Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

America once again shows lack of class

page: 24
28
<< 21  22  23    25 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 08:24 PM
link   
I am a little torn here...on the one hand I hate that s.o.b. and my heart fluttered when the crowd began to sing ... good bye ...

On the other hand, it could have been done with a bit more class. The booing was in poor taste and the singing could have been left for a crowd waiting in Texas.

During the inauguration wasn't the best...ok....it was the worst place and time to do that. Oh well, c'est la vie, right. What's done is done..... besides it was kinda funny...

gotta say this for him: He sure as hell knows how to bring Americans together.




posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 10:10 PM
link   
Can we please have a shoe smilie ?


Not a one liner...a genuine question



take care all
res



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 09:13 AM
link   
Freedom of speech needs no class. I am happy to live in a nation where I can boo the most powerful figure in the world. I say use it, or lose it.

Class will be George W. Bush apologizing to this nation. Admitting mistakes. But we don't get any of that. instead he acts like he did nothing wrong.

Class will be actually respecting the constitution of the United States.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by wheazy

you admit yourself, as a banker for 11 years that you KNOWINGLY gave a loan to someone who couldnt afford it....thats preditory lending at its finest and ABUSE of the CRA....which is what happened under this man's presidency. he ABUSED his powers, which is why he was rightfully booed/



First, it's not predatory if the rates and fees you charge are comensurate with other banks under the same charter. These were normal bank loans. However, the credit scoring system was set up in a way that favored minority approval AS A RESULT of the CRA. If I had denied the loan(s) I would have been in violation of bank policy and terminated.

Also, this was going on primarily in the 90's while Clinton was POTUS.

[edit on 23-1-2009 by fnIrish]



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 02:10 AM
link   
I no longer care what you people have to say about GW Bush, he is not your whipping boy any more. Mr. Obama has already shown his colors and soon enough you will realize what you bought into. Four years and America will be no more. He is the worse choice ever, a Chicago thug with zero experience, (and being controlled by overseas interests).

I am ASHAMED of my country and have taken down my flag that waved proudly for the last eight years.
Bush & Cheney were saints in comparison.



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 02:18 AM
link   
This too little too late 11th hour last ditch effort to put King Gorgie N Co up on a pillar of majority appreciation isnt working, nor will it work.

Their reign is over. History, said and done. It is time now to move into the future and stop this rediculous memorializing of legalized criminals.

They did do a good job..a good job of mucking up this once great country that was strong economically, socially, militarily and was once viewed by the world as a leader of freedom and prosperity.

Now it is seen as a dominator, devistator and degredator, both internally and externally.

The time has come to repair the damage left behind by King Gorgie N Co, and they did a good job of making that task incredibly difficult, but not impossible.



Cheers!!!!



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 03:32 AM
link   



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 03:37 AM
link   
The damage that BushCo and his evil neocon cabal have done to America is incalculable. It will literally take generations to repair.

I don't know who this "jsobecky" person is who keeps starting these Bush worshiping threads, but this person is SERIOUSLY deluded.



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 03:52 AM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 


So because we as a people were showing to the world that we dont agree with bush, his policies or his war, we are idiots?

More like patriots, we have that right to show that we disagree with our leaders.



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 08:13 AM
link   
reply to post by caballero
 


You have every right to act like a child and boo a President of the United States.

Lack of manners and maturity can be your excuse. The world laughs at you.



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by caballero
 


You have every right to act like a child and boo a President of the United States.

Lack of manners and maturity can be your excuse. The world laughs at you.


I guess the world leaders mut be idiots too!






[edit on 24-1-2009 by HulaAnglers]



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 09:30 AM
link   
Hi everyone. Please stop worrying about being portrayed as bad mannered by other nations. If anything I think people actually agree with the boo-ers. I've done a bit of travelling in the last few years and the people of the countries I've been too always seem to ask our opinion on Blair/Brown and Bush. They all do not like the prementioned bunch. In fact a lot of what I felt was hate towards them. I think most of the world would have boo-ed them. There is a lot of built up emotion. It's their first "safe" chance to show dissent towards their wrongdoer.

Whether it's rude to boo or not is a matter of opinion. Personally I don't care if people boo. I'm thick skinned and not into all the political correctness thing. "

"Oo you can't say that, you can't do this, you can't think like that. I'm really offended"

"I'm offended". Always makes me laugh. Don't get me wrong I don't agree with intentionally offending someone, but if something is said in jest or as an opinion and not an attack on anyone it's ok by me. People need to grow up and try to be more understanding of others. Instead of "I" feel offended, how about "why do you say that" or "why do you feel that way". Understanding.

