Would Bush do better if given a second term?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 1 2004 @ 11:13 PM
link   
Well it doesnt bother me cos u said it wasnt aimed at me anyway back to topicPLEASE DONT GIVE BUSH A 2ND CHANCE I AM BEGGING THE VOTERS..




posted on Nov, 1 2004 @ 11:16 PM
link   
With an Avitar like that I can see why you feel that way

But my vote goes with Bush

[edit on 1-11-2004 by edsinger]

[edit on 1-11-2004 by edsinger]



posted on Nov, 1 2004 @ 11:17 PM
link   
Sorry Drunk, 4 more years!

While I have serious reservations about both candidates, Balancing domestic and international issues, Bush has my vote. had the democrats nominated a candidate like Dean, instead of a party hack, It may have been different.



posted on Nov, 1 2004 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger




With an Avitar like that I can see why you feel that way

But my vote goes with Bush

[edit on 1-11-2004 by edsinger]

[edit on 1-11-2004 by edsinger]


I feel this way cos your beloved Bush has made the world unstable this is why i wouldn't give him a 2nd chance the same goes for Blair,Bush's dogsbody.



posted on Nov, 1 2004 @ 11:51 PM
link   
What do any of these posts have to do with the original topic? The original question posed assumes that Bush hasn't done such a great job in his first term and asks if he would do better in a 2nd.

I think Bush has done a worthy job in his 1st term and would do even better in a 2nd.



posted on Nov, 2 2004 @ 12:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by RR98
What do any of these posts have to do with the original topic? The original question posed assumes that Bush hasn't done such a great job in his first term and asks if he would do better in a 2nd.

I think Bush has done a worthy job in his 1st term and would do even better in a 2nd.


We are stating an answer all you have done is shot our opinions down, guess you didnt read everyones answer.



posted on Nov, 2 2004 @ 12:38 AM
link   
NO Bush will just keep on keeping on with his corrosive policies, the total depredation of the US economics, as we use to know it before Bush came to office in 2000, Bush and his Administration might as well as"line-up" every Citizen of the US and killed them because that is what he is doing "slowly".

Another four years of Bush just gives him four years more to destroy everything that we hold "near and dear", and to start more wars with other countries,.................. Bush has nothing to lose if he happens to get re-elected, and then runs the US completely into the ground, destroys any kind of "good faith" that we may still have with any country, all the while Bush and Cheney are swindling as much money as they can from the US PIGGY BANK. Nope, Bush has nothing to loses and all he can manage to gain if he gets four more years, then retire.



posted on Nov, 2 2004 @ 12:40 AM
link   
Just for a little historical perspective, Reagan is something of an exception as far as successful second terms go. Usually, second terms in office don't go too well. During their second terms:

- Wilson failed to get his Fourteen Points program accepted in Versailles, was saddled with a protectionist Congress and had a stroke.
- Roosevelt's New Deal programs stagnated and he too was saddled with a semi-hostile Congress. The war was what gave his Presidency a new wind.
- Truman became incredibly unpopular during his second term because he fired General McArthur, and his administration was almost investigated by McCarthy's nazis.
- Eisenhower remained popular during his second term, but suffered health troubles; America lost the race for the launch of the first satellite.
- Johnson's Presidency, which had begun under excellent conditions with the Civil Rights Act and the "war on poverty", quickly dissolved in his second term into social unrest and a difficult war.
- Nixon's second term... what there was of it... needs no explanation.
- Clinton's second term was marred by the Monica Lewinsky scandal and his impeachment.

What gave Reagan a good head start in 1984 was that he was elected by a huge landslide, and he had a good conjuncture of a booming economy and a means to make history abroad. But Bush's second term, if it does happen, will begin in an atmosphere of division - and I think we can pretty well predict that if he wins, it won't be like Reagan vs. Mondale. It'll be pretty tight.



posted on Nov, 2 2004 @ 12:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Attero Auctorita

P.S. I doubt many Americans even notice there are other candidates for the presidency than Bush and Kerry until they see the Ballot. We have the biased media to blame for this! They are in total control of our government with their damned propaghanda! All media outlets have an agenda, and they have destroyed our democratic-republic!

[edit on 1-11-2004 by Attero Auctorita]










If a person votes for Nader or the other guy running for President,.......... they might as well vote BUSH,............... because the others besides Bush and Kerry DO NOT have enough votes to get them any where, therefore, they are taking away from John Kerry the extra votes that WOULD put Kerry way over the top and making it harder for a CHANGE in the White House to take place.

Nader (the spoiler) did this same thing LAST ELECTION with some backing from, (IMO) the Republicans, and now he's trying to do it again.

The way the "POLES" stand right now, it's a tie between Kerry and Bush, those other two running against them are way behind and don't have much of a chance,.................... so if a voter DOES NOT want Bush to be re-elected,... their best bet to make sure he doesn't get re-elected is to vote for Kerry, even if they do not care for him, instead of throwing their vote away, which helps BUSH.


PS. If a voter decides NOT to vote because he/she doesn't like Bush or Kerry, their still helping Bush .

