a fully functional brain.

Crossfire

Apr-29-2005, 12:26 AM

Bleh. 4 months bump. :roll:

optid

Apr-29-2005, 08:39 AM

He's one million times better than Kerry
I have to admit that Dubya (as coached by Karl Rove) is far better at fooling Americans than Sen. Kerry.

JKV

Apr-29-2005, 10:29 AM

You've got to face it, you can't have any worse after you've had Bush as a president.

And as for the Vietam war:
I live in Southeast Asia and have a limited knowledge of the aftermath it has caused on some minorities up North. The US promised to abolish communism and free them in exchange for helping US soldiers. The US pretty much fucked up and left them there. The allies now are being killed daily by a miilitary dictatorship and they have wiped out the first generation of freedom fighters and are closing in on the second.

They're trying the same thing on another even more unstable political environment: Iraq. Bush has claimed tha Iraq had "weapons of mass destruction," If they had them, after a war with them, woudn't they use them? The war on Iraq is totally unjustified. To make things even worse, the pope dubbed the war as a crime. Then at his funeral, Bush and his associates pay a vists?

Screwed.

ozboy

Apr-30-2005, 02:41 AM

What do u guys think about the President?

George W Bush makes my skin crawl.

CarolinaThunder

Apr-30-2005, 02:41 AM

Thank God you're in Australia.

ozboy

Apr-30-2005, 02:43 AM

Thank God you're in Australia.

It's a shame that the rest of the world has to suffer his reign of terror, it wouldn't be such a wide reaching problem if he stuck to his own country and didn't bring the rest of the world down with it.

CarolinaThunder

Apr-30-2005, 02:45 AM

George Bush doesn't bring the whole world down with it, you're just an idiot.
You're the one meddling where you shouldn't be in the United States's affairs.

ozboy

Apr-30-2005, 02:47 AM

George Bush doesn't bring the whole world down with it, you're just an idiot.
You're the one meddling where you shouldn't be in the United States's affairs.

If you aren't aware of the way that United States Politics dictates world affairs then you aren't educated to argue about such issues.

CarolinaThunder

Apr-30-2005, 02:49 AM

ozboy

Apr-30-2005, 02:51 AM

Of course we dictate world affairs,we're the most powerful country in the world, but not to the extent that you think we do. You just seem a little obsessed over everything. It really makes me think you have some sort of disability. Hmmmm

American Politics dictates in areas that are none of their business. Just because it's the most powerful country in the world doesn't give it a right to have more say in how things are done. Especially when George W Bush manipulates world affairs and even creates wars all for his own financial benefit.

CarolinaThunder

Apr-30-2005, 02:53 AM

As usual, you are wrong.
Clearly, no one likes you. So you can just go in exile again:)
Ok? Ok. Perfect.
(don't even bother posting one of your gay "defenses" at me, it just makes me laugh.

ozboy

Apr-30-2005, 03:01 AM

As usual, you are wrong.
Clearly, no one likes you. So you can just go in exile again:)
Ok? Ok. Perfect.
(don't even bother posting one of your gay "defenses" at me, it just makes me laugh.

Interesting how you have to make it personal because you can't come up with an intelligent response.

Kendra

Apr-30-2005, 03:03 AM

Haha, I <3 Chris. ^_^

Anyways, I'm not a fan of the President, and I personally would have voted for Kerry in the past election had I not been seventeen. My main problems with Bush are the domestic issues. Gay marriage, education, etc. A lot of people try and cite the war as a reason to hate him . . . I can't say I'm glad he defied the UN but when it comes down to it, we're too far into it now, we can't just pull out like we did in . . . was it Kuwait? Kerry's plan to get us out of Iraq would have devastated the people there and on that issue I support Bush. [/uninformed opinion]

CarolinaThunder

Apr-30-2005, 03:07 AM

Interesting how you have to make it personal because you can't come up with an intelligent response.
No, you're just too narrow minded to have an intelligent conversation with. Plus, you are extremely naive, and have no real world experience outside of Australia, whereas I have traveled numerous places around the globe.
Also, it would be great if you DID leave because everyone I've talked to so far thinks you're an annoying twat. Awh, are you going to call me racist against all Australians now, douchebag?

ozboy

Apr-30-2005, 03:33 AM

No, you're just too narrow minded to have an intelligent conversation with. Plus, you are extremely naive, and have no real world experience outside of Australia, whereas I have traveled numerous places around the globe.
Also, it would be great if you DID leave because everyone I've talked to so far thinks you're an annoying twat. Awh, are you going to call me racist against all Australians now, douchebag?

