It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Bush: 'I don't Give a Darn' What Americans Think About Me

page: 9
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 03:40 PM
reply to post by theresult

theresult, YOU'VE just insulted cats WorldWide by inferring that GWB HAS ANYTHING aproaching the intelligence of a cat!!!

Sorry for the one-line response....I added this line to correct my mistake....can I just say that History will reveal this to be the WORST PRESIDENT OF ALL TIME!!!! (?)

posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 05:01 PM
I am certainly no Bush fan, but seriously, shut up about it, in 3 days he will be gone, there is no need to be getting in your last punches because you've been knocking the guy around for at least 6 years. Jesus, if I read another post or news report on how stupid or bad Bush or was I'm going to punch someone. Move on, it's over, next time don't vote for people who don't at all share your principals be it democratic or republican. Most people who say he's the worst President ever have not been alive for very long or don't know a thing about American history. I'm starting to feel bad for the guy, because he wasn't as bad as he's being made out to be, yes, he was bad, but he is certainly not the worst.

[edit on 17-1-2009 by yellowcard]

posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 05:21 PM

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
I couldn't agree more with the President, he gave his heart and soul to this country for 8 years and led it through some of the darkest days of its history following 9/11/2001,

Darkest days? How was America's survival threatened by 9-11? Why do so many people, who have no historical perspective or knowlege in general, get misty eyed and violent whenever someone calls on them to respond to violence with violence?

As for the heart and soul can you provide evidence that he has either? I mean he has problems chewing his food and riding a bicycle, and can't communicate in English, so who's to say he doesn't come out a Japanese robotics factory? Hell i reckon my dog is more compassionate than model 1 George.

which could have been appointed if Bill Clinton had taken one of two opportunities to assassinate Osama Bin Laden, when he couldn't be disturbed during his "private" time in the Oval Office with a cigar and an Intern.

There is no evidence that OBL were behind or involved in the planning for 9-11. If you can not read or at least believe the FBI why post on sites such as these?

Bush did the best job he could with the Democratic rule in the House and Senate, who fought the man tooth and nail for everything.

So that's how Americans got the patrioc act and a economic meltdown as result of 'globalization'? I mean how do you think democratic control of the house/senate prevented corporations from taking control of the US at anything but a slightly slower rate? What did 'democrats' do that in fact safeguarded the political and economic rights of Americans?

Bush did rid the world of the tyrant Saddam Hussein, who murdered millions during his 30 year year of terror.

There are many tyrants worse than SH and the vast majority of Iraqi's died while the US were imposing sanctions on SH despite his best effort tow the line. Do you realise that the US national security ordered or protected SH while he commited almost all his crimes against humanity?

As for SH he most certainly didn't murder millions; the Us national security state has however killed tens of millions with more than two million of those being Iraqi.

Bush brought democratic elections to Iraq for the first time in 30+ years.

There hasn't been democratic elections in Iraq during the US internvetion ( by installing SH as dictator and thus destroying the reformist and progressive Baath party from the inside out) and most certainly not during it's occupation of that country.

So give the man the credit he deserves, he didn't loot the White House, like Bill Clinton did when he left 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

He deserves no credit and anyone who still believes in the Clinton 'looting' needs to do some basic research. What some Clinton staffers apparently did was to remove some 'w' keys from keyboards and hide them around the office.

The fact that this could be morphed into 'vandalism', by the American MSM for you to consume with critical thought, just tells me that you should probably type less as well.

in 2001. Clinton also stayed in Washington at an Air Force hanger and lingered around for hours after Bush had been inaugurated, thanking those who had helped him in his 8 year year of lies and deception.

Yup, Clinton did very little for the US and it can in fact be argued that GWB merely continued to enact the policies of the Reagan and earlier Bush era which Clinton built further built on. These people are working for the same general paymasters and what Americans have left is entirely due to their viligence and protections their parents and grandparents achieved.


posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 06:22 PM
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.

posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 08:47 PM
reply to post by yellowcard

yellowcard, it isn't just the last three days....MANY of us have been trying to point out what an idiot GWB is for YEARS!!!

AND, this moron wants to starta 'libary'...???

Oh, puhleze!!!!

posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 09:12 PM

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by yellowcard

yellowcard, it isn't just the last three days....MANY of us have been trying to point out what an idiot GWB is for YEARS!!!

