Why do so many people on ATS hate Bush?

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 25 2004 @ 04:59 PM
link   
Still the same problem with the quote function, huh?

You have editted several posts on this page after they have been replied to. It's an old trick. On the other hand, I have editted a grand total of zero posts on this thread. Any more comments?

Also, I appreciate your comment about "socialist England", but I live in Scotland, or, more technically, the United Kingdom. It's okay - it's complicated, really.


Canada is borderling socialist while claiming to democratic

Socialism and democracy aren't mutually exclusive, any more than capitalism and democracy are. And what you describe is just a more complex tax system which allows the government to indulge in some social engineering. That, indeed, is similiar to Britain, but it doesn't make it socialist, it just makes it different.

And as for "exhuberate": you might want to look here. Inventing words isn't big or clever, you know - we have dictionaries for a reason.




posted on Jun, 25 2004 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by StrangeLands
Still the same problem with the quote function, huh?

You have editted several posts on this page Edited for spelling mistakes, but nice try... If something isn't correct i'll go back and fix it... But again, nice try... after they have been replied to. It's an old trick. On the other hand, I have editted a grand total of zero posts on this thread. Any more comments?Wow, want a medal?

Also, I appreciate your comment about "socialist England", but I live in Scotland, or, more technically, the United Kingdom. It's okay - it's complicated, really.
That's too bad, i'm sure William Wallace would of been really pissed off to hear that.

Canada is borderling socialist while claiming to democratic

Socialism and democracy aren't mutually exclusive, any more than capitalism and democracy are. And what you describe is just a more complex tax system which allows the government to indulge in some social engineering. That, indeed, is similiar to Britain, but it doesn't make it socialist, it just makes it different.
Look, a democracy (which is a greek term) means power vested in the people to rule or to sway. It isn't, one man can make all the decisions? Look i'll debate you in this in a new thread if you want, but this isn't the right thread for it.. Let me know if you want to debate this socialist democracy...
And as for "exhuberate": you might want to look here. Inventing words isn't big or clever, you know - we have dictionaries for a reason.


Maybe not in yours why don't you look up "exhuberate" trust me it's in there, I wouldn't of used it if I never read the dictionary.. So, again, nice snide comment, but it's there. Some people like to seem really smart like yourself but end up making an ass out yourself in the process..
Whatever gives you your ego stroke buddy..



posted on Jun, 26 2004 @ 04:12 AM
link   
I'm very interested to learn that your "spelling mistakes" in earlier posts included the addition of three new paragraphs. I now see the relevance of your name, TrueLies...

And as for the existence of "exhuberate": Google, the Collins English Dictionary and the Oxford English Dictionary on my shelf, and the Collins Interactive Dictionary on my desktop say otherwise.

But I'll take it on trust, TrueLies. After all, I'm sure you wouldn't invent words to support your argument the same way you invented facts, right? That'd just be cheap.

William Wallace won't be "pissed off" to hear anything, TrueLies, he's dead - nice way to display your intimate knowledge of Scottish history and politics, though. And you know what, I do want to debate your bizarre theory that a state led by a president can't be a democracy. I'll give some time for you to "suddenly become to busy" or decide "you can't be bothered debating anything" with me - but if, miraculously, you do decide to go ahead with it, PM me and let me know when you've started. I'll look forward to reading your arguments.

Alternatively, you could just admit you're out of your depth and apologise for disrupting this thread with your crude behaviour. I'm sure we're all prepared to be forgiving, and welcome you into a civilised discussion. Give it some thought.



posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 04:02 AM
link   
I'll take your silence as a humble apology, TrueLies. In the spirit of reconciliation, forgiveness is granted, but don't let it happen again...

Now, where were we?


In all fairness, you can't hate Bush for cutting taxes for the rich any more than you can hate him for having arms. Misplaced tax cuts are a fundamental Republican policy that would have been enacted by any right-wing President, not just Bush. I may not agree with the politics or ideaology of the decision, but hating Bush for being a Republican is just unrealistic - particularly when there is so much else to hate him for!

What bothers me the most right now is this: a right-wing Republican president is passing legislation to restrict the rights of American citizens. He has, through his half-assed actions in Iraq, made America and American interests overseas more vulnerable than ever to terrorism. He has gleefully squandered international good will and turned the citizens of every single civilised country against him - not, I may add, against the US, but against his regime in particular. In terms of weakening the Republican Party, Bush is the best Democrat that never was!