I'm yet to see you say anything intelligent but anyway you don't know where I've been.

You also can't see what a place is like by going there or even living there. You have to look a lot deeper than that.

I am a highly educated person and you are obviously from a very sheltered privileged background so you are the one who is being naive.

ozboy

Apr-30-2005, 03:34 AM

As usual, you are wrong.
Clearly, no one likes you. So you can just go in exile again:)
Ok? Ok. Perfect.
(don't even bother posting one of your gay "defenses" at me, it just makes me laugh.

By the way most people would agree with my beliefs about George W Bush, he is very unpopular inside of and outside of the US.

JKV

Apr-30-2005, 04:56 AM

Its true about Bush's popularity outside the US. When you're inside the US you're not subject to hearing other nations' opinions.

Kamz

Apr-30-2005, 05:00 AM

Hes largely the reason why the US is an internation laughing stock. At least thats the way its seen round these parts.

optid

Apr-30-2005, 07:30 AM

You're the one meddling where you shouldn't be in the United States's affairs.
1) There are no restrictions as to who may post in each of the country forums. I post regularly in the Canada forum even though I'm obviously American.
Brady isn't checking passports.

2) The US under George W. Bush has "meddled" far more in Iraq's affairs than ozboy could ever dream of meddling in the United States.
At least ozboy, faulty as some of his information is, hasn't caused us any harm. It's unlikely that ozboy will cause the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians the way Bush has with the invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq.
ozboy probably won't invent dubious pretexts for meddling the way Bushies touted non-existent weapons of mass destruction or a fake Saddam/al-Qaeda connection.

Hes largely the reason why the US is an internation laughing stock. At least thats the way its seen round these parts.
The problem is that a majority (a 51% "mandate"?) of Americans are too insular to realize that.
I wonder how many of my fellow Americans even realize that there's a general election in the UK next week...

JKV

Apr-30-2005, 10:51 AM

Hes largely the reason why the US is an internation laughing stock. At least thats the way its seen round these parts.
Since Bush has taken over, the United States has been acting like a spoiled child among adult nations.

roan

Apr-30-2005, 12:20 PM

Fuck bush.

~Techno

Apr-30-2005, 12:26 PM

Right now I live in one of the "evil" countries that wouldn't support the war in Iraq, Germany. It's very amusing... mostly everyone hates Bush here. If I had been 18 come election day, I would have voted for Michael Badnarik. The man is amazing-- but I only say that because I agree with everything he stands for (except no public schools). People make the mistake that you could only vote for Bush or Kerry... but Badnarik was there too.

Vote Libertarian!

optid

Apr-30-2005, 01:35 PM

If I had been 18 come election day, I would have voted for Michael Badnarik. The man is amazing-- but I only say that because I agree with everything he stands for (except no public schools)
So, how many electoral votes did Badnarik get? :)

The electoral college favors a two party system in presidential elections. Independent candidate H. Ross Perot got 19% of the popular vote in 1992 but he got zero electoral votes.

The electoral college is based on a the states' representation in Congress. And small states get a disproportionate amount of representation because ALL states, regardless of size get two Senators, and every state, no matter how small, gets at least one House member.

To abolish the electoral college you need to amend the US Constitution. That requires a two-thirds vote in each house of Congress and the approval of the legislatures of 38 of the 50 states. The small states, who have a lot to lose, could block such an amendment in the Senate without much difficulty. But even if such an amendment slipped through the Senate, they would still kill it by having just one house of a state legislature in each of only 13 states vote "no" on it.

The bottom line: There will still be an electoral college for many years. And because of that, minor parties will act as little more than "spoilers" in presidential elections.
[/American Government 101]

*braces for flames from third party die hards*

~Techno

Apr-30-2005, 04:36 PM

So the only reason I shouldn't vote for my candidate of choice is because I know he's not going to win? That's a pretty stupid reason.