AND, this moron wants to starta 'libary'...???

Oh, puhleze!!!!

I think that was my point, people have been bitching about him for years, 3 days are left and people are writing articles on how he's the worst President ever, and it's come to be getting pretty ridiculous, actually it has been pretty ridiculous. Leave the guy alone, it's over now, 3 days left and you will have someone else to bitch about.

posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 10:33 PM
reply to post by yellowcard

Yup! yellowcard, we have quite a few others to 'bitch 'about. Let's start with Dick Cheney, for example. After that, we have 'Gonzo'....the former 'Secretary' of...well, let's just diss his ENTIRE CABINET!!!! And, please DO NOT let Condi Rice escape this throw-down, because SHE is at least as guility as Bushie and Cheney (I didn't mean to shoot him in the face, unless he was going to testify against me) pathetic criminal DICK Cheney....can I re-iterate......Richard B. Cheney, who is the WORST CRIMINAL that has ever escaped prosecution, so far.....

posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 04:12 AM
Well You Americans Voted For Him

posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 04:52 AM

Originally posted by CoffinFeeder
I kind of love how the whole thing is taken out of context and people focus on that one line to justify their stance.

I kind of love it how people try to create context out of think air to obscure the fact that the little Bush felt this way about the American people from the start and proved it the last eight years.

What I took from it is he pretty much said he would sacrifice his approval ratings for sticking to his guns and so on.

The problem being that the guns are aimed at 95% of Americans who do their best to better themselves , and their understanding of events, despite the propaganda trying to tell them that politicians are in fact , despite popular sentiment, doing what's 'best' for them?

Why can't politicians for once do what the people want? Isn't it high time we tried that approach?

Personally, while I don't agree with a number of his policies and so on, I have to respect that part in a leader.

Democracies are not about strong leadership; if you want that create a monarchy or let contenders hold wrestling matches to determine a new president. Democracy is about leaders doing what the people want the majority wants and those who do not trust the majority are normally the minority who are oppressing them or those who have been propagandized to believe that they are in fact being served by the system of minority rule.

Lets face it, especially given all the dummycraps and newly formed democRats in this country, I wouldn't trust the leadership to mob rule either.

Democracy is 'mob rule' ( taken to mean populism or 'the majority') so if you don't like it go find yourself a nice little dictatorship where the minority uses however much force they can apply to protect their ill gotten wealth.

Lets face it, every time we've had a democrat leader in office, our country goes down the crapper and our rights evaporate.

The only fact i am facing here is that you do not seem to know anything about American history. The only people that consistently fight for the rights of Americans are the majority of the American public with governments under various guises consistently doing their best to revoke whatever freedoms popular pressure and activism forced them to concede for fear of losing even more control.

Most who know anything about politics will see Bush's politics as extremely democrat leaning. Clinton wasn't any better.

Democratic leaning? There are less than half a dozen European style 'democrats' in the US senate ( the House is far better) and this democratic leaning in the US government just does not exist. In fact it can probably be argued that it never did. If you could be brought to the understanding that Clinton wasn't a democrat you would probably be able to begin forming a understanding as to why half of Americans don't even vote knowing that it candidates are simply not representative.

And now, we have yet another liberal nincompoop heading into office.

What's liberal about Obama's projected policies? Please name one.

Say goodbye to having a way of life anywhere above the poverty level. Hopefully there will be enough calories, vitamins and minerals in the kool-aid to sustain you.

Well this is the course set by American presidents ever since at least the mid 70's ( when wages started stagnating ) so why blame the newest member who may at worse do nothing to change course? Why blame the ocean when ships don't change course?


posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 05:17 AM

Originally posted by esdad71
3 years from now when you are over taxed, there is no federally funded health care, the draft is back and socialism comes calling Bush's administration will not look that bad.

The American people are not overtaxed but taxes will have to be increased if the US government wants to keep funding the Pentagon and it's illegal wars while giving tax breaks to industry. This policy has been followed for a long time so why it should be blamed on 'socialism' ( and it's just socialism for the rich currently) which so consistently seems to impoverish Americans i don't know.

Our administration did not put our country in this mess, we as Americans did with overspending and feeling we are privileged.

Americans did not ask for a war against Iraq or Afghanistan and never asked for the massive pentagon budget that ensures a high tax burden on them. Americans may feel privileged but why wouldn't they in a country with such natural wealth?