In all seriousness, why isn't there a Republican backlash? Why isn't the Right as angered by this guy as the Left? He's compromised national security to pursue a personal vendetta against another Head of State, he's limiting the freedom of American citizens in the name of "security", and he got into power by pissing liberally on the Constitution. Why on Earth aren't good-old GOPers camped outside the White House with hunting rifles and barbecues? Can it really be that, just because he cut taxes and he's a simple boy from the South, Republicans are blinded to his flaws? Or are they so desperately opposed to a Democractic president, they'd rather have anyone than Kerry?

After much thought, I've come to the conclusion that this thread should be renamed to "Why do so many people on ATS not hate Bush?"



posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 06:10 AM
link   
Skullsplitter rips open my brain with,
"Tax cuts for the upper few percent in the country doesn't impress me."

Umm, i and many people i know that make under $40K all got tax breaks, and they were helpful and appreciated....none of us even live middle-middle class, most of us at that level live at lower mid status....once you suck out standant living expences...housing, food, electric, transportation, fuel, student loans..ect..ect.ect..nothing extravagent, but a friends kid got to wear NEW clothes to school this year because of the extra $OF OURS that we got back in a return.

While i say tax the rich a little more than the rest, at least this tax break was for EVERYONE, which is fair.

Strangelands says, (which is where i see some of his points comming from)
"He has, through his half-assed actions in Iraq, made America and American interests overseas more vulnerable than ever to terrorism"

EXCUSE ME? I think we've been plenty vulurnable to terrorism for about 25 yrs now...i wont read you the list.....how much longer do we have to take this crap in order to 1) figure out they have hated us for a long time now, how much more hate do we have now over the hate we've already seen?
2)How long do we sit and do NOTHING but let hot air escape our lips before we actually stand up for ourselves and DO SOMETHING? I feel the 25yr history of IGNORING this terrorism problem is long enough!

getting further into strangelands,
"He has gleefully squandered international good will and turned the citizens of every single civilised country against him"

OOHH you mean that temporary boo hoo feel good thing where the world said "oh thats terrible", but then wouldnt lift a finger to actually adopt a BINDING resolution with CONCEQUENSES thru the UN? OOHH yeah i forgot that France and Russia had their hands uin the oil for food ripoff and didnt want to upset the dictator that they were in cohoots with ripping off billions that was supposed to go to relief of suffering in Iraq. Why do something that would cut them off from this scam to help the USA?

the deep woods of strangeland...
"In all seriousness, why isn't there a Republican backlash?"

As a republican that has voted for both parties as i see fit...there is no big backlash on the right because most of us are tired of getting spit on from other nations...were glad that we get to decide on how to help those less fortunate with OUR $$$ rather than hand it over to the gov that might spend it on support of a group we dont like......were glad that SOMETHING DIFFERENT is being done other than trying to appease people that lie to our face and then cut off our heads.

Im not blinded by party lines and will vote for the person that i believe will be best for the job.
while im NOT fully in favor of Bush, im NOT for switching commanders in the middle of a shooting match. Ill live thru 4 more Bush years, but not my HEAD getting handed to me.



posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by CazMedia
I think we've been plenty vulurnable to terrorism for about 25 yrs now...


Here are the facts: America is the target of more terrorism now than at any point in the past. Despite the legislation that has been passed, there is no evidence that the average citizen is more secure than they were on the 12th of September 2001. Bush's actions in Iraq have not only created more hatred of America - the West in general, I think, but America in particular - but have also turned former allies (including France) against you.

There is no way in which America is more secure than it was before Bush stole the throne. That the average citizen thinks Bush is "winning the war on terror" just proves how biased the main media outlets are.


Originally posted by CazMedia
OOHH you mean that temporary boo hoo feel good thing...


It's worth remembering, CazMedia, that there was, is and will be no evidence whatsoever linking the WTC tragedy with Iraq. None. Zero. Zilch. Those of us who empathised with America's plight following the 11th of September 2001 would have supported military action against those who were responsible, but that was not Iraq. I was completely in favour of action in Afghanistan, though I despair at the predictably mercurial half-assed approach to resolving the problems there - interesting though, the comparison between Dubya's Afghanistan Adventure and Daddy Bush's first foray into Iraq...

