Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Why do so many people on ATS hate Bush?

page: 7
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 05:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by mwm1331
Personally the fact that he didn't jump up and run, that he stayed and spent a little more time with those kids shows an undeniable humanity in the face of overwhelming pain. He knew we were under attack, and that he was in a known location and thus vunerable but he took a couple extra minutes to try and spend a litlle time with our nations future. Maybe he was just trying to remind himself what he was fighting for.


lol... Face it, he had no idea what to do. That's why he sat there until he was dragged away by the good guys and gals that take care of him.




posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by mwm1331
The bottom Line is strangelands, You don't like the president or the republican party and so you look for information to support your beliefs.


The bottom line, mwm1331, is that I, having no investment in the US or it's welfare, looked at the evidence and came to a balanced decision. You voted for a besuited monkey so you could get a tax cut.

Dubya is, as I have shown time and time again, a witless, shambling, incoherent, ill-educated, corrupt, spoiled rich kid who got into power because his Daddy owns the Supreme Court. That, my dear, deluded friend, is the evidence.

You know, there's nothing wrong with supporting him because he'll make sure you don't give so much of your pay cheque to the scary Federal government - oh, and he'll mention God while he does it, so that's okay. But don't try and pretend that your faux-President is an intelligent, good man who has even the vaguest interest in the welfare of the United States or the rest of the world.

He is a documented liar. He is a deserter. He is a convicted criminal. He got places at Yale and Harvard because of his father, thereby denying a more gifted student that opportunity. He led your country, by lies and deceit, into an unjustified war. He has betrayed the fine people who served the US in it's armed services. He has brought ridicule upon your country, and upon the once-great office of President - an office which the people of the United States denied him in 2000.

But he cut your taxes, and he mentioned God.

He has caused the deaths of thousands, soldiers and civilians alike. He has squandered the goodwill and empathy which the global community felt toward your country in the wake of the WTC tragedy. He has acted against he best interests of the American economy in the name of short-term and simple-minded popularism - and, most importantly, he has taken the rich heritage, strong spirit and cultural dynamism which made your country great, and turned the US into a country which is, at best, a joke, and, at worst, a pariah.

But he cut your taxes, and he mentioned God.

I think we can see what's important to you, mwm1331.


So by all means, put your fingers back in your ears and pretend that everything is fine. Meanwhile, Dubya's support is shrinking day by day, and, come November, this shameful episode in your history will be put to rest forever.

After all, no real patriot could vote for a man who had screwed your country so thoroughly. But then again, what does the future of your once-great nation matter, when there's the slim chance he'll cut your taxes again?

Oh, and keep on mentioning God.



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 09:28 AM
link   
Strangelands so now you know my motivations better than I do.


I actually voted for Bush for one reason only. Gore was pro censorship. That was it. My entire motivation. I was not Pro-bush at the beginning of his campaign or Presidency I was simple anti-gore.
However as time has gone by I have become Pro-Bush as a result of his policies.
His response to 9/11 for example
The "no chld left behind act"
The liberation of Afghanistan
The liberation of Iraq
These are all actions which caused me to become Pro-Bush.

However none of the so called facts you point to are anything of the sort.

1)

He is a deserter


Did you miss the interview with John B. "Bill" Calhoun, in whos office Bush spent his time at the alabama base during the 18 months you claim he was a deserter?

2)

He led your country, by lies and deceit, into an unjustified war.


No actually he didn't. He acted on the available intelligence at the time,much of which was provided by your government. Do you remember the "WMD's can be launched in 20 minutes" quote? Do you remember which government stated that? I'll give you a hint it wasn't the U.S.

3)

He has acted against the best interests of the American economy in the name of short-term and simple-minded popularism


I handled this two pages ago strangelands. The tax cuts were IN the best interest of the American economy.

4)

He has caused the deaths of thousands, soldiers and civilians alike


What?!? I don't know I think maybe those who actually killed the civilians and soldiers should take the blame for that but thats just me.

5)

and, most importantly, he has taken the rich heritage, strong spirit and cultural dynamism which made your country great, and turned the US into a country which is, at best, a joke, and, at worst, a pariah.


I believe America is just as culturally dynamic now as it was 5 years ago. if you have any proof to offer otherwise then by all means show me, but as this is a subjective statement I dont believe you can.

6)

an office which the people of the United States denied him in 2000.


When are you gong to accept that he won the election fair and square? No he did not recieve the majority of the popular vote but the president of the united states is not chosen by the popular vote. Now you can rant and rave all you wnt about the supreme court and the popular vote but the fact is George W. Bush recieved the most electoral votes and therfore he won.

7)

He is a convicted criminal


He was convicted of drunk driving 20 years ago. I dont care what he did 20 years ago I support him because of what he did in the last 4 years.

Strangelands while I do take a candidates tax plan into consideration when voting it is not my top priority. I care far more about how my tax dollars are being spent than how many dollars I pay in taxes.

Bottom line you have yet to prove anything beyond Bush's well known and admitted verbal diffuculties, and that is not enough for me to vote against a president whose policies and actions I agree with. I like the way Amerca is being run for the most part and I want to continue to see it run this way. Even if you were correct and Bush was a drooling simpleton, someone is IMHO making the right decisions for my country, and thats what matters to me.

BTW as to the "image" of America worldwide I could care less, as Long as Americans like America thats what matters. Its a bit like self esteem really, as long as you like yourself does it matter if other people dont like you?


[edit on 29-7-2004 by mwm1331]



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by StrangeLands

Originally posted by nyarlathotep
Is it just the norm to focus on the President who is currently in office?


Bearing in mind what PrankMonkey already wrote...

I believe that the anti-Bush feeling around the world is far too strong to be dismissed as a predictable backlash against an incumbant leader. Though I don't agree with the "mindless" Bush-bashing which takes place - as PrankMonkey observed, a lot of people just do it because it seems to be popular, and the "insane" comments don't add anything to an important political debate.

I'll try and be concise.