So then, just to clarify. Please do not worry about being thought of as classless, ingnorant americans simply because some people boo-ed someone they don't like.
We thought that of you even before the boos. Ha ha only joking. It was a joke.
Please don't be offended



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 11:49 AM
link   
When he declares martial law (HOPEfully) IF... - he could fart into the microphone and nobody could do anything about it. - But if he has to convince the rest of the world into world government with a better smile than bush, he cannot do things like use the words lipstick & pig in the same sentence no matter how much he may like to. - Nor do things like fart into the microphone, although 53% of the population would find that quite amusing indeed. - About the same percentage that voted for him


[edit on 24-1-2009 by Time=Now]

[edit on 24-1-2009 by Time=Now]



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by caballero
 


You have every right to act like a child and boo a President of the United States.

Lack of manners and maturity can be your excuse. The world laughs at you.


Nobody will be laughing pretty soon unless (this sentence is getting pretty old) people don't wake up!

- And you have every right (so far, as the internet is not completely regulated by the same kind of problem reaction solution based tactic that has you fooled into believing the government is some sort of God and must be looked upon and respected just because of its (apparent) power and simply because it states that it is represents your country and the people when in reality, it is not 'for the people or by the people' at all!

I don't know about you, but I'm fighting for what's right, for social justice, so the raping of our world can stop... so children, women & everybody can live in a wonderful world as it is meant to be. - The people are globalists. - They will do everything they can to get their agenda, and I can guarantee that your best interests are not on their list. The same groups control the media, and... the words cheerleaders with big paychecks comes to mind.

[edit on 24-1-2009 by Time=Now]

[edit on 24-1-2009 by Time=Now]



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 11:38 PM
link   
It IS childish and juvenile behavior to do that sort of thing at a presidential inauguration. Perhaps at a high school football game or something of the sort it may be OK, though.

However, it also DOES depend on class - I was raised with the saying "if you have nothing good to say about/to someone, then say nothing at all". I agree that in this case, silence would have been favorable to booing. If you go back in history, you will see that even the reprehensible Jimmy Carter wasn't booed when Ronald Reagan took office....

That said, I think that all the dupes who supported (and continue to do so, for the time being) Obama are in for a real rude awakening.... people bashed Bush for "warmongering" yet just wait until the ball-less wonder gets a phone call one day letting him know that there has been a deadly attack again on American soil. I don't like everything Bush did, nor do I agree with everything he stood for, yet that old guard dog did keep us safe for 8 years, despite what many see as stubbornness and aggression. Now we have "Scooby-Doo for president - hiding, cowering and walking around with his tail between his legs when that day comes, and we all know it will.

And then I also wonder what the "boo-ers" will do when gasoline is $6+ a gallon because of Obama's buddy Al Gore's "climate change" bullhockey - and no one to blame but the current administration....that will be interesting to see.

Bush wasn't perfect, but anyone who actually thinks this new president will do anything BUT complete the ruination of what was once a great country (and super-power - kiss that goodbye when Obama starts handing our country over to terrorists on a silver platter) is living in a delusion.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 12:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Muundoggie
 


yah he is a pawn or puppet also, he is continuing the agenda. all the documents he will sign over the next few weeks will prove it...



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 07:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by West Coast

Originally posted by BluegrassRevolutionary
So let me get this straight;
1. You weren't ashamed when it was reveled that Bush knowingly began a pre-emptive war based on false pretense that has killed or wounded some 35000 Americans and perhaps millions of Iraqi civilians.


Bush admitted the intel was faulty. Need I also remind you that the rest of the world thought saddam had the 'goods' too.

Regime change in Iraq was official US policy long before Bush came into office, a guy named Clinton established that...


IMO it was Bush's judgment and motives that were faulty. Given that Bush knew the "intel" he was selling was false in the first place, the fact that he admitted it after we were neck deep in this war holds very little weight to me. Also, in no way did the "rest of the world" agree with Bush.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

Clinton may have wanted regime change in Iraq, however, unlike Bush he was neither willing to sacrifice 35,000 dead and wounded US soilders nor America's moral standing in the world to accomplish it.


Originally posted by West Coast

Originally posted by BluegrassRevolutionary
2. You weren't ashamed when Bush, knowing Katrina was going to be horrible, transformed a calamity into a national disgrace.


Maybe you should rethink governments role then. NO residents were forewarned that a massive hurricane was on approach ONE WEEK IN ADVANCE! This would have been a disaster under anyones watch, given the stupidity of several NO residents, along with their state and local officials for underestimating the strength of a cat 5 hurricane, while simultaneously inhabiting a bowl...


Maybe you should pay more attention to what I said. I agree that Katrina was going to be a disaster or "calamity." However, Bush transformed this disaster into a national disgrace by his failure to handle our nations response before Katrina and in its aftermath.

