It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Specific List of wrongs...

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 7 2004 @ 02:20 PM
link   
Can you all please name some of the things that you don't like about Bush? I know I don't like how he keeps passing stupid acts such as the Patriot act, and how he approved the Patriot act II. I know that a good majority of people here don't like Bush, but please tell me what you don't like, and what you would like to see improve.

J.




posted on Mar, 7 2004 @ 02:27 PM
link   
The war in Iraq...I can see why we went to Afghanistan but not Iraq...



posted on Mar, 7 2004 @ 02:43 PM
link   
he is working towards a constitutional ammendment that removes basic civil rights, and as far as im concerned, he is doing it because of his religious beliefs.



posted on Mar, 7 2004 @ 02:48 PM
link   


he is working towards a constitutional ammendment that removes basic civil rights, and as far as im concerned, he is doing it because of his religious beliefs.


what ammwndment is this?



posted on Mar, 7 2004 @ 02:50 PM
link   
Yeah, I was wondering the same thing. Maybe there talking about the Patriot act? That is the closest thing that I can think of that would take away your basic civil rights...



posted on Mar, 7 2004 @ 02:59 PM
link   
Its the proposed constitutional amendment making marriage between a man and a woman.



posted on Mar, 7 2004 @ 03:02 PM
link   
The fact he haven't done anything about Saudi Arabia and the he will probably not do anything.

Oh wait, I forgot they're friends with the terrorists over there... After all, they helped him took the towers down.



posted on Mar, 7 2004 @ 03:11 PM
link   
easing the tax burden for the wealthiest percentage of society whilst watching the working classes forced into the use of soup kitchens.

kyoto.

his use of force rather than negotiation in foreign policy and that he attacked iraq due to personal reasons.



posted on Mar, 7 2004 @ 03:28 PM
link   
Stymying the efforts of the 9-11 commision. Bush and his people are giving the commision only an hour of their time to answer questions. Plus they aren't letting the whole commision meet with them, only the top two. I'd like to think Kean is impartial, but I dunno...



posted on Mar, 7 2004 @ 06:26 PM
link   
I think he's a D bag just for letting saudi arabia stay untouched. And his pre-emptive strike policy.



posted on Mar, 7 2004 @ 08:27 PM
link   
Ah yes, the legendary pre-emptive strike policy...

I feel that Bush is one of the worst presidents when it comes to diplomatic relations. He is really a hot head if you ask me. While I'm happy Saddam isn't in contol of Iraq anylonger, Bush really had no right commiting this premptive agression, who next? Will he feel that Russia is a national security threat and try to attack them? Come on, this crap needs to change...



posted on Mar, 7 2004 @ 08:30 PM
link   
I don't think that we would pick on anyone that big unless we were provoked. That goes for places like China, Russia, or anyone in the EU.



posted on Mar, 7 2004 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Milton
Ah yes, the legendary pre-emptive strike policy...

I feel that Bush is one of the worst presidents when it comes to diplomatic relations. He is really a hot head if you ask me. While I'm happy Saddam isn't in contol of Iraq anylonger, Bush really had no right commiting this premptive agression, who next? Will he feel that Russia is a national security threat and try to attack them? Come on, this crap needs to change...


A pre-emptive war is like #ing somebody to keep your virginity.



posted on Mar, 8 2004 @ 09:07 AM
link   
Dunk, you are mistaken about what a basic "civil" right is. The amendment is something that would be laughed at only a few decades ago, but now, due to a lack of moral direction, it seems necessary in order to clarify what should already be known.
The amendment is not to excude deviancy, but to protect marriage. Homosexuals have the same basic God-given rights as human beings, but no more protection of their "alternative lifestyle" than any other act or action that has been deemed immoral or inappropriate for centuries.

As far as someone not understanding the War on Terror as it goes in Iraq, that can only be because of denial of many years of evidence and the very words and actions of Hussein.

As far as not touching Saudi Arabia, I can understand that sentiment, but I highly doubt any other perspective president would have done any differently.



posted on Mar, 8 2004 @ 09:24 AM
link   

As far as not touching Saudi Arabia, I can understand that sentiment, but I highly doubt any other perspective president would have done any differently.


exactly, it's fair because they're all equally corrupt.




posted on Mar, 8 2004 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Dunk, you are mistaken about what a basic "civil" right is. The amendment is something that would be laughed at only a few decades ago, but now, due to a lack of moral direction, it seems necessary in order to clarify what should already be known.
The amendment is not to excude deviancy, but to protect marriage. Homosexuals have the same basic God-given rights as human beings, but no more protection of their "alternative lifestyle" than any other act or action that has been deemed immoral or inappropriate for centuries.

As far as someone not understanding the War on Terror as it goes in Iraq, that can only be because of denial of many years of evidence and the very words and actions of Hussein.

As far as not touching Saudi Arabia, I can understand that sentiment, but I highly doubt any other perspective president would have done any differently.


That is where we differ Thomas. What one persons "moreality" is can be quite different than anothers. If the purpose of the amendment is to "protect" marriage that is a joke. Over 50% end up in divorce. I would venture that rate is much lower among the "unconventional".

Morality has not really changed Thomas. Perhaps it is more out in the open.



posted on Mar, 8 2004 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by madmanacrosswater
That is where we differ Thomas. What one persons "moreality" is can be quite different than anothers. If the purpose of the amendment is to "protect" marriage that is a joke. Over 50% end up in divorce. I would venture that rate is much lower among the "unconventional".

Morality has not really changed Thomas. Perhaps it is more out in the open.


On the contrary. I think morality HAS changed. If it had not then people would not be getting divorced over and over again.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join