Bush wasn't elected.
The farce in Florida in 2000 was disgusting, that much is obvious. I know many Republicans who've told me they would condemn Bush as an interloper - but he is a Republican president, and that has to count for something. I say: crap. You just have to look around ATS at the threads regarding the election in November - "who knows what stunt the GOP will pull this time to get their boy back in the Oval Office?" - to see that the 2000 election damaged democracy itself. Who is to blame for this? Well, although it was obviously a team effort, the short answer is Bush. He should admit that he screwed the electorate, and step down.

Bush is stupid.
And, of course, only passingly familiar with English. I realise we live in a dumbed-down soundbite world, but I still expect our leaders to be literate, thoughtful men, not denim-clad hicks who can barely string a sentence together - and worse, parade that ignorance like it's a badge of honour, the flag of the "common man".

Bush invaded Iraq illegally and - worse - stupidly.
Personally, I think we should have gone into Iraq long ago, to remove Hussein from power. But it should have been done under a UN mandate, with the approval and the agreement of the whole western world. Bush's rampage through the middle east in the name of the oily dollar, however, has compromised the integrity of the "civilised world", outraged enormous numbers of people, caused uncounted deaths, increased the threat of global terrorism, and shown a flagrant disregard for the sovereignty of another country.

Bush lied.
WMDs. Al Qaeda. Bin Laden. These were not "intelligence errors", and they were not "honest mistakes". They were flat-out lies - and here's a thought: when Republicans start protesting that Bush could only be impeached for lying under oath, it's a tacit admission that even they think he's a big lying bastard. When your supporters are saying that most of your lies aren't legal basis you get you impeached, it's time to go, Junior!

Ah. I feel cleansed.

Now I'm not an American. I agree with some of the things the Republican Party stand for - not all of them, by any means, but some. But I believe that Bush is a bad president, and that he has sold out the potential of America and of Western Democracy.

Hate him? In all honesty, probably not. But I do want to see him impeached, humiliated and punished - not so much for what he's done, but as a warning to those who come after. The American people need a president who represents the very best in their national character, a president who acts as a leader at home and an ambassador abroad, a president who is a statesman and an inspiration.

Does anyone - anyone - think that description matches George Dubya Bush?



Yes! Ok I'll admit it I Can NOT Stand George W. Bush! My problem with Bush is his Arrogence, he thinks the world owes him something! He has pissed off many of our allies with his actions.

Tim
ATS Director of Counter-Ignorance



posted on Jul, 30 2004 @ 03:09 AM
link   
Starngelands after 6 pages of debate with you,when it seemed as if we had narrowed you down to a few key points, youve relapsed into the same old tired OPINION without fact arguments, i feel because some new blood to this thread has come along with the same rhetorical opinionated factless crap. Catering to the ignorance of the masses? I thought we were denying ignorance, not perpetuating it.

1) bush is a deserter.....
It doesnt matter to strange or others that wish to belive this as fact.....no charges of desertion were ever filed and he got an honorable discharge from the service.....how then do you then slanderously say he deserted?
certantly not based on the legal definitions of desertion and the facts of Bush's record and not ever being charged in this manner.

2) He led your country, by lies and deceit, into an unjustified war.
Well that depends on who you ask....i feel the iraq war was justified for many reasons....other Americans do too...lots of people dont...too bad. While there is a lot of chest beating about bad America, do I see ANY nation standing up and blocking America in a serious manner? NO! Why? Because either you dont have the guts or its not really worth your effort to try and stop the angry USA in this manner. Put up or shut up! either get in the way or take a back seat because this country is comming thru. Didnt the world tell saddam over and over to comply? why didnt he? Because he KNEW (so he thought) that noone was going to actually DO something about him...I feel the same way about the USA actions....sit back and say bad America all you want, just dont think we wont react if you get in the way. Lies and deciet or questionable world intelligence? I find it hard to swallow that UN passed numerous resolutions over this (before Bush was President), yet Bush cooked the info.

3) He has acted against the best interests of the American economy in the name of short-term and simple-minded popularism
Again this OPINION would depend on who you ask.

4) He has caused the deaths of thousands, soldiers and civilians alike
Hmm ill give you the fact that as our leader, he is ultimatly responsible for the effects his decisions have. BIG DEAL!!! Thats what leadership is all about, having to pick between the bad for some and the worst for all....Im sure he and all of congress that authorized the $$$ for the conflict were very aware of what this action means. Just because we know what war entails, does not mean that it is not nessisary or desired.

5) and, most importantly, he has taken the rich heritage, strong spirit and cultural dynamism which made your country great, and turned the US into a country which is, at best, a joke, and, at worst, a pariah.
Hmm well this would be a total statement of opinion extrapolated from the world how? Ok not to split hairs, ill say this opinion might indeed be circulating. How can you convince me as an American, that this sentiment wasnt already there before the war? I feel "bad Americans" idea has been getting kicked around for at least a decade. So what was squandered.
Plus I totally agree with the assesment that we Americans could care less about what our neighbor thinks, let alone your country. (unless your threatning us.) So what was wasted again? a feeling that wouldnt really matter if you had for the USA or not, one that 80% wouldnt care at alll about. Im not mistaking a feeling after 911 of "ohh that was a terrible thing that happened" with actual feelings for America. While many felt 911 was terrible, some said "couldnt have happened to a more deserving country" as well.

6) an office which the people of the United States denied him in 2000.
As i have provided links in this very thread prooving there was not "theft" of the election by Bush, you still try to spew this sore loser line? Your not even in the USA to be a loser, stop perpetuating subversive statements here that dumb people will read as fact. Get over it, whats done is done and wont be changed ever. At least hate the man for something he DID, not just wishful, unproven actions.

7) He is a convicted criminal
But he's not a felon. Even if he was, the judicial system here provides a way for your "debt to society" for your crimes to be repaid. Who do you deem does not deserve a seccond chance? Are you advocating"scarlet letter" treatment of all people convicted of crimes? Ok so he was a criminal that turned his life away from those crimes and ended up becomming the President of the USA....thats quite a positive turn around eh? How many others with a substance abuse problem can say they did the same?