In short, it wasn't a temporary boo-hoo thing, it was a genuine sympathy for the victims of an atrocious and disgusting attack. That is turned out to be temporary is purely the fault of Bush and his henchmen.


Originally posted by CazMedia
im NOT for switching commanders in the middle of a shooting match


That an interesting point - if you ignore Iraq and the so-called War on Terror, would you be more inclined to vote Kerry? I just ask because I'm curious how much the war has altered people's views on the election campaign.

Thanks for you reply, though, CazMedia, it made interesting reading.



posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by StrangeLands
I'm very interested to learn that your "spelling mistakes" in earlier posts included the addition of three new paragraphs. I now see the relevance of your name, TrueLies...

And as for the existence of "exhuberate": Google, the Collins English Dictionary and the Oxford English Dictionary on my shelf, and the Collins Interactive Dictionary on my desktop say otherwise.
Exuberate
But I'll take it on trust, TrueLies. After all, I'm sure you wouldn't invent words to support your argument the same way you invented facts, right? That'd just be cheap.

Tell me what is fallicious about my so called ficticious facts? I'll come out and explain piece by piece what i'm talking about for you half wits out there.

William Wallace won't be "pissed off" to hear anything, TrueLies, he's dead - If he was knucklehead...
nice way to display your intimate knowledge of Scottish history and politics, though. Actually I know alot more then you'll probably ever know, apparantly your more british then you are scottish even though you may have been born there, just because someone is born to their motherland doesn't make them a genious about it.
And you know what, I do want to debate your bizarre theory that a state led by a president can't be a democracy. bring it on, i'd love to educate your numb skull on the subject, i'm sure you'ld love to soak it up seemings how you got a pretty dry sponge upstairs.

I'll give some time for you to "suddenly become to busy" or decide "you can't be bothered debating anything" with me - but if, miraculously, you do decide to go ahead with it, PM me and let me know when you've started. I'll look forward to reading your arguments.
I'm here, and ready when you are captain know nothing

Alternatively, you could just admit you're out of your depth and apologise for disrupting this thread with your crude behaviour. Why would I do that?

I'm sure we're all prepared to be forgiving, and welcome you into a civilised discussion. Give it some thought.
My posts may not be civilised compared to others, but at least they don't lack factual information, thats right factual, wish you could say the same for yours??

[edit on 28-6-2004 by TrueLies]



posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 07:59 PM
link   
IM ocming into the conversation abit late, but ill add my 14 cents. Bush is bad at pronouncing certain words, he cannot articulate the word "nuclear" and yes, has a thick accent to anyone who isnt from Texas, and contradicts himself often.

But hes got balls.

He got out in front of a nation who hated him and told them what they already knew about 911, and alot of stuff they never wanted to hear. He got out in front a nation who hated him and told him they were going to war. He got out in front a nation who hated him and told them that we're still in Iraq...and their children are still dying.

Michael Moore criticised him for going on "vacation" after 911. Sheesh, Im surprised the man didnt have a mental breakdown.



posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Why do so many people on ATS hate Bush?


It's not hate, but strong dislike... I too am a registered Republican, but damn...the man is a moron...

Yeah I know, the easy comeback, so I'll just go ahead and shoot it down... Yes, I know he graduated from an Ivy League college...but it was bought and paid for... There is NO way someone could graduate from those schools and still say the things this monkey says....

Here is a man who GREW UP around foreign policy and politics, and STILL can't find or even pronounce most countries on a map!

The man has basically flagrantly tossed world opinion aside, and has (in one term) transformed the US from the most respected nation in the world, to one feared, ridiculed, and hated.

If this man gets re-elected (and he likely will, despite all efforts), we are sliding fast to WWIII.

Another reason we dislike him....we DIDN'T vote for him....we voted for the other guy (the one who won the popular vote), yet miraculously, Bush STILL won!!!



posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 09:33 PM
link   
Strangeland says,
"Here are the facts:"
hmm facts according to whom?

Strangeland says,
"Bush's actions in Iraq have not only created more hatred of America - the West in general, I think, but America in particular - but have also turned former allies (including France) against you."

Where have you been hidding, I think the USA has been hated and despised for quite some time now, for many reasons, and most of us citizens here are fed up with being the target of hatred and threats, thats why I really dont care what the world thinks of the situation with Iraq...and im glad the President doesnt either.....AMERICA ALWAYS COMES FIRST...and if your the President here I EXPECT NO LESS! Tell me there was less jealousy of America in the past and youd be lying. The French have shown this for several decades now.