Unemployment is skyrocketing but the congress and Senate get raises?????

And what's surprising about this other than the fact that the government always seems to have money to make the rich richer but must be fought every inch of the way to reinvest taxes taken from the people into programs and infrastructure that would benefit them?

This man did not care about those who opposed the tough decisions he made.

This man made the same decisions Bill Clinton did and that was to make the rich richer ( they after all payed for his campaign to win the white house) to batter the middle class into working ever harder to sustain current living standards and to make it ever harder for the working poor to 'pull themselves up by their boostraps'.

He made decisions for the good of all people and not the select few that strayed his views.

He enacted decisions that were made for him by the people who paid for his campaign. In democratic countries presidents are supposed to do what the electorate demanded in proportion to those demands and not to do what they think is best based on their own reasoning. If the people wanted that they would have never took up arms to create democratic political systems by which to gain power over their futures. Frankly i don't know where you got your education from but if possible i suggest you return it to sender as it's useless.

People think that lobbyists got the best of him and he was a monkey but he had balls. Big ones.

But funnily the PEOPLE who voted for him could be ignored while the wishes of minority groups ( no, i mean industry, not racial or political groups) where inacted as fast as he believed he could get away with it. How is it that he managed to ignore lobbyist , who possible in good part paid for his campaign, but also the people who voted for him?

Who do you think inspired the choices that so ravished the American economy and it's workers?

That is what it takes to run a country.

Was he the best, no, but he was not the worst.

That's what it takes to run a dictatorship but that's not what the US electorate voted for or the system they believe they live in. That's how it's being run but apparently you believe this is a positive thing in a nominally democratic system?


posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 05:29 AM

Originally posted by treemanx
Yet again, these responses only highlight your ignorance.

I don't expect your going to be , or for that matter can be, more specific than that?

Are you kidding me?????

I only kid around with educated people.

Do you actually read the things you type? Please stop, your embarrassing yourself.

I mean, you just said, "How could 911 be a security threat to the US?" and

9-11 is not and could never be a security threat to the US in that it didn't threaten the future of the US. The Russian nuclear aresenal is a threat to US security but four planes that could have easily been shot down isn't and can never be unless allowed to.

"There's no proof that Osama was involved in the attacks."

Admittedly he may be but he said he wasn't and no proof has been put forward that proves or implicates him. This is why Pakistan, India and Afghanistan's leaders all asked for the proof, so they can show their people and gain the support they need to act against him, but were denied it and the invasion against Afghanistan launched any ways. Even Osama's relatives in the then Afghan 'government' said they would extradite him if he could be shown to be involved.

Why would they even say that? Perhaps their survival and their state where more important to them than one where stupid enough to give the US government a reason to flatten their country?

There wasn't then and isn't know proof to implicate OBL in 9-11. It is understandable that you are not aware of this fact, with all the propaganda to the contrary, but perhaps more caution should be employed before you start calling me names?

Give me a break, man. Pull your head out your a** and wake the F up. Really.

I will make you a deal? If you don't type up or support unsupportable nonsense i wont try to help you towards a rather more balanced view?



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 05:35 AM

Originally posted by yellowcard

...If I read another post or news report on how stupid or bad Bush or was I'm going to punch someone. Move on, it's over, next time don't vote for people who don't at all share your principals be it democratic or republican. Most people who say he's the worst President ever have not been alive for very long or don't know a thing about American history. I'm starting to feel bad for the guy, because he wasn't as bad as he's being made out to be, yes, he was bad, but he is certainly not the worst.

And some don't know a thing about American language. I believe the word you were looking for is "principles." (Unless you meant high school.)

Pot calls kettle black. Film at 11.

But you were right about moving on.

And since you you want to punch something so bad, I'd like to suggest a wall.


[edit on 18-1-2009 by kinda kurious]

posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 05:49 AM

Originally posted by MrJelly

I hope your not pointing your finger AND frothing at the mouth.

first. I love bush, clinton, obama, etc.. all the heads.WHY? coz they are responsible, focused and they got to where they are.