8) tax cuts.....
Saying we voted for him because he promised a tax cut assumes we're too stupid to know that Bush can promise a tax cut or $$$ for aids in Africa, but its CONGRESS that controls the purse strings. To vote for Bush based on a promise we know he cant make happen would be a vote based on SPECULATION.

7 pages of opinions later, we still havnt seen a real, tangible, actionable reason to hate Bush. Just more of the same non issue junk that appeals to the most uneducated and party blind voter. These reasons to hate Bush are petty and reflect the LOWEST end of political thought and discussion. Hate him on some real issues, not hyped word of mouth passed along from one drunk at the bar to another.



posted on Jul, 30 2004 @ 12:54 PM
link   
And so, in the end, it comes to this.


Originally posted by CazMedia
Your not even in the USA to be a loser, stop perpetuating subversive statements here that dumb people will read as fact.



Originally posted by CazMedia
Plus I totally agree with the assesment that we Americans could care less about what our neighbor thinks, let alone your country.



Originally posted by CazMedia
Hate him on some real issues, not hyped word of mouth passed along from one drunk at the bar to another.


From my first post on this thread, I have endeavoured to explain and expose the manifold regions behind the almost-universal disdain felt towards your pseudo-President. I have referenced and linked to many, many documents which detail the charges against him, and some which provided extra colour and different perspectives.

The response has been naught but obfuscation, denial, personal insults and a tidal wave of semantic and legalistic prestidigitation. Rather than engage in a debate on the subject of Dubyas obvious stupidity, mwm1331 plucked the word dyslexia from the air and declared the subject off-limits. Rather than acknowledge the many documented instances of Dubyas lies and the official records which testify to his desertion and the illegitimacy of his election, CazMedia maintained that logical deduction, inference and informed opinion were worthless in the face of a sanitised truth proclaimed by the White House Press Office, thereby blatantly contradicting the guiding principle of this community.

I guess the old saying is true: there are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

So, mwm1331, CazMedia, I will not be composing a detailed point-by-point reply to your most recent posts, because they could well have been copied from earlier in this thread. My case, and the details and facts which support it, are available for all to see on this very thread. If either of you wish to engage on specifics and Im not talking about dredging up Bill Calhoun, the man deified by the GOP when it turned out he was willing to say he may have seen Dubya performing drills for a total of forty-six hours out of the eighteen months when he got bored of serving his country and wandered off then Ill be back from a long-overdue vacation in a week.

If, as I suspect, youll suddenly become too busy or just stay silent like the last time, CazMedia then Id like to thank you both for giving us all a valuable reminder of Republican debating technique.



Editted: fixed link url.

[edit on 30-7-2004 by StrangeLands]



posted on Jul, 30 2004 @ 01:57 PM
link   
I do not hate President Bush. Only liberals, and some other smattering of democrats would use the word hate in describing their feelings towards him. President Bush is a man of vision. He is a leader. He cares not whether the liberals hate him, he is quite certain of himself, and the direction he wishes to go. He has my vote for 4 more years.



posted on Jul, 31 2004 @ 08:48 PM
link   
The problem most people have, is they are like baby birds, ready to gobble up whatever regurgitated worms the Bush administration spits in their mouths. Bush may not have deserted by the definition of the word, but he sure avoided the war, he certainly did not sign up for it like Kerry, how dare he call himself a war president, hes certainly no Mccain. He somehow manipulates chrisitian America to support him as a mandate of God, I'm sure Jesus was real impressed by the "shock and awe" campaign, and boy Jesus's face was probably red with embarassment when he found out he had supported Bush's war and there were no WMDs, but the CIA just miscalculated, Jesus understands. Oh yeah, Saddam was supporting Al Queda...or not...or was again...well, he probably wanted to at least, except for Bin Laden also hated Saddam Hussein, which is why he hates America so much now, because when Saddam invaded Kuwait, Bin Laden pleaded with the Saudis to let him and the Mujahadeen that he fought beside against the Russians, fight off Saddam instead of inviting the US infidels (the infidels that trained and financially supported him against the Russians) to Saudi soil. The Saudis declined and he got angry so they threw him out of Saudi Arabia. Oh yeah, we also funded and supported Saddam when he fought Iran, and we gave him components to build the chemical weapons that he used on the attack on the Kurds, which was another cited reason we went to war with him. And Bush's ties to the royal family and his ownership of the oil industry in the middle east put him knee-deep, smack dab in the middle of this whole mess. And his former dealings and actions there, coupled with the unfortunate fact that hes actually also president now, mean we have been pulled right in with him. Thanks alot, Dubya. But Jesus will support your killing for oil, as long as you stop the evils of stem cell research, and gay marriage. Did someone ask why we hate Bush?

[edit on 31-7-2004 by 27jd]



posted on Jul, 31 2004 @ 09:14 PM
link   
I do not hate Bush. I do not want a president who invades another country without hard evidence before commiting our troops (also known as our brothers, fathers, etc..) to an invasion.

He failed the test as president when he sent the troops with hearsay and no hard proof. I do not care if every world intel officer told him that Iraq had WMD or links to Alqeda. He should have demanded pictures or satelite images or some HARD proof that an immenant threat existed before commiting the US Armed forces to an invasion.

The US Armed Forces and the American people deserve much better leadership than this.

I do not think he lied, but I do know he rushed to judgement and commited other peoples lives to a war in Iraq without hard evidence or proof of WMD or link to 911. He should have been patient and let the inteligence develope to show a threat to us before invading Iraq.

I could have supported bombings, missles, even attempts at Saddams life with less than hard evidence, but what I cannot accept from a President is to put our soldiers in harms way with limited intel and 0 proof of anything.

He went to war on hearsay and speculation and it is squarley his fault.

We the American people deserve better, and those 1000 dead allied soldiers deserved better in a Commander In Chief. Please vote him out of office.

I fully support the Invasion and everything we have done in Afganistan and the rest of the world. I just think our country would be better off and safer if our troops in Iraq were on our own south border ensuring no WMD's were being sneaked in through the border instead of protecting Iraq. Let Iraq protect itself its not our Armed Forces job to do that.

I do think George was doing what he thought is best but his actions and impatience prove he is not of the calibre to be president and commander in chief. Lets vote him out in November.