Strangelands says,
"It's worth remembering, CazMedia, that there was, is and will be no evidence whatsoever linking the WTC tragedy with Iraq. "

I dont need linkage to 9-11 in order to recocgnise a brutal dictator, one that has shown himself time and again, in order to realize that something had to be done. Where are the rest of the great nations like France and Germany? Being cowardly and greedy behind the scenes...willing to not condem a dictator that they WERE IN BED WITH..(food for oil)..at least here in the states, we acknowledge we helped this wacko make a mess, and were willing to help clean it up. Popular or not.

Strangeland says,
"In short, it wasn't a temporary boo-hoo thing, it was a genuine sympathy for the victims of an atrocious and disgusting attack. That is turned out to be temporary is purely the fault of Bush and his henchmen. "

OOHH yeah, right, tell me that lie again...there were plenty of people around the world that thought "the USA deserved that", and they said as much....are you confusing shock at an obviously vicious attack with sympathy for America? I dont. Its all well and good to SAY, "oh that was terrible...we feel for you." Try actually putting actions where your words are. I think much of the western world was glad it happened here instead of there...and 9-11 was a wake-up call to you too that this magnitude of destruction could easily have come your way too. If it didnt...your driving while intoxicated.

Strangeland asks,
"if you ignore Iraq and the so-called War on Terror, would you be more inclined to vote Kerry? "
Not nessisarilly, i really dont see much differance between the 2 except that Bush had the guts to do unpopular things that needed to be done....thats leadership....the population at large will generally NOT choose the hard thing to do...even if its nessisary....a Leader will not just ride the polls thru his term, he will make tough choices popular or not....I dont see this conviction in Kerry.

TO ALL THOSE WHINING ABOUT BUSH STEALING THE ELECTION...
As a journalist in Florida at the time for a major network, i can say there is no way 1-2-or even 5 "key people" could have stolen anything (meaning Bush, his brother gov jeb, the supervisor of elections ((a DEM)) or anyone else high profile or in charge of anything) There were HUNDREDS of volunteers from both parties and nutral observers, under constant video and armed security survailance, that counted and recounted and re counted and in some cases recounted votes out in the open for all to see...in many counties, by criteria agreed upon by both parties. I cannot believe that they were all on the same side and in on a giant conspiracy to steal the whitehouse. Get real. And this being a democratic REPUBLIC with an electoral collage, the popular vote means crap....which is also why were gonna have to swallow gay marriages here, even tho a slight majority dont favor this....because in a republic...elected officials can and do things that the people dont like...again this would be an example of a LEADER actually leading instead of blowing in the breeze along with the ever shifting poll #'s. Big deal.



posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 04:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueLies
My posts may not be civilised compared to others, but at least they don't lack factual information, thats right factual, wish you could say the same for yours??


Now, now TrueLies, didn't you mother teach you it's rude to interrupt when grown-ups are talking? If all you have to offer is barely-legible nonsense and rabid personal attacks, maybe you should go take a nap.

Oh, and I'm glad you found someone who agrees that "exhuberate" is a word - even if they clearly disagree with you about what it means. But still, everyone should have a friend.




Originally posted by Scat
But hes got balls.


I have no argument with that, Scat, the man clearly has balls of steel - either that, or has doesn't really understand how much his country hates him. I posted this "Bush Hears No Dissent" link earlier, but you might find it interesting. Maybe Dick and Donny tuck him in at night and tell him that he's the most-beloved President since Bill Pullman in Independance Day, and he goes off to sleep with a happy smile on his face...


Originally posted by Gazrok
If this man gets re-elected (and he likely will, despite all efforts), we are sliding fast to WWIII.


Thanks for your post, Gazrok. I was really concerned that no Republicans whatsoever had turned against Dubya, and it's nice to know that there are a few who will put morality and justice above party politics. I applaud you.

I hope you're wrong about it being too late. I still believe that the great American people, if only they could see Dubya clearly, would have him out on the sidewalk before the end of the day.


Originally posted by CazMedia
Where have you been hidding, I think the USA has been hated and despised for quite some time now, for many reasons, and most of us citizens here are fed up with being the target of hatred and threats, thats why I really dont care what the world thinks of the situation with Iraq.


I really don't know where you get this from, Caz. Yes, I'll admit there's been an antipathy towards the US from France and other European countries in the past, but it's been good-natured, and, by and large, friendly.

