Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Everything that is wrong in America today is entirely Bush's fault

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 19 2004 @ 09:37 PM
link   
i guess the fact that no terrorist attacks have taken place on US soil after 9-11, is bush's fault also.




posted on May, 19 2004 @ 09:42 PM
link   
Orang,

Now i dont like bush, i dont like his admistration, and because of that i dont really like america. But to entiely balme bush is just plain ignorant man (i cant believe i'm kinda sticking up for bush, i must be dreaming). You have posted 3 different anti america topics that i can recall, and all of them (although your intentions are obviously right) have lacked in evidence, lack in substance, lack in any form of class at all. All they have acheived is alot of response and alot of people giving you crap due to your ignorant posting. Your giving the rest of us Anti-Bush people who have valid point a bad image dude. Now i hate bush and his cronies as much as the next guy, but this is an intelligent discussion forum, not a blace to place blame without evident or even statements to back your words.

Do some research, establish a good argument, then post something worthwhile



posted on May, 19 2004 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRepublic
i guess the fact that no terrorist attacks have taken place on US soil after 9-11, is bush's fault also.


Yeah, but the one he did let happen was a doozey.
I wouldn't hold my breath if I was you, there will be another under his supervision, or lack there of.



posted on May, 19 2004 @ 09:57 PM
link   
ashley:

yes thats right i forgot 9-11 was entirly bushes fault...(This denotes sarcasm)

i actually agree with you about a future terrorist attack though. Im thinkin' late october early novemberish?
and i think kerry will win shortly afterwords.
i wonder...

sounds like spain...hmmm

[Edited on 19-5-2004 by TheRepublic]



posted on May, 19 2004 @ 10:06 PM
link   
Unless Bush cheats again he will lose with or without another terrorist attack. Another attack, will only prove his incompetence at stopping it. No attack, will only leave his record to run on.
Either way he is a goner.



posted on May, 19 2004 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by ashley
Unless Bush cheats again he will lose with or without another terrorist attack.

Cheats? What dope are you smoking..? Bush did not "cheat" the 2000 election. Despite the fact that Gore won the popular vote, Bush won the majority of the electoral vote; this decision was then supported by the Supreme Court. May I also remind you that the Supreme Court was not comprised of judges that Bush had appointed; rather, they were judges appointed by Clinton and the preceding administration.

Additionally, what I personally find infuriating about what you've said is this swill about the 9/11 attacks. Here's the deal, sweetheart: The attacks did take place under Bush's "watch," fine. There's no debate.
Do you honestly think he would have done nothing if he'd known that there was going to be an attack?
Lest I remind you, as well, Clinton was given three direct chances to intercept and kill Osama Bin Laden.
What about the bombing of the USS Cole? Pray tell, what administration did that take place during?
Fact is, none of this is "Bush's fault."

What always gets my goat, too, is that while people like you squaek and rant and rave about how Bush coulda/shoulda/woulda, you're the same people that want to slice the defense budget at LEAST in half.
So let me get this straight.
It's acceptable, even laudable, to cut the defense budget, while at the same time expecting our nation to adequately secure itself and prevent further attacks?
Please.

This liberal, leftist garbage makes me sick. Use logic, people. Not everything fits into your patchouli-soaked, birkenstock-wearing, all-natural organic ideals.

::steps off soap box::



posted on May, 19 2004 @ 10:25 PM
link   
As I'm observing this thread it dawns on me that Bush is going to get a reaming no matter what he does. If he defends the nation, he gets a reaming (iraq/afghanistan). If he doesn't defend the nation (a possible terrorist attack in the future), he gets a reaming. If he tightens security he gets a reaming. If his security isn't tight enough he gets a reaming.

What exactly is it that the democrats want from a president, as I see the shoe ending up on the other foot with any democratic president in the near future. Then the repubs will be saying that the demo president isn't defending the nation, and his security isn't tight enough and his security is too tight and he'll inherit all the screwups of all the presidents before him and the repubs will blame it all on him as Bush is enduring now. Honestly, this is how it appears from where I'm sitting.



posted on May, 19 2004 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Undomiel
[...] Bush is going to get a reaming no matter what he does. If he defends the nation, he gets a reaming (iraq/afghanistan). If he doesn't defend the nation (a possible terrorist attack in the future), he gets a reaming. If he tightens security he gets a reaming. If his security isn't tight enough he gets a reaming.


Exactly.