Sure I wish we had a better choice than Kerry. We must show future presidents that its not ok just to throw our troops into battle without hard evidence of a threat to our nation by voting "W" out.

Even he admits it was a mistake. If I were president and made a mistake like that, I would resign and appologize to the American people. I definately would not run for office again.

X



posted on Aug, 1 2004 @ 12:11 AM
link   
So Bush was 'misled' into starting a war... Ok, now I can probably mislead someone a bit but accidentally starting a war. Yeah....

If Bush couldn't go to the CIA's world fact book, look up Iraq, and see that it's an impoverished country with barely any tech and a GNP that's 1/118th that of the US's, then yes, he is an idiot. It's either that or he lied through his teeth and never checked facts in the first place. Either way, he sucks.

Besides that, he didn't give the UN inspectors a chance to finish their work and said they weren't being effective. Well now we own the country and there's nothing there. Wow, guess we should listen to the UN since they proved to be dead accurate.



posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 01:42 AM
link   
Hmm, I think its very interesting to see people upset with the President over his expressions of religious beliefs, but then read a post like 27jd's where he uses religon as a tool as well.

27JD, are you advocating that the Saudi's should have let Osama and his underworld group subvert Iraq instead of trying to allow legitimate nations to try and oust an invading dictator? Are you supporting destabilization thru terrorist means?

It it my understanding that both Bush and Cheney sold off their investments with "big oil" before running for office...so saying he's profitting from a "war for oil" seems a little like a streatch of the truth.
They sold off their oil intrests so that they would not be in a conflict of interest when in the government.

27SJ says,


Oh yeah, we also funded and supported Saddam when he fought Iran, and we gave him components to build the chemical weapons that he used on the attack on the Kurds,


So are you trying to blame some other entity besides the USA for helping to make the Iraq mess? As you say, we did back him and supply WMD tech and goods, but this is not our problem to have to be involved in cleaning up?
This makes Iraq our problem as we helped make the mess.

Xeven states,


He failed the test as president when he sent the troops with hearsay and no hard proof. I do not care if every world intel officer told him that Iraq had WMD or links to Alqeda. He should have demanded pictures or satelite images or some HARD proof that an immenant threat existed before commiting the US Armed forces to an invasion.

In a perfect world, yes it would be nice if our leaders (gov or millitary) had 100% knowledge of the enimies plans and secret programs etc etc...
But thats not reality. How can any leader gain this 100% knowledge?
There was alot more than your 0% intel and less than 100% intel....what % of intel is actionable to you? Is it situational? does it depend on what "crime" we're talking about? I think genocide or mass murder via terrorism or wmd counts as something id rather err on the side of prevention than reaction.

While it seems that alot of world wide intel agencies didnt have the correct intel on iraqi wmd's, in fact the UN took steps against iraq for 10 years based upon the intel available thru saddams shell game. Bush was not the only one that had already taken actions against Iraq, and this was going on BEFORE Bush became President. Yet you'd like to either lump all the "blame" for faulty intel on Bush (yet the world thought this way as well), as well as ignore the history and escalation of terrorism (vs the USA)in the preceeding decade.
Your argument is revisionist armchair quaterbacking.
Based on your "not 100%" argument, then cops should never stop and question someone unless they have 100% certainty that a crime was commited? Actions are taken daily in all aspects of life where 100% info is not available...including life and death decisions...BIG DEAL, THATS LIFE!!!!
NO ONE CAN PREDICT THE FUTURE OR DETERMINE THE "TRUTH" THAT THEY DONT ACTUALLY KNOW. (KNOW THE UNKNOWN)

Xeven again,


I could have supported bombings, missles, even attempts at Saddams life with less than hard evidence, but what I cannot accept from a President is to put our soldiers in harms way with limited intel and 0 proof of anything.

Yeah and that bombing/missile strategy was how good for clinton? Hell after the gulf war the UN etablished no fly zones, and still saddam kept shooting at our planes....we kept bombing him...how effective was this strategy? Are you advocating the USA SHOULD engage in assasination attempts against leaders of other countries?

First of all, what would be the differance between killing the leader of another country, (risking retaliation) and attacking the country?
IF a country sniped our leader...we wouldnt retaliate? Hell yes we would declare war...killing another nations leader is pretty much declairing war on them.
Secondly, what seperates us from terrorists if we adopt this strategy?
While i can see where assasination could be useful, it seems to be an evil act to me to sneak up and take a life for political, monetary or any justification. It would be better (at least more honorable) to give warning that we were comming and then just attack openly, than hide in the shadows like a thief in the night. The worlds first stealth weapon was the Trojan Horse!!!

Xeven says,


He should have been patient and let the inteligence develope to show a threat to us before invading Iraq.

Umm, so how many YEARS of shell game inspections were enough? How long with NO THREAT of concequences was the world to allow saddam to defy them? How many years was the USA to know about French, German, and Russians to lie to the UN by saying "bad saddam" and passing sanctions with no teeth, all the while secretly stealing oil and $$$ by working WITH saddam thru the UN's oil for food program? How long should we have let our "allies" lie to us and the world while being in bed with him? This is not our problem?

Lets be clear people, the "threat" from Iraq was not that he could launch a missile and hit the USA with a wmd, it was that he could do this (and had) to any of his neighbors....it was the fact that he has supported terrorism...(payments to hamas suicide bombers families for hitting Israel, the terrorist training camp with the plane and airport terminal mockups, how about having home grown (iraqi) groups like ansar al islam and others within his boarders....Al queda is but one of these groups, and in fact we know saddam had at least contact thru his people with members of al queda.

What part of "if you harbor, aid, or shelter terrorists then you are in league with them" dont you get? Part of the threat from saddam was that he would sell/give WMD's to terror groups to use against the west.
Part of the threat was that saddam could have disrupted the worlds supply of oil thru destabilizing the entire gulf region.

But its ok, only look to your short term, selfish interest as a guiode for what should be done/when.....pay no attention to the big picture, cause "it doesnt affect you"
Hmm why dont you actually try to curtail oil product usage to the minimum...go on...TRY IT....you cant...there are too many interdependant tech and products that utilize crude and its byproducts to even HOPE to avioid them....can you say PLASTICS? Good luck trying to live without oil.