I really can't argue your feelings of persecution - it's not the sort of thing you can measure in facts and figures - except to say this: there is no-one in my social or professional circles who had a bad word to say about America until Bush was handed the keys to the Whitehouse - against the will of the people, I may add - by the Supreme Court. Under Clinton, we all loved you guys; your charming, intelligent, sax-playing President was the best ambassador your country ever had!

We supported and empathised with you in the wake of the WTC tragedy. We supported - politically and militarily - the invasion of Afghanistan, because it was the right thing to do. But then your pseudo-President got greedy, didn't he? He fabricated stories about Weapons of Mass Destruction and links between Al Queda and Iraq. He twisted military intelligence, the media, and the American people to pursue his own personal vendetta against Saddam.

And that, Caz, was when the world turned against you. Beyond the tiny minority of ignorant xenophobes which you get in any country on Earth, you must realise that we don't hate you, and we don't hate the US - we hate Bush. I'm sorry that you feel victimised, and I'm sorry that you're wrong - it seems that the "hatred of America" is just one more lie told by the Bush junta to manipulate and control the American people. Your next vacation, you should come to Scotland - you'll be met with nothing but hospitality and friendliness.


I dont need linkage to 9-11 in order to recocgnise a brutal dictator, one that has shown himself time and again, in order to realize that something had to be done.


And it doesn't bother you at all that Bush lied to the American people about the war? I agree that Saddam should have been removed from power, but Bush did it by telling the American people that they were under threat from Iraq - a blatant, stinking lie!

I agree that the UN should have been stricter with Iraq, but that doesn't give your gun-toting "President" the right to ignore the wishes of the international community, and declare war on a sovereign state just because Daddy didn't tidy up properly! Had Bush said "Look, Saddam's clearly a bastard, he needs to be removed from power," a lot of people on this side of the Atlantic would have agreed, me included. But he didn't. He lied about WMDs. He lied about terrorist links. He lied about a "clear and present danger". He lied and he lied and he lied, and he's still lying today. He made it seem that America was protecting itself, when he was indulging his personal grudge against Saddam.

As I said above, I backed the actions in Afghanistan. The American soldiers who died out there were true patriots who died defending their homeland; but the American men and women who died in Iraq were not giving up their lives for the US, or for the flag, or for you - they died in the name of the macho fantasy of the Man Who Stole The Whitehouse.

Two more points. Firstly, Bush did not win the election, and I shown ample evidence to support my case earlier in this thread. There is no way in which a civilised country should be under the thrall of the choice of the minority - and if he got in by abusing the system, maybe it's time you changed the damn system.

And secondly, I agree that there is more to leadership than being led by focus groups, and I admire a man who can the difficult decisions. But that only works if the "difficult decisions" are in the best interests of the country you're supposed to be leading! Bush hasn't done what's best for America, he's used your military and intelligence services to pursue his own personal agenda, just the same as you would use the office photocopier for personal stuff, or surfing ATS while you're at work - the difference being, of course, that people don't die because you take advantage of a perk of the job.

Respect the tough decisions. But make sure they're the right decisions.

But there's one thing above all other that I hope you remember when you face the ballot box in November. The war in Iraq was not necessary - and Bush is personally reponsible for every single death.



posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 10:33 AM
link   
My theroy is that he is hated worldwide because hes too american. Hes from texas, hes a "redneck" and he believes in a christian god. The truth is most europeans I've met don't like america or americans. And bush is soooo American, I mean White, country, and nowhere near as eloquent as our last president.
That being said there was a nice little debate going on about bush and I'd like to contribute some points
Thorfinn Skullsplitter said "Tax cuts for the upper few percent in the country doesn't impress me. But I guess it's super-groovy for those lucky folks."
However thats a completly inaccurate interpertation of the bush tax-cut plan

"In fact, according to the Treasury Department, nearly 5 million additional Americans will end up paying NO income tax at all in this year, thanks to the tax breaks ushered in by the 2001 and 2003 Act"-qoute by gail buckner CFP of fox news

Furthermore
When they crunch the actual numbers for 2004, the folks at Treasury predict the average tax rate for the bottom 50 percent of all taxpayers will fall by 16 percent, compared to a 12 percent decline for those in the top 1 percent of income.- qoute by gail buckner CFP of fox news

On the Idea that the "rich" dont pay thier fair share of taxes

According to the most recent figures available (2001) the Treasury Department reports:

1- Since 1990, virtually ALL of the income tax collected by the federal government has come from taxpayers who fall in the top 50 percent in terms of income. In 2000 and 2001, this group paid over 96 percent of total taxes collected.