Bush's first mistake was appointing Brown to be the head of FEMA. Before taking over the reigns at FEMA, Brown's previous position was as the president of the International Arabian Horse Association (IAHA). Brown held that position for 11 years and was forced out of the position after a spate of lawsuits over alleged supervision failures(sound familiar?). The appointment of Brown, with his complete lack of qualifications, represents a case of presidential negligence. However, Bush's mistakes did not end there.

Bush's greatest contributing factor to disgrace that was his response, or lack there of, was in its aftermath. I think that President Barack Obama's new White House Web site put it best when it noted the Bush administration's "unconscionable ineptitude" in responding to Hurricane Katrina. I know the source of this opinion is obviously bias, however even as far back as 2005 a majority of Americans agreed with Obama.

www.cbsnews.com...


Originally posted by West Coast

Originally posted by BluegrassRevolutionary
3. You weren't ashamed when Bush publicly condoned torture and warrant less wiretapping of American citizens, thus dismantling the legitamacey of the Geneva conventions and America's constitution.


Bush most certainly was not the first president to impose and condone warrantless wiretapping, and he will not be the last to do so.

Furthermore, you mentioning the Geneva Convention is laughable given the circumstances in todays fight against terror. The Geneva Convention does not apply to terrorists, therefore makeing your argument moot.



Bush may not have been the first to do condone warrantless wiretapping, but he was the first to do it openly and on a grand scale against American citizens. This situation bears parallels with the torture issue.

I am sure other presidents, in secret meetings, on select occasions have condoned the torture of all kinds of people. However, once again Bush is the first president to condone the torture of a class of enemy combatants publicly and on a grand scale.

I noticed your careful selection of the phrase "fight against terror" in your comment about the Geneva Convention. Well, you may call it a "fight" against terror, how most of us, including Bush himself, call it the "War" on terror. I assume it is your position that it is ok to torture "terrorists" and not ok to torture "soldiers"? Though I guess that would be a decent policy in a perfect world, in the real world it just doesn't work.

In practice, this policy means that often American and foreign citizens of questionable ethic background or association are labeled "terrorists" and thus stripped of all legal and human rights.


Originally posted by West Coast

Originally posted by BluegrassRevolutionary
4. You weren't ashamed when it was uncovered that the Bush white house had a hand in the outing of an undercover CIA agent, a crime worthy of the charge of treason by the way.


Cherry pick much?



Hey, these were the first four national embarrassments attributable to the Bush administration that came to mind. I am sure I could create a list twice as long as this of embarrassments far greater than that of a crowd of people booing former president Bush.

By the way, I noticed you did not touch embarrassment #4 with a ten foot pole. Smart move on your part.


Originally posted by West Coast

Originally posted by BluegrassRevolutionary
And only now, after witnessing the booing of a president that an overwhelming percentage of living historians agree is the worst in our country's history, you are "ashamed of my nation for the first time."


Clearly, your nation is not the same as my nation.

PS, Historians need leave their predictions for "History."



I didn't even mention my opinion, just that of people who have dedicated their careers to the study and debate of presidential policy decisions and their impacts on our country's people. Clearly your statement that "Your opinion is no more important than the next" is moot. It was not my opinion and the opinion I submitted was clearly important.

And by the way, if you think Bush is judged harshly today, just wait until the historians 50 and 100 years from now judge his actio



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gears Of War
No,

Those men don't deserve applause or any kind of respect, they ruined your once great nation in 8 years....8 years!

They should have been pelted with rocks and then lynched!


While that might be true, a polite applause and then silence would have been more appropriate for that public occasion. Anything less is simply juvenile.

[edit on 25/1/2009 by moniker]



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by fooffstarr
What I am wondering is this:

If Obama had been elected 8 years ago and had to make the same decisions and take the same actions as Bush has had to do, what would be the public reaction to his leaving of office?

Would there be booing then too?


Does anyone here think that Obama would have tightened lending standards to those with less than stellar credit? The whole mortgage meltdown probably would have been worse under an Obama administration as more shaky loans would have been made.

On foreign policy and homeland security, I think the end result would have been for us to be less safe since Obama would not have let the interrogators and the FBI/CIA get the info we needed.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 08:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Mrwyzen777
 


Funny about the flag thing, I have just put out my flag for the first time in 8 years. Oh, wait, I put it out after Sept. 11th - Oh, and after the mid term elections when the Repubs no longer controlled both houses, and giving W everything he wanted. Not that the Democratic congress did any better.

I am now proudly (for the first time in 8 years) flying my flag, I will keep it out now. Since I am becoming a "proud" American once more.



[edit on 25-1-2009 by questioningall]





new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 21  22  23    25 >>

log in

join