This is exactly the same hyped up, no fact, refusal to acknowledge our cupabillity and responsibillities that have been going on here for almost 8 pages now....have you guys read this entire thread BEFORE you spewed the same bull that was back on page 2?

Bring something new other than this tired, emotive, non factual crap to the table next time.

[edit on 2-8-2004 by CazMedia]

[edit on 2-8-2004 by CazMedia]

[edit on 2-8-2004 by CazMedia]



posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 05:12 PM
link   
I must state something on the basis of neutrality.

:::Now, before I post this, I must make clear that I am a Senator John Kerry supporter, and will be voting for him in the upcoming 2004 Election. Now, when Bush was elected, he was the better choice, and yes, I DID vote for him. However, I do not like the choices he has made, and I believe John Kerry, who has proven his metal in combat, will be a better choice for a war-time government, since we WILL be at war for a long time to come, and John Kerry, who has won THREE purple hearts, and ONE silver star, or George Bush, who hasn't won anything and went AWOL from the military. Who do you think would be a better war-time leader?

3 Purple hearts and 1 silver star |vs.| AWOL and No awards.
____________________________________________________________

Now, back to being neutral.

Both sides (Democrats and Republicans) have openly said that this election will be VERY close. 51 - 49 most likely. No greater than 55 - 45. With that being said, someone posted about how "all the world hates him" That is a general statement, and is incorrect. It WILL be a very close election, it WILL NOT be a blow away 80 - 20. 51 - 49, 51 - 49

That is all I would like to state, just for the record. Perhaps even something more to debate about?

-wD



posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by CazMedia
Hmm, I think its very interesting to see people upset with the President over his expressions of religious beliefs, but then read a post like 27jd's where he uses religon as a tool as well.

27JD, are you advocating that the Saudi's should have let Osama and his underworld group subvert Iraq instead of trying to allow legitimate nations to try and oust an invading dictator? Are you supporting destabilization thru terrorist means?



I was never advocating that they shouldve let Osama take on Iraq, they wouldve been crushed anyways. I was merely stating why he hates America so much. And if you really think just because they "sold" their ties to the big oil industry that Bush and Cheney arent still players in it indirectly, Im sorry. And were you trying to deny that we supported Hussein and provided him with materials for WMDs? Do you think they thought he was a "good guy" back then? They didnt care. And at what point was I using religion?



posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 12:32 AM
link   
27jd says


if you really think just because they "sold" their ties to the big oil industry that Bush and Cheney arent still players in it indirectly, Im sorry.

OF COURSE they are indirect players theyre the top 2 people in our government....however i believe youve overstated his importance here with


And Bush's ties to the royal family and his ownership of the oil industry in the middle east put him knee-deep, smack dab in the middle of this whole mess.

I dont believe Bush actually owned or controled anything directly in the middle east, i believe he was more domestic in his past endeavors.

And NO DUH that the Saudi ruling family and the Bush capitalist family have had ties for decades....these families were already the wealthy ones in positions to be involved in these "high end" type of relationships....how many influential families do you think a nation has in each industry? mabey a handful? Im not suprised that interactions by the families in "power" have taken place for a long time. What other "players" have there been in the field of energy/oil?

27jd questions me further,


And were you trying to deny that we supported Hussein and provided him with materials for WMDs? Do you think they thought he was a "good guy" back then?

NO and NO....In fact, BECAUSE we gave him the WMD's, we know he HAD WMD's, where are they now? Also, since we did give him thhese things, IRAQ IS OUR PROBLEM...we helped create this situation, and its our responsibillity to clean up our mess there.

27jd concludes,


at what point was I using religion?

You used Jesus 3 times while trying to use Bush's religion against him for your point...thats using religion, even if only to "turn the tables" on Bush.

Webdevil compares candidates erroniusly,


John Kerry, who has won THREE purple hearts, and ONE silver star, or George Bush, who hasn't won anything and went AWOL from the military.

FOR THE MILLIONTH TIME in this thread alone, please stop the LIES that your President was awol. SUPPORT WITH FACT NOT INTERPRETATIONS!!!
Much like you can SAY OJ killed Nichole, in reality, by the law and legal process, HE IS INNOCENT OF THE ALLEGATIONS.
It is the same way with Bush. Where is the official charge of being AWOL? where was the court marshal? Now you can believe what youd like here, but by perpetuating this "Bush awol" distortion of reality, you only cater to those soo uninformed that they will follow like the blind, and make your arguments against Bush look petty and grasping at straws. Will you, for the record, state that your allegations that Bush was AWOL is a statement of FACT or OPINION. If you claim this as fact, please explain the honorable discharge with more than speculation that daddy did it for him.

On Kerry, from ZeddicusZulZorander

Wizard of the First Order
Moderator
ATSNN.com Reporter

from the thread www.abovetopsecret.com...



"Now this is a conspiracy site. Imagine your father never came home from Vietnam. As chairman of a Senate committee looking into allegations of MIAs in Vietnam, Kerry defended the Vietnamese. He even went so far as to refer to the families of the POWs and MIAs as "professional malcontents, conspiracy mongers, con artists, and dime-store Rambos."

Now how would someone that thinks this way, think of all of us here at ATS?
(Those who scream that ATS has spooks and disinfo agents take note!)

Scratched for three Purple Hearts? Any scars? Kerry demanded his tour of duty be cut short by 2/3rds? Regulations require that to be awarded the Purple Heart, the wounded must be treated for an injury, caused by enemy action by a medical officer. Kerry never saw a medical officer because the wounds were so minor.
Certainly wasn't caused by "enemy action" was it?

He also asked the draft board for a one year deferment, so he could visit Paris to sit out the war. The draft board refused, so he joined the Navy to hopefully see little or no action.

Winning a Silver Star for chasing and killing a vietnamese who was already wounded (or already killed) by another swift boat crewman? Most interesting... People have been tried and convicted for war crimes doing the same thing.