2-Most of this tax revenue comes from a very select group: The top 5 percent of taxpayers, defined as those who earned about a third (32 percent) of all national income, paid more than half of all individual income taxes (53.3 percent).
Those in the top 1 percent in terms of income, paid more than 30 percent of the total amount of income tax collected.

3-The tax cuts we received in 2001 and 2003 shifted an even larger share of the income tax burden to those with higher incomes.

How can this be, you ask, when the top tax rate was reduced from 39.6 percent to 35 percent? (An 11.6 percent tax cut.)

Simple. Income tax rates at the lowest end of the scale were reduced by a much greater extent. For once thing, we replaced the 15-percent bracket with a 10-percent bracket for the first $14,000 in taxable income for a married couple (that's the 2003 figure, this goes up to $14,300 for 2004).** That's a one-third reduction (33 percent). So, for this tax year, instead of owing $2,145 on their first $14,300 of income, a couple will now pay $1,430.-qoute by gail buckner CFP of fox news

Any interested parties can view the whole story here
www.foxnews.com...



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 07:25 AM
link   
Thanks, mwm1331, for the analysis of the tax thing. I'm not sure I agree with it any more than I did yesterday, but it's interesting to see the figures laid out.

On the subject of Bush's All-American Guy credentials, I have a few points. I don't think Bush typifies America. I think of Americans as hardworking, patriotic, warmhearted people - none of which, sadly, applies to Dubya. I think of Americans as being inherently meritocratic and just - again, no score for Junior. Bush exemplifies the very worst of right-wing excess, and he is hated - he is hated - because he lets the rest of you down. Clinton, for all his faults, showed the rest of world how witty, erudite and friendly America could be. He made the world say "Yeah, it's a superpower, but I'd invite it out for a drink and game of pool, and maybe even introduce it to my sister."

Bush, on the other hand, betrays America in every word and deed. By his ignorance, his greed, his lies, his arrogance, his illiteracy, his drunkeness, his cowardice and his overwhelming stupidity, he shows us what the world would be like if everyone's dumb burger-flipping neighbour was suddenly in charge. Remember, people of America, we hate him, not you.

In short, when you say "American", I don't picture a dumbass buck-toothed inbred redneck with a pick-up, a six-pack and a shotgun.

I think of that when you say "Republican".


That was a joke and has been considered unsuitable for the new inclusive and laid-pack "love pit".
Please edit your memories of this post.






posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 07:35 AM
link   
Perhaps I misspoke strangelands I meant that he is the Stereotypical american, I.E he reminds the euros of the stereotype of the gun totin, beer drinkin, bible thumpin, toothless, sister seducing, redneck.
Personally I dont think hes any of those things.
I also dont think hes let down this country.
I agree with the war in Iraq I think we are doing a good thing there.
I like the tax cuts,
I dont think homosexuals should be allowed to be married (civil unions are fine but marriage is a religous institution)
I disagree with abortion except in situations which are life threatenng to the mother (and in truth I think that any mother who would choose her own life over that of her child has something very very wrong with her)
I also dont think he's stupid in fact I think hes smart enough to let people think hes stupid so that they underestimate him (a strategy I have used myself)
But then again I voted for him once and will do so again.


[edit on 30-6-2004 by mwm1331]



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 08:03 AM
link   

Originally posted mwm1331
Perhaps I misspoke strangelands I meant that he is the Stereotypical american, I.E he reminds the euros of the stereotype of the gun totin, beer drinkin, bible thumpin, toothless, sister seducing, redneck.


No, I understood what you meant, mwm1331, I just disagree that a stereoptypical american is a redneck. A valley girl, perhaps, or a grizzled Klondike prospector. Perhaps it's the cast of Friends, or Jay and Silent Bob, or maybe even Homer Simpson. But the redneck as a stereotypical American? Personally, I think that's being unfair to your country - and, being a foreigner, I guess I'm in a position to judge.



Personally I dont think hes any of those things.


I don't think he's any of those things either. I think he's a spoiled rich kid who owes his dubious success to a family fortune which came from banking with the Nazis and Daddy's old golfing buddies at the Supreme Court. I think he's a witless incompetant who has lied and cheated his way through life, failing to accomplish a single thing by his own hard work.