Badnarik got on to 50 out of 51 ballots... that means 250,000 people wanted him to be president (you have to get 5,000 people in each state to sign a petition to get you on the ballot)

optid

May-02-2005, 04:35 AM

So the only reason I shouldn't vote for my candidate of choice is because I know he's not going to win? That's a pretty stupid reason.
Say what you like. But when you vote, you are picking somebody to fill a job. If a person has no chance, for whatever reason, of getting that job, voting for him/her is an exercise in futility.

Badnarik got on to 50 out of 51 ballots... that means 250,000 people wanted him to be president (you have to get 5,000 people in each state to sign a petition to get you on the ballot)
Actually, requirements differ greatly in each of the states. But getting on the ballot is a minor problem compared with getting the largest number of votes in that state. And that is a minor problem compared to getting the required 270 electoral votes nationally.

Minor parties do play a role in our electoral system. Independents and minor party members have been elected to Congress, state legislatures, and statewide office in the past 50 years. One of the more famous ones was the former governor of Minnesota, Jesse "The Body" Ventura.

But as I explained above, the electoral college makes presidential elections a two party game. The only times a third candidate has influenced the results since World War Two is when he was regionally based. George Wallace in 1968 and Strom Thurmond in 1948 both carried states in their native South because of their pro-segregation policies.

It's nice that Mr. Badnarik got 250,000 votes (1 of every 476 votes cast nationally), but did he get more than 2% in any single state?
If he's genuinely interested in holding public office, why doesn't he run for something that he has a chance of winning? These minor candidates for president are running little more than "vanity campaigns".

optid

May-02-2005, 05:35 AM

It was on 01 May 2003, two years ago Sunday, that President George W. Bush stood below a banner which boasted "Mission Accomplished" on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln to declare an end to major combat in Iraq.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/kwiatkowski/mission-accomplished.jpg

Unfortunately, 1,446 of the 1,586 US fatalities in that war have occurred since then.

Much has been made of Bush's flying out to the aircraft carrier on a navy jet when he could have used a helicopter.
It turns out that even a helicopter probably wasn't necessary for him to get to the Abraham Lincoln as CBS (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/29/iraq/main580661.shtml) reported (bold type added by me):

Democrats claimed the White House wasted taxpayer dollars and sailors' time on a publicity stunt.

Despite initial claims that the ship was too far out to sea for a helicopter landing, forcing the president to use a jet, the Lincoln was actually within helicopter range when Mr. Bush arrived.

The jet flight was much more dramatic than a helicopter arrival would have been, as the president took the control stick for part of the flight and emerged on deck wearing a flight suit and helmet.

In addition, Pentagon officials told the Washington Post that after the president's speech, the Lincoln waited offshore for hours while he slept rather than heading into port after its 10-month voyage.
So the implication is that the carrier probably had plenty of time to make it into San Diego if it had been ordered to. The ship obviously slowed down to facilitate this staged event.

Kamz

May-02-2005, 09:22 AM

Unfortunately, 1,446 of the 1,586 US fatalities in that war have occurred since then.
Wow the US hav suffered bad! A royal marine was killed today bringing the British fatalities to 88 since the 'end' of the war.

optid

May-02-2005, 09:50 AM

Wow the US hav suffered bad! A royal marine was killed today bringing the British fatalities to 88 since the 'end' of the war.
This site was started by a US veteran early during the Iraq War. He was frustrated by the Defense Department's unwillingness or inability to provide such statistics. The tabulation is done meticulously and so accurately that it has become authoritative.
http://icasualties.org/oif/

In the news notes on the right, you will see a mention of the royal marine from Redding.

Brogan

May-02-2005, 02:46 PM

Bush stinks. And I'm allowed to say that. I met him personally. My family used to get invited to all sorts of the republican party things. Then I opened my eyes and became a card-carrying democrat, so now I get to stay at home and play D&D.

haleybugs3592

Jul-04-2005, 09:17 PM

I think that Clinton was A TON better than Bush- and he had an affiar
Clinton only screwed one person....Bush has screwed billions............

shyguy5001

Jul-08-2005, 02:28 AM

Here here, Haley!

