DiRtY $oUtH™ Posted October 13, 2003 Share Posted October 13, 2003 Hello there. I was just wondering how you guys feel about the performance of our president. Myself being a Republican and also taking time to analyze his actions have come to the conclusion that there is nobody else I would rather have as president. (Except his father..lol) Many people have criticized his actions and it kind of bothers me but everyone is entitled to their opinion. In addition, I feel like at school everyone is a Democrat and sadly, they don't have any idea about how politics works. They all seem to say "Clinton was better cuz he Got head " or "The economy sucks now cuz of Bush" The fact of the matter is that the poor economic situation is due to 2 things: 1. It is the left over of Clinton's presidency because it is a proven and obvious fact that the economy doesn't change overnight and also the president doesn't have a DIRECT effect on the economy. 2. The World Trade Center was the center of our economy and as everyone knows, they were reduced to rubble. So what would you expect to be the effect on the economy? So could you guys please tell me what you think of our president that I have deemed worthy of his title? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joetheeskimo Posted October 13, 2003 Share Posted October 13, 2003 ((I think this belongs in the Senate...but no matter to me. ) I think the main reason people don't like him is because of the war on Iraq, but have you heard what the Iraqis are saying?? They're praising Bush and thanking him!!!! We saved a country from a cruel leader, thanks to HIS decision!!! My gosh peope have no idea what he did for us and for others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DiRtY $oUtH™ Posted October 14, 2003 Author Share Posted October 14, 2003 Well, maybe he used the WMD excuse as a justification to get approval from the people and some of the world. He knows what he's doing is good no matter what. He liberated a country that was being rulled by a tyrant. There may not be any weapons, maybe there are, regardless, he did something good. Now think ahead...When Iraq is back on its feet, all the oil they have will be generously sold to us because of our efforts to liberate them and rebuild their country. Sometimes you have to think long-term. He has a brain, keep that in mind. Of course he isn't always going to tell the truth but if he has or will lie in the future then its considered a "white lie" because hes doing it in our best interest. That's what people don't see.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BongoBob Posted October 14, 2003 Share Posted October 14, 2003 The only thig I hate about him is that he screwed the little people(Since he's for big buisness). Other than that I don't mind him. (PS:Agreed this should be in senate) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wassup Posted October 14, 2003 Share Posted October 14, 2003 Like Neverhoodian said, he isn't a bad president, but he's not exactly that good either. He's got his heart and goals in the right place, but I feel his methods and actions may be a bit too rash and not thought out well enough. Being the President of the United States is a tough job, as you are not only considering the American people, but many times have to consider international countries as well in your decisions and opinions. I think G. Dubyah knows exactly what he wants for the American people and the world as a whole, I'm just not sure whether he knows how to get there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boinga1 Posted October 14, 2003 Share Posted October 14, 2003 Well, there are MANY cruel leaders throughout the world...why did the US attack Iraq and not one of those others? Official answer during the war: "WOMDs." Official answer now: "War on terror." REAL answer: "OIL COUGH COUGH OIL" And now, he expects the American people to pay BILLIONS to rebuild Iraq? WTF? Bush hasn't really done a lot to HELP the economy...regardless of how it was when he inherited it. Finally, the destruction of the Trade Towers has NOTHING to do with the sorry state of our economy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wassup Posted October 14, 2003 Share Posted October 14, 2003 Originally posted by boinga1 Finally, the destruction of the Trade Towers has NOTHING to do with the sorry state of our economy. Actually, it does, just not to the extent that DirtySouth is suggesting. It was a major center for worldwide and domestic commerce and thus with its destruction greatly weakened the economy. Also it heavily influenced the major decline in airline revenues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chewbacco Posted October 14, 2003 Share Posted October 14, 2003 I don't think he had to send troops over to Iraq because we haven't found weapons of mass destruction. And they lied about them buying Urainium from Africa for their weapons. There isn't any evidence of that happening. Why did he have to do this? Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted October 14, 2003 Share Posted October 14, 2003 *Slips on the catcher's mitt.... and .... WHAMO! Ughh... SkinWalker dusts himself off... but: I Caught It Darth Baby! *cracks knuckles ---------------------------------------- October 13, 2003 | Bush Tried to Take Funds from School Kids of our nation's military to Pay for Iraqi-Afghan Policies President Bush attempted to slash money from the program that pays to educate the children of military men and women even while saying, "Our men and women in uniform give America their best and we owe them our support."(1) At the same time the President lauded the "great courage"(2) of the soldiers he sent to Iraq, he requested major cuts in the Impact Aid (3) program that provides funds for the schooling of the 900,0004 children of military families. Bush tried to take $172 million from Impact Aid (5) and short-change its funding by $583 million under the No Child Left Behind Act. The cutbacks would have directly affected children of troops currently deployed in Iraq.(6) The cutbacks were part of Bush's budgetary effort to find $87 billion for his policies in Iraq and Afghanistan, which include $40 million for school programs to benefit Iraqi children.(7) Congress defied the President on his cutbacks, however. The House added $223 million to Impact Aid, and the Senate slightly less. Apparently, Bush will accept the funding rather than resort to a veto. Sources: 1. Address of the President to the Joint Session of Congress, February 27, 2001 2. Remarks by the President on the Wartime Supplemental Budget, March 25, 2003 3. Passed in 1950, Impact Aid is intended to offset the revenue lost to local schools as a result of the tax-exempt status of federal property, i.e. a military base. In other words, the federal government acts as the local taxpayer through funding the Impact Aid program. 4. Officials: Cuts Unlikely For Impact Aid; Bush Proposal Gets A Chilly Reception, Editorial, The Honolulu Advertiser, April 14, 2003 5. Support for Troops Questioned; Democrats Detail Bush's Cuts in Military Family Benefits, The Washington Post, June 17, 2003 6. GOP Funding Bill Short-changes America's Children By Underfunding Key Education Priorities, A state-by-State Analysis, July 9, 2003 6. Rebuilding Iraq: What U.S. Taxpayers are Paying For, Rep. Rahm Emanuel 7. Department Of Education Fiscal Year 2004 Congressional Action, 9/16/03 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prime Posted October 15, 2003 Share Posted October 15, 2003 If nothing else, Bush has certainly lost most or all of the good will towards the US after Sept. 11. Not being American, I am concerned about what seems to be a "shoot first, ask questions later" foriegn policy. I also don't really like that he chose to go into Iraq alone, and now wants the world to come and help clean up the mess he has made. I certainly don't want to see troops from Canada (where I am from) going there and dying. Also, he seems to be neglecting the ecomomy in the US, which of course affects us here in Canada. The state of the US economy isn't all his fault, but he isn't helping matters too much. Some thing that turns me off Bush is his retoric (sp?) and what seems to be changing stories. Phrases like "War on Terror" and "Axis of Evil" and so on doesn't give him credibility as far as I'm concerned. It makes him sound like an extremist more than anything. Also, the reasons for the war in Iraq seem to change. First Iraq was an emminant threat (deployable WMD in 45 minutes). Then they just had stockpiles of WMD. Then they just had a WMD program. Either he lied, or he had very inaccurate intelligence to base his decisions off of. In either case, I worry about what decisions he is going to make in the future. I'm trying to give him the benefit of the doubt, but so far I am not convinced. What is the War on Terror really going to accomplish? Does he think that he will be able to rid the world of terrorism through military might? I hope that the War on Terror goes as well as the War on Drugs. I love that you can't get drugs anymore... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prime Posted October 15, 2003 Share Posted October 15, 2003 Originally posted by Darth Groovy As far as those "war efforts", there should have been a better strategy devised before the initial deployment, there should have been more international support... And I think to a large extent he would have gotten that international support if the facts indeed supported what they claimed. Unfortunately for them, they didn't. If most countries felt that Iraq really was an emminent threat to the US and the world, most countries would have been much more likely to get involved. Losts of countries joined the coalition in Afganistan (several Canadians just died recently on that very mission). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DiRtY $oUtH™ Posted October 16, 2003 Author Share Posted October 16, 2003 Well, here is an article I read in the AOL news (October 14)...I would post a link to prove its integrity but only AOL members can view it cuz they have to log in. For those who have aol, heres the link : Bush's Approval Rating WASHINGTON (Oct. 14) - President Bush's approval rating has rebounded from a recent near record low for his presidency following a public relations offensive, a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released on Monday showed. The poll found that 56 percent of Americans now approve of the way Bush is handling his job. Bush's job performance rating had hovered around 44 percent in recent weeks as Democratic presidential candidates stepped up criticism of his handling of the economy and the Iraq war amid mounting U.S. casualties in Iraq. Bush launched a new public relations offensive last week to defend his policies on Iraq and the economy. The White House also announced a reorganization of the administration's Iraqi reconstruction management. Just over half of those polled now think he deserves to be re-elected while 38 percent of registered voters say they will definitely vote for him in 2004. An equal number say they definitely will vote against him. The new CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, conducted Oct. 10-13, found that 44 percent of Americans think the U.S. economy is in good shape, up from 35 percent in March. More than half of the respondents said they were optimistic that the economy would be performing well a year from now. According to the poll, retired Gen. Wesley Clark continues to lead the list of Bush's nine Democratic challengers, garnering an 18 percent rating among registered Democrats and Democratic leaning voters. The telephone poll of 1,004 adults has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. 10/13/03 22:36 ET Feedback... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wassup Posted October 16, 2003 Share Posted October 16, 2003 Originally posted by DiRtY $oUtH™ The new CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, conducted Oct. 10-13, found that 44 percent of Americans think the U.S. economy is in good shape, up from 35 percent in March. More than half of the respondents said they were optimistic that the economy would be performing well a year from now. But what has Bush done/said he will do to revive and/or boost the economy to the level that it once was in the late 90's? He has so far provided little to no plan as to how to improve the sluggish market and economy. I think these people are just following blind hopes and dreams and should take a more realistic stance on the state of the economy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kain Posted October 16, 2003 Share Posted October 16, 2003 I'm still waitin for Dubyah to do one thing Use the word 'INFEDEL', because his foreign policy when dealing with someone HE deems hostile *not saying that Iraq wasn't NOT hostile, I just think Daddy put the notion in junior's simple head* seems the same as Iraq's and Ahfganistan's. *imagines speech* The Iraq and Ahfganistan infedels who...wuh oh...*ring ring* DADDY DADDY HELP!!.......Uh huh...uh huh...*throws up on Chinese Prime Minister* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Groovy Posted October 17, 2003 Share Posted October 17, 2003 Originally posted by DiRtY $oUtH™ Well, here is an article I read in the AOL news (October 14)...I would post a link to prove its integrity but only AOL members can view it cuz they have to log in. For those who have aol, heres the link : Bush's Approval Rating Feedback... Question... How in God's name does Geedubya plan to repair the damage he has caused? Did he have a plan to begin with? Or is he just spinning the issue until election day? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kain Posted October 17, 2003 Share Posted October 17, 2003 Originally posted by Darth Groovy Question... How in God's name does Geedubya plan to repair the damage he has caused? Did he have a plan to begin with? Or is he just spinning the issue until election day? The latter. Seriously, Dubyah may have been a 'hero' *gag* on 9/11, but then his violent tendancy made him into a total dips**t. Its been said several times (about 295074 times now) that he's just picking up where his Daddy left off, and I agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DiRtY $oUtH™ Posted October 18, 2003 Author Share Posted October 18, 2003 Tisk, tisk....I think the reason people are tearing down Bush so much is the simple fact that unlike that p*ssy Clinton, he didn't just SAY he would take action, he did! He's an action president and the American people aren't used to it. Also, the press has its hand in delivering bullsh** news to the American people...they have drifted from informing, to gossiping and tearing down people's reputation. I mean, during the vote for California's new governor, the press decided to release stuff about a Schwarzenegger sex scandal! What's up with that? Funny how both he and Bush are Republicans... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZBomber Posted October 18, 2003 Share Posted October 18, 2003 Originally posted by DiRtY $oUtH™ What's up with that? Funny how both he and Bush are Republicans... Very good point. I got a better solution though.... if everyone was dead, we wouldn't have any problems. So, whos got the machine guns? I think Mr. Bush is doing a very good job. I do hate how people from other countires are always ragging on Bush, since they have no clue because they don't live here, and who knows what the media is saying over in their country. If I was old enoguh to vote, I'd re-elect President Bush..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darth small Posted October 18, 2003 Share Posted October 18, 2003 Originally posted by Kain I'm still waitin for Dubyah to do one thing Use the word 'INFEDEL', because his foreign policy when dealing with someone HE deems hostile *not saying that Iraq wasn't NOT hostile, I just think Daddy put the notion in junior's simple head* seems the same as Iraq's and Ahfganistan's. *imagines speech* The Iraq and Ahfganistan infedels who...wuh oh...*ring ring* DADDY DADDY HELP!!.......Uh huh...uh huh...*throws up on Chinese Prime Minister* It was the Japanese prime minister George H.W. threw up on. While I don't agree with his economic policies, I am a Republicaan and do support him in our foreign policy. The reason he invaded Iraq is not just about Oil he invaded Iraq to hopefully install a second democracy in the region, to get rid of a regime who slaughtered its own countrymen, to get rid of a man who but a put a bounty on his fathers head. Sadaam sponsored terrorism in the region, he gave money to the families of sucide bombers and Palestinian terrorist groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad. I've lost relatives to sucide bombings in Israel and if invading Iraq cuts off some of the money going to fund these groups then i think it was a good idea. Also before i get flamed for the methods the Israelis use in dealing with the palestinains let me say one last thing I believe that a seperate palestinian state would be good for Israel. Israel needs to pull the settlers out. But Arafat has to be replaced before a lasting peace can happen. He has had too many chances Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Groovy Posted October 18, 2003 Share Posted October 18, 2003 Originally posted by ZBomber I do hate how people from other countires are always ragging on Bush, since they have no clue because they don't live here, and who knows what the media is saying over in their country. If I was old enoguh to vote, I'd re-elect President Bush..... If a country is affected by his nonsense, what difference does it make if THEY live here or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DiRtY $oUtH™ Posted October 18, 2003 Author Share Posted October 18, 2003 Originally posted by Darth Groovy If a country is affected by his nonsense, what difference does it make if THEY live here or not? You are talking ...tell me some facts about his "nonsense".... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted October 18, 2003 Share Posted October 18, 2003 One of the problems in discussing politics, of course, is the assumed dichotomy that exists. Particularly with those who lean more toward fascism. I think the reason people are tearing down Bush so much is the simple fact that unlike that p*ssy Clinton, he didn't just SAY he would take action, he did! He's an action president and the American people aren't used to it. This is a good example. Another expected, nonsensical, retort would be similar to "you don't like Bush? Tell me how Gore would have been better." Both of these comments are typically made those ignorant (not that you are Dirty South) of the facts or evidence who want to deflect attention from the issue at hand to a past or irrelevant issue. In addition, these types of arguments make the assumption that if you are not for a particular polititian, the you must be for the leading opponant. Illogical, irrational thinking. But, since we're on the subject of what "Bush said," lets take a look. Bush said we would rebuild Afghanistan after that war. This has been so successful, the Afghani farmers have had to turn back to poppy cultivation, making Afghanistan the lead supplier of the world's heroin. Along with this type of narcotic trade will come the rich elite who will rise to the top of crime syndicates in order to protect their investments. Bush said that Iraq posed an immediate threat to the United States and that Iraq was nuclear capable. No weapons of mass destruction have been found. No nuclear weapons were found. Bush didn't even appear to acknowledge this as his actual reason for entering