The [liberal] Democrats are still wound up so tight after losing the 2000 election that if Bush cured cancer, AIDs and World Hunger they still wouldn't make any concessions to the guy.



posted on May, 19 2004 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRepublic
i guess the fact that no terrorist attacks have taken place on US soil after 9-11, is bush's fault also.


And how many where there before bush was in office... well the was one by a crazed american (which i dont really think was terrorism anyway it was just some disgruntled guy venting), tim mcveigh, then there was an attempt on the WTC... no alot really... so saying there havent been any since 9/11 doesnt really imply much the republic... its like saying since bush came into power there hasnt been any states being run by the NAZI's, so i guess thats all because of bush as well.......



posted on May, 19 2004 @ 10:38 PM
link   
specialasianX:

Every example of pre 9-11 terrorism you gave happend in the clinton administration.

but im sorry, thats bushes fault too right?



posted on May, 19 2004 @ 10:47 PM
link   
Cheats? What dope are you smoking..? Bush did not "cheat" the 2000 election. Despite the fact that Gore won the popular vote, Bush won the majority of the electoral vote; this decision was then supported by the Supreme Court. May I also remind you that the Supreme Court was not comprised of judges that Bush had appointed; rather, they were judges appointed by Clinton and the preceding administration.

Additionally, what I personally find infuriating about what you've said is this swill about the 9/11 attacks. Here's the deal, sweetheart: The attacks did take place under Bush's "watch," fine. There's no debate.
Do you honestly think he would have done nothing if he'd known that there was going to be an attack?
Lest I remind you, as well, Clinton was given three direct chances to intercept and kill Osama Bin Laden.
What about the bombing of the USS Cole? Pray tell, what administration did that take place during?
Fact is, none of this is "Bush's fault."

What always gets my goat, too, is that while people like you squaek and rant and rave about how Bush coulda/shoulda/woulda, you're the same people that want to slice the defense budget at LEAST in half.
So let me get this straight.
It's acceptable, even laudable, to cut the defense budget, while at the same time expecting our nation to adequately secure itself and prevent further attacks?
Please.

This liberal, leftist garbage makes me sick. Use logic, people. Not everything fits into your patchouli-soaked, birkenstock-wearing, all-natural organic ideals.

Wow, you really have no idea what you are talking about.

First of all Bush did cheat in the election, the cheating was done in Florida and its documented and well known.
He was warned about the attacks and he did do nothing. Higher ups stopped flying commercial right before 9-11, other countries warned of an attack, simulated attack drills using planes were being done by the U.S.,His brother hada meeting in the towers that day and in the morning recieved a call about a change of location.

I dont see the problem with slashing the defense budget and then maybe it truly would be a defense budget. Right now its an attack budget.

I am far from liberal and before you start calling people names you should know who your talking to. I am not any of those things you mentioned above and it doesn't bother me a bit if you like looking stupid.
Just a word of advice.



posted on May, 19 2004 @ 10:56 PM
link   
Far from liberal, my ass. You've NEVER posted a SINGLE thing on this board that didn't reek of liberal filth; similarly, you've yet to make a post that didn't involve a personal attack. I'm reminded of a recent post wherein you called another member a "poop head"...

Seriously, folks, Taquito here called someone a "poop head".

Now, Taquito, be good, or no chocolate milk.



posted on May, 19 2004 @ 10:57 PM
link   


Exactly.

The [liberal] Democrats are still wound up so tight after losing the 2000 election that if Bush cured cancer, AIDs and World Hunger they still wouldn't make any concessions to the guy.
_______________________________________


Some of those things might be able to be cured or at least on the way to a cured with stem cell research. Of course Bush is against that so that will never happen on his watch.

I love how you equate these complicated things to Bush when I would be impressed if he could finish his term without choking on another pretzel.

[Edited on 19-5-2004 by ashley]



posted on May, 19 2004 @ 11:07 PM
link   
"First of all Bush did cheat in the election, the cheating was done in Florida and its documented and well known."

do you have any link for this from a respectable news organization? (NOT moveon.org)


I have a link for you:
en.wikipedia.org...-electoral_studies/recounts

you should notice the part about those crazy ballots being created by a Democrat Theresa Lapore

but its bushes fault she couldnt design a ballot.



posted on May, 19 2004 @ 11:10 PM
link   
I would just like to add as food for thought, that when the vote was down to the wire here in Florida, the democrats didn't want to allow military absentee votes from the military members who were at sea or overseas or in the air or in space. Apparently because they knew the military vote would be solidly behind Bush, and it was. And boy we needed it. He was like a breath of fresh air. We had been living on poverty level wages under Clinton and it was rough. There were people on welfare making more than us and my husband still had to go overseas and provide support for defense of the nation. Wasn't a good scenario.



posted on May, 19 2004 @ 11:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRepublic
specialasianX:

Every example of pre 9-11 terrorism you gave happend in the clinton administration.

but im sorry, thats bushes fault too right?