So was Hitler, and a host of other unsavory characters. Why respect the immorality and unlawful acts that brings these types to power while it keeps the civilized people from ever getting to the top?

now for the good stuff
Listen up all you delusional thinkers.
you all feel ENTITLED to a part o this country. wrong

Well if you were born there that is sufficient evidence for me.

your votes do NOT mean anything. NEVER have, never will.He was the president for 2 terms and he benefited.. end of story

But he wasn't elected by the people either time. Why , funnily, do you think that is the case? Why , in a pefect world, would such a 'good' person have to steal two elections to get the power he wanted?

why are you all mad at him
lets see
The ECONOMY? fault of the masses(try to argue with that. impossible)

The masses never voted for globalization, financial deregulation, massive financial support of various unelected governments around the world and worse. Why blame 'the masses' when American 'leaders' ( and most other) consistently refuse to even try to make good on the promises they made or enact the changes they proposed before the people believed them and voted them into power?

Why can't they just tell us what they will do before the election and then let us judge if we want such 'strong' leaders who do what they think best for 'us'? Why all the secrecy to 'protect' us and to do 'what is right' for 'us'?

Why blame the masses for believing that their leaders are as honest and caring about the well being of the country as they are? More importantly why why are the policies these leaders then enact , after saying they would do the opposite to get votes, so devasting to the economy in general while so efficient at further concentrating the wealth into the hands of a few?

Merely the coincidental result of 'strong' leadership? What's the odds against that?

The War? (the soldiers willingly went there. BUSH did not PULL a trigger.)

Soldiers go because they are sent. Soldiers who attack foreign countries without orders get executed; god forbid they might start a war the corporations can't use to enrich themselves or enact long range schemes for future control/profit. At worse one can hate citizens for becoming mercenaries for corporate profit but even then they must still be sent as they are in fact hiring themselves out to what they mostly believe to be a democratically elected government who is at least partly responsive to the people.

Blaming professionals for following orders is in my opinion the wrong way to go about this.

Your life going down the drain? (your own fault.)

Any chance you can or will use something other than circular arguments?

its so crazy how you all think. WHy do you want him to care about what the people think. HE IS THE PRESiDENT. HE IS NOT YOUR FRIEND.

And why is it so hard for you to comprehend the difference between a democracy and a dictatorship? Do the fact that they both start with D's confuse you?

He is not a popular character in a high school drama.

Well it was much like a high school drama ( him being the comical dimwit) the significant difference being that billions of real people had their lives affected by this drama.

you think coz u step out and VOTe, or what the news you are ENTITLED to having your voices heard? LOL so funny.

I think i can apologise for everyone when i say that we really thought we lived in a democracy where this is in fact how it works. I mean i could have sword Bush and his helps said as much?

go run for office. Achieve what they have achieve. Go STEAL THE PRESIDENCY and then make changes and then you will actually be ENTITLED.

Could you possible being to understand that you can not and do not become a president or a senator exclusively trough doing what the people say and instead reach such a high position mainly as result of doing what corporations and other interest groups tell you to? It is strange that one the one hand you understand that government is totally unresponsive but on the other utter fail to consider why they almost consistently act against popular pressure? Why do you think that the people who reach the highest office so overwhelming tend to wish to destroy the US by destroying the living standards of it's workers?

What do you think the odds are that a good well enacted system will yield only tyrannically people who wish to impoverish the 95% to further the interest of the small minority of very rich?

delusional thinking.
lazy, greedy, and delusional....and u feel entitled when you all have done nothing

The word delusion is usefull in describing the reasoning process that demands that 'we the people' all change our morality and respect for the law so that we too can become the president so that we too can help to further destroy the country thus defeating the purpose of your advice.

Well done sir.


[edit on 18-1-2009 by StellarX]

posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 05:51 AM
Now we know what the cremation of care means, don't we.

People will never wake upto this. They do not give a damn,a dn they even hold masses for getting rid of there feelings.

posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 05:55 AM
Personally If I were a leader of a country I would say the same.
I don't care about what they think of me.

After all, your purpose as a leader is not to be popular, it is to make the country grow, and try to get the people to be able to live good lives.

Of course many people will say that Bush only screwed up the country but well, I think you catch what i'm trying to say here.

Leadership is about doing some good, not about scoring high in a popularity contest. It should be about caring whether your people or country is doing well, not about whether they think you're a complete jerk or absolutely fabulous.

[edit on 18/1/09 by -0mega-]

posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 06:11 AM

Originally posted by -0mega-
Personally If I were a leader of a country I would say the same.
I don't care about what they think of me.