Admiral Zumwalt said of Kerry, "I don't know if I should give Lt. Kerry a medal or a court martial for all the civilians he's killed. I want to put a straight jacket on Lt. Kerry."

Kerry used "murder" and "atrocity" to describe other soldiers actions in Vietnam were made in "anger" and really not accurate. So today he admits that he lied back then in "anger"? Can we expect him to lie to us in office out of "anger"?

My fiancee is in the Naval Reserve. Did Kerry fulfill his Navy Reserve obligations or devote all his time to anti-American demonstrations? I wonder if by encouraging the enemy, he has an idea of how many soldiers and sailors lost their lives?

Kerry wrote a book entitled "The New Soldier" showing mocking pictures of the Iwo Jima memorial. 7,000 Marines died at Iwo Jima, including three from the famous photo. What does that say to those dead heros?

He states that he voted for the war, but now states that he was only voting for the "process" of the UN putting pressure on Iraq. I would love to see the word "process." Ninty-nine US Senators can't find the word "process" in the bill that they voted on.

And finally, how can service men and women respect a Commander who would called them all war criminals, demonstrate against them and refuse to believe the idea that some could have been left behind."


Thanks to ZED for not only the research done with these points but for allowing me to showcase his excellent examples of Kerry in order to answer WebDevils last question,


Who do you think would be a better war-time leader?


I feel the current President is doing a fine job as C.I.C. Especially in light of Mr Kerry's reccord as examined by Zed above.

[edit on 3-8-2004 by CazMedia]



posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 01:08 PM
link   


OF COURSE they are indirect players theyre the top 2 people in our government....however i believe youve overstated his importance here with


Sure, I guess its not important at all, considering onwership of the corrupt companies they have ties to, and award contracts exclusively to, belong to their buddies who still pass the money on to them through "contributions", so forgive me for "overstating" the importance of American soldiers lives for $$$.



I dont believe Bush actually owned or controled anything directly in the middle east, i believe he was more domestic in his past endeavors.


Really? Dubya didn't own an oil rigging outfit off Kuwaits coastline? It was back around the time of that little skirmish we called Desert Storm, and probably one of the main reasons Bush #1 was so quick to rescue Kuwait, he was rescuing his sons investment. But I'm sure you'll respond back with a more noble reason.



And NO DUH that the Saudi ruling family and the Bush capitalist family have had ties for decades....these families were already the wealthy ones in positions to be involved in these "high end" type of relationships....how many influential families do you think a nation has in each industry? mabey a handful? Im not suprised that interactions by the families in "power" have taken place for a long time. What other "players" have there been in the field of energy/oil?


NO DUH? Its been so long since Ive heard that. Thanks for the nostalgia!
These interactions by the families in "power" are likely soaked in corruption.
And, as good a buddies as they are, you would think the royal family would put an end to anti-Americanism in their society, being that they are one of the main purveyors of it, and they could easily end it as they are one of those evil governments that rule with an iron-fist. Are they our mess too? Do we need to clean up there? We need to but we wont. We pick and choose what evil dictators we remove to suit our needs.



NO and NO....In fact, BECAUSE we gave him the WMD's, we know he HAD WMD's, where are they now? Also, since we did give him thhese things, IRAQ IS OUR PROBLEM...we helped create this situation, and its our responsibillity to clean up our mess there.


Where are they now? Ask several dead Kurds and Iranians. I love the video of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Hussein, that says it all. And then, all of the sudden Bush decided we had done wrong and would clean up the mess his administration created? I dont think so, that was not his motive and you can retort however you like, but Bush does not care about the Iraqi people. We're not stupid.



You used Jesus 3 times while trying to use Bush's religion against him for your point...thats using religion, even if only to "turn the tables" on Bush.


Turn the tables? Bush's religion should never have been made public to begin with, as church and state were to remain seperate, instead he exploits Jesus and uses him as political tool, to the point you almost expect to see Jesus standing in photos with Bush and his administration. Bush probably doesnt have an ounce of spirituality in him, although he convinces the Jerry Falwell crowd he does (but they're not a hard bunch to fool obviously). Youre obviously a staunch Bush supporter, so I expect you to defend him vigorously. And Im sure you will continue to do so.


[edit on 3-8-2004 by 27jd]



posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 08:30 PM
link   
I like Bush, and though you have to admit if it weren't for his daddy he would of had no career in politics. He does have a little charm to go with him and even though he mis-pronounces words, he still can capture a certain audience with his speeches, though seemingle only right wing Christains are the audience that support him 110%.

I do not like how he has used his presidency to enhance his business ties profits. The enviroment and the gap between rich and poor has suffered as a result of his administration. Sadly, I feel that his biggest boost in Bush's popularity came after 9-11, before that day the polls showed a low approval rating from his presidency.

Bush's staff run the country like a business and seem to put their money first when deciding the issues. Like Kerry said, our vice president has had secret meeting(s) with industry giants that resulted in lowering EPA standards to save them money.

Ill take a former lawyer who fought for victim's rights, who went to war by choice, and who took a stand for an unjust war, than a business man who's friends are profiting at our and the enviroments expense.

This of course is just my opinion so dont freak out if I am way wrong and please point out what I am wrong about.

[edit on 3-8-2004 by jrod]



posted on Aug, 4 2004 @ 03:47 AM
link   
27sj, i noticed that you were not willing to re-stste for the reccord that bush was AWOL and explain how he got an honorable discharge for being AWOL.....hmm, so you wont admit here that your statement was OPINION, yet im willing to state that you will continue to believe the delusions about this AWOL idea as well as continue to spew this LIE to others not on ATS.
BRING FACTS TO HATE BUSH FOR, NOT HYPE!!!! (millionth and 1 times asked for)

27SJ spews,


Sure, I guess its not important at all, considering onwership of the corrupt companies they have ties to, and award contracts exclusively to, belong to their buddies who still pass the money on to them through "contributions", so forgive me for "overstating" the importance of American soldiers lives for $$$.