Listen, you are NOT fit to be president if you crash on your bike TWICE! And as an ADULT!

I'm supprised that officer he ran into wasn't taken out by the military...

CarolinaThunder

Jul-08-2005, 02:45 AM

Here here, Haley!

Listen, you are NOT fit to be president if you crash on your bike TWICE! And as an ADULT!

Yes, because physical coordination is a key component in being the president:roll:

Balla10

Jul-08-2005, 03:27 AM

Here here, Haley!

Listen, you are NOT fit to be president if you crash on your bike TWICE! And as an ADULT!

I'm supprised that officer he ran into wasn't taken out by the military...

What the hell doe sthat have to do with anything? President Roosevelt was in a wheel chair, so does that mean he wasn't fit to be a president? I could crash my bike 50 times as an adult, but that doesn't mean I can't be a president. Man, if you're gonna say anything against someone, make it logical. :roll:

havoc

Jul-08-2005, 10:22 AM

I think bush is a total idiot who has absolutely no plan on what he is doing in Iraq, and has no simpathy for all of the soldiers who are being killed because of HIM. Every time he makes a speach, he sais exactly the same thing. Kerry was a jackass but i think he would be doing a better job right now..well anyone would.

Balla10

Jul-08-2005, 08:19 PM

But do you want them fighting on our home soil? Do you want terrorist coming here, rather than us going there to get them before they get us?

ghostwork

Jul-08-2005, 08:22 PM

i do hope that you know that no matter what we do, there will always be terrorism. my thought's on Bush's plan to basically get rid of all of the terrorists just seems like a waste of effort if you ask me. the idea of destroying terrorism appears to be a fantasy that eventually, everyone will get along (or at least, not kill each other.) essentially, it's a great idea but will never follow through.

havoc

Jul-08-2005, 08:29 PM

A big reason why terrorism is so high is because they are trying to force us and our allies out of their country. Bushes plan is only helping to increase terrorism, not decrease it.

Balla10

Jul-08-2005, 08:31 PM

You do have a good point. But i still am behind him with the war. We got Sadamm Hussein, and alot of main terrorist, so right now I think it's going ok, but most of you guys do have good points, just I am behind him in Iraq.

Mario64

Jul-09-2005, 02:04 PM

Not necessarily, mjjm. What does it take to make people understand that terrorists will attack regardless? They hate us for who we are and seek to make us bend to their will through demoralization and fear. It doesn't matter whose favor they swing the people's minds in now anyway since Bush is in his second term. They are angered by Bush- That's true- But it's because he not only gives the impression that a major goal of his administration is to have unwavering resolve in the face of these terrorists, but he directly states it. Iraq, as he has said, has become a front- Not because the terrorists were there to begin with, but because Iraq is now a target. We are drawing them out. It will be a slow, painful process- But we will defeat them if we have the balls to stay until Iraq can stand on its own two feet, even if the rest of the world doesn't. Yes, it was a mistake to invade Iraq for the reason we initially did- But we've managed to make some good of it. They have a democracy, they're raising their own army, and they're no longer under the fist of a cruel dictator that fed the children propaganda in their schools, killed without remorse, and was every bit a staunch supporter of anti-Western sentiments.

The question of whether it was worth the lives and livelihoods of innocent Iraqis, over 1,500 of our soldiers, and a great deal of US money is something that can't be answered by fact as of now- It will be a question that time will answer correctly, and a question that you and I can only dwell on.

The war was not for Bush's personal financial gain, I'll tell you that much. If we wanted oil, we could just as easily "nip and tuck" some intelligence and claim that Saudi Arabia possessed weapons of mass destruction as well as harbored terrorists (which it likely did and still does anyway). We invaded Iraq based on the very real possibility that it possessed such weapons. It did not, however, have them at the time of the searches; they may have been moved, destroyed at the last minute, or hidden where the best of inspectors would never think to search (Which likely includes a lot of places). After all, two years after the invasion, we discovered an air-conditioned bunker underneath Baghdad that was a hideout for terrorists- If such a facility could remain hidden for such a long period of time, I think it goes without saying that weapons of the kind we sought could very well still be hidden.

We could probably drill in ANWR, too.