At least you have that much in common with most leaders in the world. They care only as much as they believe they might be kicked out of office.

After all, your purpose as a leader is not to be popular, it is to make the country grow, and try to get the people to be able to live good lives.

Not in a democracy. If you didn't learn about democracy in school don't you think it's time you brush up on what a leader in a Democratic society is supposed to do and how his mandate is created?

Of course many people will say that Bush only screwed up the country but well, I think you catch what i'm trying to say here.

The only think i am catching on to is vapid belief in some kind of 'higher order' and 'for the good of everyone' system in place somewhere beyond your knowledge or capacity to discover. Perhaps this is a circular argument but it may be telling that the vast majority of people do in fact believe, and keep on doing so, that Bush must have done what he thought was good for the country.

The fact that this is not how democracy should work or how a democrat should think may be just as revealing as to why this problem is so hard to eradicate.

Leadership is about doing some good, not about scoring high in a popularity contest.

In a dictatorship or monarchy perhaps but in a democracy it should be about being able to prove that you are enacting programs as demanded by the people. Dictators must necessarily be seen to be at least as responsive to popular pressure as democratic societies as they do not have the recourse of claiming that they were in fact 'elected' and thus have some kind of mandate.

It is perhaps thus not surprising that in a democracy you get the freedom to vote, and get little else, while in a dictatorship you may get the right to shut up ( or get locked up or shot) while the government does it's best to be responsive to your economic demands while you do not question their right to rule.

And no, i prefer the democratic system by a large margin.....

It should be about caring whether your people or country is doing well, not about whether they think you're a complete jerk or absolutely fabulous.

If only we knew or could trust in the fact that these 'elected' people had our best interest at heart. This is the glaring fall in your analysis and belief that democracies are about 'strong leadership' and not , as they should be, about accountability and acting within the laws created by the people who elected you.


posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 06:30 AM
Well I was merely speaking of leadership in general, not about leadership in a democracy. I do know how these things work in a democracy (though then again, there are various types of democracy, the only thing that all have in common is a voting system.)

But as far as I know, most people that try to gain a high position promise to make everything better (aka, do some good for their country and it's people) to become popular, so they get elected, and then fail to deliver.

I'd much rather have someone who acts very condescending in a negative way, who isn't popular but actually does do some good for their country and the people.

[edit on 18/1/09 by -0mega-]

posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 06:33 AM
I would like to interject something into this conversation just for your thoughts about it.

First of all we are in the WORST financial mess we have had in decades, there are wars and rumors of wars everywhere, rouge countries talking about nuclear bombs they are making, the list is endless right now. As such it IS the current Governments fault "they" led us in this direction. They knew where we would end up, but figured it would all work out as it has in the past. Tell people to calm down pass a few new laws to make them feel secure, all is good and well on the home front. blah blah blah

NOW for reality....WAY to many people understand what is happening, way to many people are mad and aren't going to take it anymore.< WAY TO MANY PEOPLE ARE READY TO RIOT IN THE STREETS> So what is the Government who is in charge of ALL these MAD people going to do? Well for starters they can't blame the people who are still going to be in office. They need them there to make the new laws and decisions that calm everyone down. So they need a fall guy(s) to take the heat because they aren't going to be there when all is said and done.

March in the fall guys....who has taken the heat for the failed wars? Who has been hung out to dry so far over the financial mess? Who is being presented to save the day? This who thing is a mind game for the masses! I am not saying ole Georgie is a saint by any means. The man is evil to the core. He allowed a lot of things to go on that we would have never allowed had we known. BUT he is on his way OUT. HE MUST TAKE THE BLAME WITH HIM. If he doesn't get everyone to blame him, the blame is going to be sitting there for the new "change we really do need" President. Then we will have one heck of a problem because we will now have a nation of people who are ready to call for an all out civil war and NOT give the new Government a chance to "fix" it.

Step out of the control box and pay attention to how this is being played out and it wont take you more than a few minutes to see it.

spelling as usual

[edit on 18-1-2009 by xoxo stacie]

posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 06:38 AM
The United States is not a democracy, a more accurate term would be 'democratic federal republic'.

[edit on 18/1/2009 by C0bzz]

posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 06:41 AM
reply to post by xoxo stacie

Wow, some clarity and neutral insight for a change.

How refreshing. A star from me.

Much to ponder.......thanks.


new topics

top topics

<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in