Which companies are you alleging are corrupt and can you show any evidence of this corruption, or are you blindly accepting the rhetoric?
As far as "passing money to them thru contributions" goes...you do realize that $$$ donated to a politicians campaign is NOT the persons money and is highly monitored and accounted for and can be tracked? So where is the profit for Bush? Are you alledging secret payoffs? If so BRING THE FACTS NOT SPECULATION!
Awarding contracts to? Many companies all got to give their sales pitch to the FEDS to compete and it just so happens that HALIBURTON was awarded the contract....WHY? Perhaps because they were the only company of its size and kind that could provide the type and level of services that would be needed? Show me another company with even close to the same capasity. Do you even know the types of things Haliburton does or are you just saying their corrupt because they are partly into oil and have had Cheney work for them?
I'll agree that big business/special intrests are too deep into politics ON ALL LEVELS AND PARTIES. Should i bother to dig up the same type of non issue sleaze on Kerry and his contributors? Im sure he's got vested intrests in some of their success as well as they in him.
American soldiers COST alot of $$$ to start with, they volunteer to serve the nation to in PART protect monetary/economic intrests of the nation as well as physically protecting it. How valuable would those soldiers lives be if the economy collapsed? Could we even afford them if it did?

27sj continues a baseless rant,


Really? Dubya didn't own an oil rigging outfit off Kuwaits coastline? It was back around the time of that little skirmish we called Desert Storm, and probably one of the main reasons Bush #1 was so quick to rescue Kuwait, he was rescuing his sons investment. But I'm sure you'll respond back with a more noble reason.

Hmm did Bush jr own some interests in kuwait around the time of Desert Storm? Your alledging he did, you show us this is fact. But lets say he did.
SO WHAT? that was what, 10 years before he even ran for office? So you hate our current president because he had legit business dealings a decade ago? What a crap argument...again BRING SOMETHING RELAVENT AND NOT HYPED DEMOCRATIC TRIPE THAT PLAYS MORE TO EMOTION AND LESS TO FACTS.
As far as your ASSUMPTION that Bush Sr instigated in part to save Jr's oil rig...what a shallow way to gauge this situation. So the fact that the USA/coalition was ousting a dictator known for attacking neighbors and WMD use that had occupied a neighboring country wasnt a good reason for dessert storm? Is that the nobel reason your putting down? Liberating a country from invasion by a dictator is bad?

27sj SPECULATES here,


These interactions by the families in "power" are likely soaked in corruption.

I'll give you that "families in power" have the potential for corruption/collusion with one another. But unless you can show illegal actions between the 2, what are you doing? Your again trying to hate the President for something YOU MADE UP IN YOUR HEAD! Are facts meaningless to your vote casting process?

Exactly how many families in lets say, the energy sector, do you think that are this wealthy to be involved in things at the national/world market level? mabey a handfull? It seems like a basic assumption that they would know and interact with each other...who else can they interact at this magnitude with? Me? You? we probably will get to wash their dishes after their function, not help decide energy policy.

27sj asks,


you would think the royal family would put an end to anti-Americanism in their society, being that they are one of the main purveyors of it, and they could easily end it as they are one of those evil governments that rule with an iron-fist.

Have you seen how many Saudis have died from them trying to reform away from fundamentalist Islamism? They have seen a drastic increase in internal terror strikes since they sided with the west.

How easy do you think it is to decide to now persecute a segment of your culture that previously you at the minimum allowed to flourish, as well as perpetuated their attitudes? Its not like flicking a switch, and the Saudi's are paying for this now in blood on their streets. It also seems like the Saudi's have BEEN trying to reform things there for a long time as they were already working with the USA bases there for over a decade as well.
We need to assist them, but not meddle internally as long as they remain a stable place in the area. Change IS in the works there, just not as quick as some might like.

27sj drones on,


Where are they now? Ask several dead Kurds and Iranians. I love the video of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Hussein, that says it all. And then, all of the sudden Bush decided we had done wrong and would clean up the mess his administration created? I dont think so, that was not his motive and you can retort however you like, but Bush does not care about the Iraqi people. We're not stupid.

It didnt take 30,000 shells that i believe we gave him to wipe out a village of a few thousand. (im researching that # for you)

Yes even I am amused at Rummy shaking hands with Saddam, however, your pulling this out of context. That moment was at a time where the USA was activly trying to contain the spread of radical fundamentalist Islamic rule by the religous leaders in IRAN....so we helped a non religious state (Iraq) fight its enemy. Dont forget the cold war for the preceeding 50 years where we were playing chess with the world with the soviets, backing nations against the other side. All of these factors led to what is the middle east now...and they were going on for decades before Bush Jr got into office.
Trying to pin the results of 50 yrs of involvement in the mid east on Bush Jr gives him a little too much credit dont you think? Bush Jr had nothing to do with Rummy shaking Saddams hand...was he even govenor when that happened? Im glad you have an inside track to either Bush's motives that they havnt stated....OPINION OR FACT?

The JESUS issue...
Seperation of church and state does NOT mean that any president or gov official cant have a religious belief OR that he can't use it to guide his decisions....It means that the Government will not force or deny a religon onto the people in an institutionalized form....(IE laws for/against a state religon)
again, you use misinformed HYPE to say you hate Bush.

Do you have any actual TANGIBLE, non-emotive, policy reasons to hate Bush? Or you just running off adrenaline and un-informed OPINIONS, UNVERIFIED SPECULATIONS, OR MISINFORMATION passed thru the couch potato masses in order to cast your vote?



posted on Aug, 4 2004 @ 05:51 AM
link   

From my first post on this thread, I have endeavoured to explain and expose the manifold regions behind the almost-universal disdain felt towards your pseudo-President. I have referenced and linked to many, many documents which detail the charges against him, and some which provided extra colour and different perspectives.

The response has been naught but obfuscation, denial, personal insults and a tidal wave of semantic and legalistic prestidigitation. Rather than engage in a debate on the subject of Dubyas obvious stupidity, mwm1331 plucked the word dyslexia from the air and declared the subject off-limits.