I like the tax cuts...
I dont think homosexuals should be allowed to be married...
I disagree with abortion...


That's fair enough. As I said earlier, it's pointless to hate Bush because he's a Republican, and it's pointless to hate intelligent, reasonable people just because they have a different viewpoint. I respect your positions on the above issues - I disagree with them absolutely, but I respect them. This isn't about left vs. right, liberals vs. Republicans, this is about good, decent, honest people being united in their contempt and condemnation of One Stupid Man!

You'll notice I cut the quote about the Iraq war because, in my opinion, that's a whole different thing. You might agree that what's happening in Iraq (the "liberation") is good - as it happens, I agree with you. You might think that it's good that Saddam has been removed from power and is now in custody - again, I'd agree with you.

But you were lied to, mwm, over and over and over. Bush knew damn well there wasn't a link between international terrorism and Iraq. He knew damn well there weren't WMDs in Iraq. He lied to the American people - and the whole world - so that they would support an utterly unjust war which he fought for selfish, greedy motives.

He used the US Army like his personal toy soldiers, for crying out loud!

Just because you might agree with the ends, you surely can't approve of the means?



I also dont think he's stupid in fact I think hes smart enough to let people think hes stupid so that they underestimate him (a strategy I have used myself)


Hmmm. Secretly smart but publicly stupid? Or just stupid? I'm going to have to go with occam's razor on this one, mwm1331, and the overwhelming amount of evidence that illustrates Dubya's ignorance. If I was presented with equal evidence that showed just how bright Junior is, I might reconsider, but for the moment, the evidence is just too convincing.

But you're welcome to your opinion, and you're welcome to cast your vote in November in accordance with nothing but your own conscience. I just hope that you're not blinded by party lines, and that you can see exactly what Bush is responsible for.



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 08:26 AM
link   
In terms of the WMDs I honestly don't believe he lied, I dont think anyone did (except perhaps the dissidents we got the intelligence from) Everyone thought he was developing WMDs not just the U.S. The truth is I think Saddam was lying to his people about having WMD and that as a result we thought he really did.
I mean think about this, Iraq began trying to devolp WMD in the 80s and had success with chemical weapons then he wants to move on to nukes, but before he can get the program up and running Desert Storm happens, Now we should have finished the job then but regardless after seeing how quickly we destroyed his army he gets scared he starts to thnk that maybe just maybe its not a good Idea to piss off the worlds #1 military power so he destroys the wmds and suspends the program. However would he admit it? wouldnt he want people to THINK he had WMD capabilities? Even if he didnt? If he admits he destroyed them he loses standing in the middle east because he caved, in that region if people think you're weak you're dead. time gos by and noone knows (except him) that he destreoyed WMDs his people dont know, his soldiers dont know, we dont know.
I cant say whether or not this is the way it actually was but I can say that all the defectors kept telling us he had em, our ELINT said he had em so naturally we thought he had em. We were wrong but that doesn't mean that the reasons for going are invalid.
We wern't lied to we were just wrong.



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 12:23 PM
link   
Well, it's nice to see that you're not still claiming that the WMDs are out there - if only Bush and Blair were as honest...

But I'm afraid Dubya's deceptions go beyond incorrect intelligence. From the accusations of African uranium, to the announcement on Polish TV which I referred to earlier, evidence of Junior's half-hearted appraoch to telling the truth is easy to find.

Unlike, for example, some big ol' piles of biological weapons.

Try here, here, here - oh, and don't forget my favourite one, here, which refers to this little gem:


"You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons....They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong. We found them. "
- George Bush, May 31, 2003


Yeah, except you didn't, did you Dubya, you big liar? What you found, in fact, were two laboratories which were most likely used for making weather balloons. No-one on the ground reported they were biological weapons facilities, no-one from intel reported they were biological weapons facilities, he just decided they were.

I'm sorry to belabor this point, mwm1331, but he shouldn't be allowed to get away with this. Yes, in the initial stages of the already-illegitimate war against Iraq, some intelligence sources were just plain wrong. But Bush went beyond that - far, far beyond that.

Now tell me this: Clinton gets threatened with impeachment for lying to the American people about having an affair, while Bush lies to the American people again and again and again about the reasons for going to war, causes the deaths of who knows how many soldiers and civilians, and gets away with it?