the country: the nuclear waste/storage sites went unsecured throughout the initial occupation of the country and well into the "re-building" stage. Subsequently, the site(s) was/were looted so that the metal storage barrals could be obtained for scrap, leaving the nuclear material on the ground, contaminating ground water and whatever unfortunate soul touched it initially. The only evidence for any nuclear capability was in the form of some bits and pieces of a centrifuge that was many years from becoming a production plant. No nukes were aimed at anyone. Bush made many statements linking Iraq with Al Qaeda. Yet no evidence for such an association was ever shown. In fact, it is unlikely that such an association would exist between Saddam and Bin Laden. Yet, most people a year ago were convinced, and still are, that the war in Iraq is part of the war on terrorism. It isn't. It never was. Bush said that he would rebuild Iraq. At what cost? Where is the money coming from? The Bush admin tax cuts? How many more American lives will it cost? Bush said "no child left behind." Yet the drop-out rate is rising. The truancy rate is rising as well. This so-called plan is failing. School districts cannot fiscally meet the demand of the "plan." Partially because of Fed tax cuts, which directly impact federal funding to programs (remember, $87 billion is already ear-marked). Bush said that dishonest CEOs need to be held accountable for their insider trading. Yet, when Harken Oil was in trouble, Bush sold off all of his stock just days before the news became public. It happened. And he forgot to file with the SEC. There's more... much more. Oh, and Dirty South, I deleted a portion (four words) of your last post. It was dangerously close to flaming a moderator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DiRtY $oUtH™ Posted October 19, 2003 Author Share Posted October 19, 2003 Originally posted by SkinWalker One of the problems in discussing politics, of course, is the assumed dichotomy that exists. Particularly with those who lean more toward fascism. This is a good example. Another expected, nonsensical, retort would be similar to "you don't like Bush? Tell me how Gore would have been better." Both of these comments are typically made those ignorant (not that you are Dirty South) of the facts or evidence who want to deflect attention from the issue at hand to a past or irrelevant issue. In addition, these types of arguments make the assumption that if you are not for a particular polititian, the you must be for the leading opponant. Illogical, irrational thinking. But, since we're on the subject of what "Bush said," lets take a look. My point is only being proven further...you are only stating the negative...the cons of his presidency. Try to not do what the press is doing...look for some good things to talk about because if you were in his shoes you would appreciate the same. I can also refer back to the good 'ol saying: "We're only human" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted October 20, 2003 Share Posted October 20, 2003 Try to not do what the press is doing...look for some good things to talk about You know.. it's interesting that you should point that out. I noticed something the other day that Bush made a comment about that I liked. I actually agreed with him. I just don't remember what it was. I tell you what, why don't you list the top 10 best things the Bush administration has accomplished. I can't think of anything that I agree with that he's done, except perhaps the pledge to assist Africa with some money to fight the HIV/AIDS problem there.... even though it's far too little, far too late. He isn't the only reason it's late, but he could have done better. if you were in his shoes you would appreciate the same. If I were in his shoes, I would either have done a better job or have resigned. Here's a good idea Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DiRtY $oUtH™ Posted October 20, 2003 Author Share Posted October 20, 2003 Originally posted by SkinWalker You know.. it's interesting that you should point that out. I noticed something the other day that Bush made a comment about that I liked. I actually agreed with him. I just don't remember what it was. I tell you what, why don't you list the top 10 best things the Bush administration has accomplished. I can't think of anything that I agree with that he's done, except perhaps the pledge to assist Africa with some money to fight the HIV/AIDS problem there.... even though it's far too little, far too late. He isn't the only reason it's late, but he could have done better. If I were in his shoes, I would either have done a better job or have resigned. Here's a good idea Too bad for you that Bush will get re-elected...sucks for you huh? It's inevitable. So as for my part, the arguement is over. Bush is doing a great job and you can't see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.