Incorrect strangelands. First of all I did not simply pick dyslexia out of the air. Having reviewed the quotes you attempted to use as "evidence" of George W. Bush's "obvious" stupidity, I notice that the vast majority of times he misspoke he had substituted similar sounding words with different meanings. For example deflation and devaluation. While I am not nor do I claim to be a speech therapist, I do know that there are a number of conditions which this could be attributed to. I have never stated unequivocably that President Bush does suffer from any form of speech disorder merley that the evidence seems to indicte that he does. As to the charge of "declaring the subject off limits" The fact is than an inabillity to speak well is not indicative of lack of intelligence in all or even the majority of situations. I know many hghly intelligent people whose speech patterns are nearly unintelligible who are none the less very intelligent.

Let us once again examine you points as to why you claim to hate bush nd see if we can find any factual basis for the opinions you have stated.

1) George W. Bush stole the election.
The primary basis for this argument is the fact tht Bush did not recieve the majority of the popular vote. I concede that this s true George W. Bush did not recieve the majority of the popular vote. However does this men he stole the election. In order to awnser this question it is necessary to exmine the structure of the U.S. election process.

www.fec.gov...

To summarise when a citizen of the united states casts a vote in the Presdential election he is voteing not for the candidate but rather for the vote of the elector. The party slate (presidential and vice presidential pairing) which recieves the majority of the popular vote for that state wins all of the electoral votes for that state in all but 2 states. Therefore the candate which recieves the most electoral votes is the winner of the election. In the 2000 Presidential elections the results were as follows

# George W. Bush and Richard Cheney received 271 Electoral Votes
# Albert Gore, Jr. and Joseph Lieberman received 266 Electoral Votes
www.archives.gov...

So clearly under federal election law George W. Bush was the winner of the 2000 election.
Source is covenantnews.com...
However as anyone can remember there was much controversy about the florida elections in the year 2000 so lets examine that as well

11/8/2000
Due to the extremely close count of the florida vote the state of forida as required by law began an utomatic recount of the votes.

11/9/2000
The recount begins, voters in palm beach allege that they may have mistakenly voted for pat buchnanan, Democratic lawyers allege that some votes are missing, allegations are made that talahassee cops were impeding blacks from voting, republicans fear misconduct by florida attorney general and gore florida campaign manager Butterworth

11/10/2000
Gore refuses to conced loss even after 2 recounts confirm Bush the winner with a lead of1784 votes, but overseas absentee ballots still have to be recounted, Florida law blocks emergncy motion for second statewide vote, llegation of forged votes for gore is reported by Bush supporter investigation

11/11/2000
Numerous newspaper editorials warn of the consequences of using lawsuits in an attempt to overturn election results, Gore s critsized heavily for legal wranglng, recounty in New Mexico shrinks Al gores lead to 119 votes.

11/12/2000
George Bush files lawsuit to block Hand recont on grounds that hand counts are more susceptible to both inaccuracies and possible fraud, Bush takes lead in New Mexico recount.

11/13/2000
Judge refuses to stop florida handcount, Florida secretary of state Katherine Harris announces all recounts must be finished on time, Gore launches lawsuit to extend recount deadlne, New mexco state troopers begin impounding ballots, School psychologist announces study in which second graders were able to vote as they intended on contested butterfly ballots.

11/14/2000
Washington times reports more Bush votes were lost in duval county thn gore votes n Palm beach

11/16/2000
State of florida recertifies bush lead

11/17/2000
Florida supreme court blocks secretay of state Katherine Harris from certifying winner

11/18/2000
Hundreds of overseas ballots rejected

11/23/2000
The florida courts allow Mami dade recount to end, Gore challenges, Flrida supreme court extends deadline from 11/14 to 11/26

11/26/200
The state f florida announces after several recounts that Bush s the winner of floridas election, palm beach seeks extension for recount.

11/28/2000
Once again Gore challenges election results fillng motions in 5 courts (after 3 seperate recounts)

12/1/2000
The Florida supreme court rules against a recount either statewide or in Palm beach county

12/4/2000
Another Gore legal motion is denied, U.S. supreme court overturns state court ruling which Nrrowed Bush lead and orders new state ruling on issue

12/8/2000
Florida supreme court orders partial recount in Mami Dade county, Rule elligable 383 gore votes, order recount of 9000 contested votes, also rules that 25000 absentee ballots must be counted

12/9/2000
U.S. supreme court rules freezes florida recount

12/12/2000
Supreme court rules that florida recount would be unconstitutional and would violate equal rights

12/13/2000 Gore finally concedes.

As any objective view of the chronology, facts, and legal motions by both parties shows there was an attempt to steal the election. Gore after losing 3 seperate recounts of the florida votes Gore attempted on numerous occasion to use legal mnuvers to overturn the electons First by stateing that the "butterfly Ballots" which were simple enough for second graders to understand were illegal, then by attempting to have ruled inelligable the absentee ballots, the by filling motions for numerous recounts which were in most cases overseen by primarily democratic officials (which he still lost). Luckily The U.S. supreme court finally ruled that the results of the elections had to stand and that the courts could not be used to steal an election. The bottom line is that Gore not Bush tried to steal the election and luckily he failed.

2) That George W. Bush is a deserter.
Number one the main accuser of Presdent Bush on this issue has been shown to be lieing by his friend and supposed witness.
www.boston.com...
In addition Proof that Bush was where he was supposed to be has been released both in terms of documents and personal witnesses
www.cnn.com...

As for the B.S. about lieing about the iraq war and wht not I have already provided ample proof of the erroneous nture of your beliefs.



posted on Aug, 4 2004 @ 07:41 AM
link   
mwm1331 ...youve just earned one of my 3 precious monthly "way above" votes...nice job...



posted on Aug, 4 2004 @ 08:40 AM
link   
Do you remember when you were young and dumb and going out with that chick that everyone hated and you wish SOMEONE, anyone had had the decency to point out that she was a drug addicted, lying, cheating fool of a woman who just wanted your money............WELL.....???!!!!
Here's your wake up call America. There is not a soul outside of the US that considers Bush a bright leader. The kind people consider him an embarrassment to your nation. But know this, you will wake up and find yourself sober one morning and realise the whore you have slept with has destroyed you. If only someone had warned you.





new topics




 
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join