Is Bush nuts?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 27 2003 @ 12:32 PM
link   
Interesting reading...

www.lifeprobe.com...

Notice the now famous (infamous) picture of our leader looking through capped binoculars.




posted on Feb, 27 2003 @ 12:47 PM
link   
Well well well....Look what we have there.

" Interesting reading " are the good words if you want to look what's going on in a leftist brain and mind.


Who wrote this webpage ? Jane Fonda ? Susan Sarandon ? Hillary Clinton ?



posted on Feb, 27 2003 @ 12:55 PM
link   
this guy is askin' for it

"What drives a man to go against the wishes of his countryfolk and the entire world community - including the presidents of Russia, China, France and Germany?"

He's not going against the wishes of his country folk or an 'entire' world community, just Russia, China, France, and Germany. That's not the entire world community.

"How can a professed Christian continue to defy church leaders worldwide - including the Bishops of Britain and the Pope? How does he rationalize breaking the commandments of his God, which clearly prohibit coveting another's property, theft of their oil, and mass murder of defenseless populations?"

Does this man live in America? America could have taken any country it wanted oil from. And to the thing about being a professed christian, have you ever heard of seperation of church and state? Some bishops fand the Pope shouldn't be allowed to tell Bush what to do.

"How can he ignore his own generals when they complain, "We're advocating a policy that says we will invade another nation that is not currently attacking us or invading any of our allies." [Capitol Hill Blue Jan, 22, 2003]"

These generals don't understand, if Saddam continues to grow in power, the whole worlds economy and balance is at steak, we'd be looking at WWIII with nukes, bio weapons, and chem weapons.

"Are these the acts of a rational person?"

What would you do in his position?

And then they go on to talk about if he is a burn out or insane. Ya know, with all the medical mumbo jumbo, and what not.

Actually, it's not that interesting of a read. It seems rather biased, as if they are trying to point out all of Bushes mistakes without any proof.

Now I don't personally like Bush as a president, but I think we need to back him up. He is, after all, our president whether you like it or not. I would have loved to see a better person in the executive seat fo our country, but there wasn't anything better to vote for.

[Edited on 27-2-2003 by joehayner]


arc

posted on Feb, 27 2003 @ 01:16 PM
link   
I think the guy has more than his far share of 'blonde moments', but I can't really say more than that as I'm not american, I didn't vote either for or against him and I don't know what it's like to be a president.

Reading the psychological evidence on that page - it proves very little IMO. I reckon if you placed any individual in a room with a psychologist paid by your opposition, he could 'prove' you were insane.

Plus I think any person in his particular position has to subdue his own individuality to perform the job. A president is also nation's figurehead and scapegoat.

I think the guy has his faults, and he's not someone who I feel I could sit down with and reach an understanding with, unlike some public figures. But then again I don't think he's nuts



posted on Feb, 27 2003 @ 01:40 PM
link   
So, now Im a traitor?

""Bush's tendency to dichotomize reality" should be emphasized. Prof. van Wormer describes this is as either/or reasoning - "either you are with us or against us". A White House spokesperson puts it this way: "The President considers this nation to be at war, and, as such, considers any opposition to his policies to be no less than an act of treason.'' [Capitol Hill Blue Jan, 22, 2003]"



posted on Feb, 27 2003 @ 01:45 PM
link   
"What drives a man to go against the wishes of his countryfolk and the entire world community - including the presidents of Russia, China, France and Germany?"

Ask Tony B'liar! The Bushmans Toy Dog!

I think this ego-centric maniac actually believes his own rhetoric. Even his own party faithful are rejecting him! Won't be too long methinks til his own followers decide to 'Shoot the Dog' and vote him out.

As for Georgie Boy, well, not being American and not seeing blanket coverage of him I can't really say for sure that hes sitting on the front porch eating fruit loops with Charles Manson!

But all that I have read and seen, and heard from broadcasts etc makes him look a little on the retarded side to me. I think he is trying to make his father proud of him but being caught reading books that are upside down and making statements that are a little hard to fathom out, i.e. to the Brazilian president "Do you have black people in your country too??" decidedly suggests to me that there is one beer short of a six pack there!!