I never said they everything is bush's fault, if you could actually read information and not assume #, you'd see i was saying that having no terror attacks in a 2.5 year period isnt anything special. Tim McVeigh's attack is seperate from 'conventional' terrorism, and the fist WTC attack wasnt a very big one. The fact there have been no more attacks doesnt indicate anything. I'm not a democrat either so blaming clinton doesnt bother me(i'm not even american). i think both parties are the same and both are to blame. But the fact remains this war on terror hasnt actually improved the situation on the planet, in fact since bush started his crusade there have been more terror attacks on western targets by islamic militants than there were previously.



posted on May, 19 2004 @ 11:22 PM
link   
i wasnt trying to suggest that you were a democrat, i was just trying to show that more stuff happend under clintons watch then bush's.

also you forgot the attempt on seattle on new years eve 1999.

i think having no terrorist attacks in 2.5 years is pretty friggen special. i live near DC so people who try and belittle the threat bother me a tad. i saw the smoke from the pentagon. so while you see it as no big deal that nothing happend i see it as a huge one. I hope that we go another 2.5 years without one be it bush or kerry or whoever. I think the precautions weve taken have had everything to do with nothing happening. i belive that if al queada was able to have hit us again they would have.



posted on May, 19 2004 @ 11:32 PM
link   
It makes me sick to hear people like you calling the OKC bombing "no big deal".

It was a pretty big God-damned deal to the hundreds of people that lost children, mothers, fathers, brothers, and sisters that day, don't you think?

And the fact that the WTC bombing attempt in the 90's failed means nothing-- what if it had succeeded? Would Clinton have been any less guilty than Bush then?

Finally, remind me-- which president was in power during the Waco and Ruby Ridge massacres?

EDIT: Spelling.

[Edited on 5-19-2004 by Xenographer]



posted on May, 19 2004 @ 11:36 PM
link   
Oh man, you just reminded me of those poor people. I still get the creeps every time I recall what happened. That was simply horrific.



posted on May, 19 2004 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by mauskov

Originally posted by ashley
Unless Bush cheats again he will lose with or without another terrorist attack.

Cheats? What dope are you smoking..? Bush did not "cheat" the 2000 election. Despite the fact that Gore won the popular vote, Bush won the majority of the electoral vote; this decision was then supported by the Supreme Court. May I also remind you that the Supreme Court was not comprised of judges that Bush had appointed; rather, they were judges appointed by Clinton and the preceding administration.


Whoa, whoa, whoa! Stop the music. "Clinton and the preceding administration."? Who did Clinton appoint, who was the preceding administration? Anyway the electoral college. You are saying that the majority of Floridians voted for Gore, but a few gave the vote to Bush. Legal, yes. Is it moral? No. But that's another issue. The state's highest election official, secretary of state Katherine Harris, threw away so many votes. For example, the Florida ballot (I'm in Tampa now as I write this) had a punch hole and a write in space. The write in space was for people who were not on the punch ballot. Some thought, because of the instructions, that you had to punch, and write in the name. So any votes that were punched, and written were discounted, the majority being for Gore. If no one punched Bush, and the Gore punch had a piece of paper hanging from it (a chad) that wasn't counted. Just an example of her shady practices. Jeb Bush did everything in his power to stop fair and accurate counting. Google 'equal protection law', here's a good LINK But the thing that gets my goat is how the Republicans cry for state rights. But the Federal government did not let Florida decide for itself how decide the voting issue, because they were going to do it fairly, which by coincedence, elected Gore. Oh, and the felons. Google Florida purging the felons from voting, and just about anyone else who has the same last name as a felon. I was out of the country when this all happened, and actually I just recently found out how foul the whole process was. I always heard so much about it, but didn't understand the full scope. So I researched it, because of the upcoming election. If you believe in democracy and America, it will make you retch.






top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join