Does that sound fair to you?



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 02:52 PM
link   
Patriot Act, his mentality about protestors, his "you're either with us or against us" mentality, believes he's on a mission from God, his pitting Americans against each other in general....

Umm, claiming he is a war-time President, wish he would have said this before being elected. I'm talking about the Iraq war, not 9/11. He also claimed he would bring America together in 2000...

Edit: I don't hate him, I don't "hate" anyone, i just dislike Bush as a president, don't know him as a person.

[edit on 30-6-2004 by Jamuhn]



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 03:39 PM
link   
How do I hate Bush? let me count the ways...........

He is recalling retirted and IRR personell to fill the ranks of his stupid wars.

He is getting us involved in entirely too many wars and international problems.

He is stupid as a lump of cow turds.

he is Skull and Bones.

He knew about 9/11 and let it happen.

He is planning on permanently establishing us in Iraq.

He is gonna reinstitute the draft.

His whole cabinet are the worst bunch of crooks in high office since the Nazis.

He is clueless and doesnt seem to give a # about the rest of us poor people.

He is cutting fat deals behind the scenes with scam, shady ass govornments.

he has done nothing to increase security at our borders.

He continually antagonizes potentially deadly enemies.

he continues free trade with China.

His is a crazy religious fanatic who hears voice from god. Alot like Bin Laden.

Hes really not the prez, Cheney is. Cheney pulls his strings.

He is an incompetant leader, a deserter, and a total moron.

His mouth keeps writing America checks our ass cant cash.

I hope he burns in hell forever.



posted on Jul, 1 2004 @ 12:23 AM
link   
Skadi that self proclaimed evil elf takes the following posisitions against President Bush...lets examine them to see what motivates this voter.


He is recalling retirted and IRR personell to fill the ranks of his stupid wars.
(They knew this could occur when they VOLUNTEERED for millitary service)

He is getting us involved in entirely too many wars and international problems. (Who determines the proper # of international problems to be involved with for a Nation if not its Leader? Is there a # that has been agreed upon?)

He is stupid as a lump of cow turds.
(opinion)

he is Skull and Bones.
(The relavence that can be proven is what? Speculative)

He knew about 9/11 and let it happen.
(speculative and NOT proven)

He is planning on permanently establishing us in Iraq.
(this has never been stated policy and Iraq's step twords independance with soverinty shows otherwise)

He is gonna reinstitute the draft.
(speculative, millitary may request this from either candidate, and both have indicated they would approve more troops.)

His whole cabinet are the worst bunch of crooks in high office since the Nazis. (OPINION....Where are the court cases, charges, anything ACTIONABLE as evidence, and why arent they proceeding NOW if this evidence exists?)

He is clueless and doesnt seem to give a about the rest of us poor people.
(OPINION)

He is cutting fat deals behind the scenes with scam, shady govornments.
(Speculative at best...can you cite some of these deals? What criteria do you use to judge a government "shady"?)

he has done nothing to increase security at our borders.
(Based on what comparrison? Today for example, the US Coast Guard will begin to inspect EVERY cargo ship approaching US ports as part of new homeland security steps. It only takes this one exmple to sink a "done nothing" argument.)

He continually antagonizes potentially deadly enemies.
(So are there enemies that arent antagonistic? Are there Enemies that arent potentially deadly? If one has a potentially deadly enemy, you will devote constant vigilance to defence from them. Or do you think there is a time where one can "rest" from this vigilance and let your guard down?)
he continues free trade with China.

His is a crazy religious fanatic who hears voice from god. Alot like Bin Laden. (opinion, I have yet to see where the "god told me" quote has been DIRECTUALLY attributal to Bush and not quoted second hand)

Hes really not the prez, Cheney is. Cheney pulls his strings.
(opinion, Fact is he is the actual President.)

He is an incompetant leader, a deserter, and a total moron.
(opoinion, untrue according to the law, opinion)

His mouth keeps writing America checks our cant cash.
(False, CONGRESS CONTROLS THE PURSE STRINGS OF AMERICA)

I hope he burns in hell forever
(Spiteful)

To sum this up...skadi's vote appears to break down to 5 innacurate statements, 7 statements of opinion, and 4 speculations...plus one Hateful remark relfecting hostility.

How informed is this voter to vote on such a pile of speculation, opinion and untruth....does anyone vote on the issues?





new topics
 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join