I am sorry if anyone takes offence at this but its is my opinion. We all have faults but I personally think that the leader of such a great nation should have his wits about him, not halfwits and yes men!!



posted on Feb, 27 2003 @ 02:10 PM
link   
Hey guys, hate to be the one who had to tell you this unfortunate news, but Saddam Hussein has Biological and Chemical weapons which he plans to use against other countries.. worst case- he wants to use them against his own people- still horrific.. or maybe some of you are arguing Saddam is simply developing these weapons to use as decorations for one of his living rooms in one of his many palaces.. although i doubt this.. now i know some of you are scared to go to war, and i am not saying that war is fun, or is comparable to a day at the beach, but in this case, it HAS TO BE DONE.. do you honestly believe Saddam Hussein spent all this time and resources on developing weapons of MASS DESTRUCTION and if another country says "hey Saddam, why don't you please stop" then he'll just abandon it and humbly apologize for any inconvenience.. no, war should not be the first option, but after you go try your first option and it doesn't work, most people would agree that a rational person would advance to their next, most viable alternative.. I know it may seem ridiculous to some to consider destroying an enemy's weapon before he uses it on you, but if you compare it to a similar situation on a smaller scale, some of you are arguing that if a serial killer aimed a gun at someone, that you should be like "hey serial killer, don't shoot them" and if they don't listen to you then oh well.. because i know if you had a gun, you would at least try to shoot the gun out of his hand, which is what we're trying to do with Saddam.. we want to destroy his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and remove him from power, and free his people from the tyranny and death that they have suffered under his leadership.. Saddam's regime would not be tolerated under any of your countries, and please don't act for a second that if it's not happening to you, then you don't care what happens.. we are all concerned with the outcome of this situation.. personally i do not want to be attacked with any kind of weapon of mass destruction.. so if you do, then by all means, you can go to Iraq and spend your spring break there, because i hear they like to test their newest weapons and gases on the populace there.. alright i'm done now, i just had to say that



posted on Feb, 27 2003 @ 02:18 PM
link   
Please keep in mind... Bush represents us... so on that note, how many that read this message board do not want to go to war w/ Iraq? I personally think we should have finished the deed 12 years ago. Also, I am sure alot of us here have skeletons in our closets.



posted on Feb, 27 2003 @ 03:14 PM
link   
My god, you people are funny. "World community" LOL. What the hell are you talking about? This is as bad as Arafat talking about Israel being required to work with the international community to acheive peace. I think we need to consider the following two items. 1) No other country has the right to dictate to another country how to live (unless there obviously is something seriously wrong going on. and 2) THERE IS NO INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY! every one of these countries has their own best interests in mind! (which i am not disagreeing with, by the way. they should) but there is no way that there can be one opinion. if russia france and germany disagree with Bush, well so be it. this isn't some little village where the man making a proposal has to discuss it with the 3 farmers down the block. everyone is selfish. that's the bottom line. watch your own ass first, then worry about someone else's. there is no super opinion.



posted on Feb, 27 2003 @ 03:15 PM
link   
We have two issues both sides have difficulty understanding:

1) Iraq is essentially a conquered nation not living up to its terms of surrender. Hence, attack is warrented.

2) Iraq is not attacking us, nor our alies. Hence, attack is out of the question.


If we had a stronger, more respected leader in the White House, how would these issues fare? Is the debate more a function of the near-tie of the election, or the issues themselves?

Interesting thought, no?



posted on Feb, 27 2003 @ 03:21 PM
link   
This must be done, plain and simple. IT is time to disarm this madman once and for all. This little sewer rat(sadaam) cant be trusted. He is nothing but Shady. War is the only option left. People will die, talk to the troops and they know this, however they believe in what they are doing. Not only for the good of America but for mankind itself. THe worst arguments i ever hear is that we're going in there to steal oil. Are you people that dumb to think that Bush and his staff would start and war and risk peoples lives and the economy of a country to get some oil. Some of you damn liberals will use anything to bash Bush, fact is a war would never be started over Bush's personal gain for oil. But if you all want to sit pat, fine let sadaam do his thing for another ten years. Then when you wake up one day to see that half the middle east has been wiped out by Iraq you might think going into iraq in 2k3 was a better plan. We are doing this for the worlds safety besides ourself. We dont negogiate with terrorists. Hussein is a terrorist. Its about time some presidnet had the balls to stand up for what he believes in and put his foot down on Iraq. Face it, clintons lack of foreign policy is hurting us right now.



posted on Feb, 27 2003 @ 03:24 PM
link   
Well I know i'm right about Bush being a Loony. Blairs just as mad following Bush around, running all over the World helping Bush rally a coalition against the 'Axis of Evil'.. By the way if I hear the words "Iraq has chemi & Bio weapons" again, for a lame ass excuse for going to war, then I will shoot that person.. We only know of these WMD because the U.S keeps telling us there has been no real proof yet that Iraq still has these weapons.



posted on Feb, 27 2003 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by clive
We only know of these WMD because the U.S keeps telling us there has been no real proof yet that Iraq still has these weapons.