[edit on 2-11-2004 by nanna_of_6]



posted on Nov, 2 2004 @ 02:39 AM
link   
LOL Nanna, a vote for Kerry is throwing away your vote. You are ridiculous - if you don't like Bush then vote for for Kerry even of you don't like him. You are a very SAD and BITTER person. I feel sorry for you, I really do.



posted on Nov, 2 2004 @ 06:43 AM
link   
I liked Reagan as an actor, he was not a good president he just played president like he did with his acting roles, he was the one that started all the bs with the terror in the US and against the US abroad with his policies and cold war.

[edit on 053030p://222 by marg6043]



posted on Nov, 2 2004 @ 07:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by nanna_of_6

PS. If a voter decides NOT to vote because he/she doesn't like Bush or Kerry, their still helping Bush .



Not if they were originally going to vote for Bush.



posted on Nov, 2 2004 @ 07:07 AM
link   

Would Bush do better if given a second term?


God help us, if we have to find out....because nobody else will....


I think Bush has done a worthy job in his 1st term and would do even better in a 2nd.


And the weather in fantasy land today calls for rainbow skies, with some gumdrop clouds moving in later in the day....


[edit on 2-11-2004 by Gazrok]



posted on Nov, 2 2004 @ 07:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by cyberdude78
Would Bush do a better job if given a second term?



Im shure he will, more terrorists, more death, more poverty, more pollution, maybe even another war?



posted on Nov, 2 2004 @ 08:44 AM
link   
it is not a matter of can he do better, but can he continue to attempt to continue to rebuild a nation that had seen a internet boom and bust crumble the economy in the late 90's and 9/11 which devastated a nation until American Idol came out and we put away our flags. He inherited debt abd then a major terror attack occured. I am tired of people blaming whoever is president when these things occur.

Blaming Reagan for terrorism, now you are reaching.Wanna blame someone, blame the soccer mom driving her Hummer H2 to pilates after she stops off at Starbucks for a triple mocha frappe latte chocalte shake.

Terrorism is a constant, and has been for 1000's of years. There is no way to win the war on terror, but we can prevent it. 9/11 did not occur only because Bush was president, it was something that was planned before he was in office.

There also is no wasted vote. If you want to vote for Nader, do it. Kerry, do it. Bush, do it. Just do ot be influenced, and vote with your heart.



posted on Nov, 2 2004 @ 05:08 PM
link   
a vote for Bush is leading us one step closer to Armageddon.

I cannot believe Bush has so many adoring fans. Whaooo... so much support for the devil himself. Let whatever happens rest on your conscience eternally.

I almost hope Bush wins, maybe we deserve the worse.



posted on Nov, 2 2004 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
I absolutely think he will, the economy will take off, Iraq will become free, Iran will give it up, and we will be at peace and history will look at him as it does Ronald Reagan, a man with vision.


Ed, you are wrong on all accounts. The economy can't take off with oil prices like we have now, something that the war in Iraq has heavily contributed to.

Iran will not give it up because it has NK as a shining example how a bluff can pay off.

We won't be at peace because of the US's support of Israel.

The history will look at W as a man who squandered his nation's fortunes, dragged it into a war under false premises (a fact) and lost a record number of jobs for the people and economy.

In other words, W is a royal failure.

I'm glad to have some confidence that dude will be fired tomorrow.



posted on Nov, 2 2004 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aelita

Originally posted by edsinger
I absolutely think he will, the economy will take off, Iraq will become free, Iran will give it up, and we will be at peace and history will look at him as it does Ronald Reagan, a man with vision.

Ed, pleasse Fed-Ex me some of the brownies you made. I could sure use some now.




posted on Nov, 2 2004 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by drunk
the same goes for Blair,Bush's dogsbody.


- Naaa drunk. Blair will be reelected in spring/summer 05.....and if you've any idea about the state of our current 'conservative opposition' you'd understand why.....and how glad we should be of it too!

IMO Blair was bluntly told by Bush to get on board or feck off ('with us or against us' politics at work, thanks George, nice friend).

It's my view that Blair felt that with these 'choices' he had no real choice but to go along as a restraining influence as best he could as a genuine breaking up of the 'Atlantic alliance' was (to him) a worse possibility.....even though this would have been utterly down to Bushs' pigheaded-ness.

It would have been a massive historic trauma for the UK, ultimately Europe and not to mention global politics and that was something Blair wasn't prepared to do....this is how these guys think IMO.

Whether he admits it or not publicly Blair will IMO be far far more at ease with a Dem President back in charge.....and it is my hope we see things begin to normalise with both the USA and UK once again playing a genuine leading role with our partners in the rest of the world.



posted on Nov, 2 2004 @ 07:24 PM
link   
I didn't post my opinion before but know I will. If Bush were to get a second term then he wouldn't have to worry about politics when making desicions. Without the threat of not being re-elected in theory Bush could do what ever he wants. So I say, do not reelect Bush.

[edit on 11/2/2004 by cyberdude78]





top topics
 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join