What do you make of the reports (in several media) that Saddam has threatened to retaliate with gas in the event of an invasion. How can one threaten to use such weapons if he does not have them?



posted on Feb, 27 2003 @ 04:33 PM
link   
[font=Tahoma]Way to go klive! Throughout this entire drama, one thing has been clear, Bush will wage this war. If terroisim is the issue, then we have evey right to bomb the known Al Quada in Northern Iraq, but terroisim is a excuse, when it dont work, they say "well he has killed millions of his people, or he has some bad weapons, ect. Fact seem to be that Iraq has not assulted us with a military charge against our American nation. The no fly zone pot shots, are not reasons to declare war, further more, Bush will not get a declaration of war, so this is a armed premeditated assult on a far weaker foe. [/font]



posted on Feb, 27 2003 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Winston Smith
We have two issues both sides have difficulty understanding:

1) Iraq is essentially a conquered nation not living up to its terms of surrender. Hence, attack is warrented.

2) Iraq is not attacking us, nor our alies. Hence, attack is out of the question.


If we had a stronger, more respected leader in the White House, how would these issues fare? Is the debate more a function of the near-tie of the election, or the issues themselves?

Interesting thought, no?


Bush is a strong leader. The fact that he leads and doesn't take polls, ask Martin Sheen what he thinks or cow-tail to the wants of nations that are less than concerned about our security only proves that.



posted on Feb, 27 2003 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by joehayner I would have loved to see a better person in the executive seat fo our country, but there wasn't anything better to vote for.

Actually, that's the whole point behind the operations of our government...There was no better choice! Americans need to take back their government to *give* them a better choice.

Between Bush's Bully Boy Gang & the other politicians who blindly follow the "party line", D.C. has more fruits, nuts & flakes than Kellog's.



[Edited on 28-2-2003 by MidnightDStroyer]



posted on Feb, 27 2003 @ 08:01 PM
link   
Mr. Crowne...

My point about Bush has more to do with the perception of this leadership. Sorry if that was unclear. While I have a personal opinion on the matter, I think you can agree that we have a nation divided over Mr. Bush's election.

A "strong leader" would have found ways to overcome such division of opinion and unite the nation. Our history is well-numbered with leaders who have shown this quality.

Which leads to the real point, is the division of this nation, and indeed the world, a clear function of Mr. Bush's inability to show the kind of leadership people are looking for?



posted on Mar, 1 2003 @ 08:48 AM
link   
Hey Hayner, you've seem to have missed the obvious:

1) He is most certainly going against the will of the American people in choosing a pre emptive war option without exhausting further diplomacy & sanctions

2) Seperation of Church & State & being a 'Christian': That argument is more applicable to Fed monies ending up in corner churches to administer public programs, no?
Bush is not a Christian....he's a politician marketing to a core base group on the Right.....Jimmy Carter is a Chrisitian.

3) "Those Generals don't understand" - Really? You mean our generals? The ones who've spent decades in application of war theories & outcomes in that region as well as prosecuting a war as did Gen. Shwartzkorpf? Seems to me they would know more about the cause & effect of the actions being considered than a 'president' who, on the campaign trail, thought poutin ( fries with cheese) was the leader of Canada.

4) "Now I don't personally like Bush as a president, but I think we need to back him up"
No, we don't need to back him up. This is a Democratic Republic, we don't pledge blind allegiance to a figure head leader who is making decisions from a point of stupidity OR cunningly serving special interests....either way, there are impeachment procedures to remove this danger from the country.

Thomas:

What is your definition of a strong leader? A person that single mindedly pursues a course of action void of consequence consideration? That's most folks definition of a fool, not a leader.
You still haven't cleared the hurdle of logic that questions why billions of dollars are spent on war ramp up while billions needed for Homeland Security measures on the state level have not been released by Mr. Bush's administration!?!



posted on Mar, 1 2003 @ 11:03 PM
link   
To Bushes charecter of leadership, I base a persons worth in how well they stand on their principles, especially if they are written and initialed that they support them.
Bush lacks charecter to stand upon the platform for which he ran on.
The Texas Republican platform of 2000, of which Bush stood upon in his election, is written in dictionary form, in that it lists their stance in a word or words, followed by a definition., an excellent format to use, provided you will do as you agree to do by initialing.

I use 3 examples of many, (1) State Sovernity- that a state has the right to govern itself without intervention of federal govt. Now Florida is a state , that was useing it soverin right in its recount through its supreme court. Bush took it to the federal level, against his own written stance. (2) Executive Order Powers- that if elected , would turn this power back to congress, where it belongs. Again he has used his executive power quite alot since he got in issueing executive orders. Contrary to his written stance. (3) Abolishment of IRS- to do away with this enity, and replace with useful way to fund govt. Again he has not even attempted to complete this written statement, which he initialed.

As stated, you must stand on your ground and words firmly, and to my judgement, from the beginning he has not. If you cannot stand as a leader on your written platforms, and stances, how can anyone follow your leadership.




posted on Feb, 12 2004 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Winston Smith
Interesting reading...

www.lifeprobe.com...

Notice the now famous (infamous) picture of our leader looking through capped binoculars.
There's nothing there about Bush anymore, but he's nuts anyways.









 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join