El Sitherino Posted November 5, 2003 Share Posted November 5, 2003 Well I do like his nation wide amber alert system that he got set up. I was pleased that he said he'd have that established with or without congresses approval. But that still frightened me a bit, But I do enjoy the fact that he did it. Other than that I don't like Bush as a president or when he was Texas' governor. He's a good person though in real life, outside of the political arena. Bush Plays Pope on Gay Marriage Issue The drive for gay marriage is also an affirmation of responsible love, and it is bizarre that this honorable impulse could be blocked on the basis of someone else's religious views. The desire of two people to commit to some shared order in their lives, presumably reinforcing notions of sexual monogamy, has particular relevance in the gay community, which has paid an enormous price for promiscuity. It is also a community riven by the loss of loved ones in which a partner's rights to share in managing grief have been painfully challenged when a mate faces death. It is one thing for the pope, a religious leader, to oppose gay marriage based on the theology that "homosexual acts go against the natural moral order." But the President of the United States, as the highest official in our secular government, is overstepping his bounds mightily when he lectures about "sin" and "the sanctity of marriage." I just saw this and I dislike Bush more than ever now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Datheus Posted November 9, 2003 Share Posted November 9, 2003 Originally posted by DiRtY $oUtH™ Wow...this topic seems pretty one sided...I think I will avoid outnumbering...LOL. er, so wait... One sided? That means the anti-Bush people are in the majorty... So how is it that he will be elected again at the next election? I guess he might slip by again as in the last election. DS, I find that most of what you're saying is based on thoughts that have seemingly popped into your head. You have little to nothing to back up what you're saying. And then you strike down SkinWalkers "so called facts" as nothing... He's presenting more than you are. Bush has done a few good things, but most of what he has done is fairly useless. I find the argument that Bush is human to be moot. He may be human, but he is also the President. When a brain surgeon slices off your frontal lobe, you don't say "He's just human", you call your lawyer and prepare a lawsuit. Why should it be any different with Bush? Bush is in a delicate position of power, and is therefore required to preform above and beyond your average American citizen. You say that he says he is an action President, but is that necessarily a good thing? War in Iraq could have easily been avoided, but he is a "action" President, so instead people are dying. And don't give me that "We're helping people" crap. If the people wanted, they would have risen against Saddam. And I don't care if Saddam had TANKS, they would have fought against him. American didn't stand a snowball's chance in hell again England back in the 18th century, but we still fought. And we won because we wanted it. If France had decided that England was a tyrannt and wanted "liberate" America, there is no doubt in my mind that would have LOST. But, if Bush is the "action" man, and Clinton was a faliure, why is it the most dirt that the Republicans could dig up on him was that he was getting a bit of pleasure on the side? Whereas with Bush there are leigions of people across the world protesting his actions. Just because you take action does not mean it is sensible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DiRtY $oUtH™ Posted November 10, 2003 Author Share Posted November 10, 2003 Originally posted by Datheus That means the anti-Bush people are in the majorty... No, because the people at these forums are not the entire nation. I could care less what they think because there are many Americans out there who approve of Bush and thats what matters to me. His approval rating is hovering in the 55% range and therefore, I am confident that his victory will come swiftly. I would appreciate it if no more reference were made to me because I am officially out of this discussion. Let me just say that he who laughs last, laughs best...in other words, say what you will now but Bush WILL get re-elected. Good bye. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wassup Posted November 10, 2003 Share Posted November 10, 2003 Originally posted by DiRtY $oUtH™ No, because the people at these forums are not the entire nation. I could care less what they think because there are many Americans out there who approve of Bush and thats what matters to me. To quote your first post: "I was just wondering how you guys feel about the performance of our president." and "So could you guys please tell me what you think of our president that I have deemed worthy of his title?" Now, I think these statements imply that you WANT and IS WILLING to hear other people's opinions. In your last post, you imply you could "care less" what "the people at these forums" think. I don't think I'm the only one that finds something wrong and contradicting here. Seriously, next time don't post a thread, think that everyone will agree with you, and use the old "I don't give a damn" excuse once you feel overwhelmed. That is low, my friend, low... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted November 10, 2003 Share Posted November 10, 2003 Okay, guys... to be fair, Dirty South's initial post was in the Swamp and he undoubtedly didn't expect, or at least want, a debate about G.W. Bush, but rather a friendly discussion about someone he admires. The Powers that Be (namely, one dapper Zabrak) felt this was a Senate Chambers topic and teleported it safely to our little domain. I think DS was taken a little off-guard at the warm welcome it received and would rather not partake in heated debate on the matter. Such is his right, so don't get upset @ Dirty South: Don't get too riled at these guys here in the Senate... a good, juicy topic like Jee Dubya is like leaving a steak on a hibachi when the doberman is out. G.W.'s will not get re-elected, btw! Big Daddy Skin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Count Posted November 11, 2003 Share Posted November 11, 2003 Good' Ol George Dubya even Hitler had more authority to rule a country than him; atleast Hitler was democratically elected before he went on his killing spree. Ps. All hail to the thief! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kain Posted November 11, 2003 Share Posted November 11, 2003 Wow, even the Brits know that the election was stolen. Thats gotta burn a hole in Bush supporter's arses. WAYTAGO JEB!! USE THAT POWER TO SCREW OVER THE COUNTRY!! ...recounts my ass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted November 11, 2003 Share Posted November 11, 2003 From Reuters news Article: "A clear majority of British voters think George W. Bush was wrong on Iraq according to a poll, just a week before the United States president was due to arrive in the country on a state visit. Voters dislike their prime minister Tony Blair's close relationship with Bush, who they believe has damaged the standing of the United States in the eyes of the world, the Populus poll in London's Times newspaper indicated. A majority, 60 percent, disapprove of the way Bush has dealt with Iraq compared to the 20 percent who back his actions. Women were more critical with 67 percent opposed to Bush's policy and just 14 percent supporting him. Almost half of all those asked, 49 percent, thought military action in Iraq was wrong compared with 24 percent polled back in April. At the same time those saying Bush did the right thing in trying to oust former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had halved from 64 percent to 32 percent. Less than half, 40 percent, thought Britain benefited from Blair's close ties to the president. More, 47 percent, said Bush was not up to the job while 59 percent said he had diminished the United States's standing in the world ." 100s of thousands are expected to protest when he arrives, although the white house has apparently asked for most of london to be shut down to prevent this. If it isn't shut down there is a high probablility of effigies of bush being burnt and a giant statue of him being symbolically toppled an a reference to the staged toppling of the statue of saddam by the us army for the us media in iraq. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted November 11, 2003 Share Posted November 11, 2003 Originally posted by toms 100s of thousands are expected to protest when he arrives, although the white house has apparently asked for most of london to be shut down to prevent this. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3259005.stm http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/story/0,11538,1081836,00.html Just for comparison: http://www.sfbayview.com/071603/bushsvisit071603.shtml Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted November 12, 2003 Share Posted November 12, 2003 wow! what a git! imagine getting thrown out of your homes just so some politician could have a photo opportunity. Looks like londoners will be getting it easy if tey just have roads and public areas closed... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlapNut Posted November 24, 2003 Share Posted November 24, 2003 america deserves a swift punch in the face, thats it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted November 24, 2003 Share Posted November 24, 2003 Originally posted by SlapNut america deserves a swift punch in the face, thats it. You would punch a whole country in the face for the behavior of just one person? At least give us the chance to vote the guy out of office Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShockV1.89 Posted November 24, 2003 Share Posted November 24, 2003 Originally posted by SlapNut america deserves a swift punch in the face, thats it. Yeah, because I personally made the decision to throw people out of their homes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted November 25, 2003 Share Posted November 25, 2003 Originally posted by Kain "To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." - Theodore Roosevelt. This has now become one of my favorite quotes. No matter what i think about GW personally (idiot) i think one of the most unfortunate things is that the US happened to elect their most fundamentalist leader just before the attacks of 9/11. The unfortunate effect of these attacks was to turn america in to a far more xtreme right wing fundamentalist and less tolerant society. The unfortunate upshot of this conincidence is that they have fed off each other and (in my opinon) made america into a much worse place. I remember watching an average movie called The Siege which made the point that the methods taken to counter terrorism could actually be worse than the effects of terrorism themselves. Unfortunately i think this is what has happened under GW, fundamental freedoms have been lost, and people have been happy to give them up, in the name of the war on terror. Unfortunately i don't think people will realise what they have lost until it is too late. ---- I was watching an interview last night with people from turkey (The US and UK's closest islamic ally, a democracy) where a number of turkish and british citizens were recently killed by bombs. Most of the people interviewed thought that THE US AND UK WERE SOMEHOW BEHIND THE ATTACKS. This is even though they were directed at us, and this is from the citizens of a fairly modern, well informed country. Until the US starts to wonder why they inspire such unreasoning hatred amongst so much of the world they (and by association us) are never going to be able to defeat our terorist enemies by force alone. They will spring up much faster than they can be rooted out. Unfortunately 9/11 has made americans far LESS likely to question their own country's actions... and in that way i think the terrorists have already won. --- sorry, not much of that was about GW, but i just feel he somehow incarnates the very attitudes that cause america the problems in the first place. But then, i am looking in from the outside, so what could i know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lathain Valtiel Posted November 26, 2003 Share Posted November 26, 2003 All i have to say is this... Considering the other choices right now.... I'll stick with Bush. As for a failure of Clinton... Five words. Osama bin Laden in Sudan. On a side note... Wasn't a memo recently released by that one White house investigator detailing Saddam and Al Queda links? I can't remember who released it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Eggplant Posted November 28, 2003 Share Posted November 28, 2003 now many will dissagree, but I have to say this. I saw on the news president george W Bush, leader of the free world, and america, flew to Iraq the country he has declared war upon, put himself in harms way, and gone to personally give the troopers over there a thanks, and to wish them a happy thanksgiving. he could have sent a letter, he could have taped a message, he coul dhave sent one of his staff or sent the VP, but he went in person. (and believe me had Al Quaida would have loved to have known he was coming to plan their own surprise. I think we all day to day express our political opinions, and sometimes fall into the trap of American bashing. but today on the Amercian Thanksgiving I will not hear any of it. God Bless America, God bless the bird, give thanks for Football and your president today proved to me that despite some popular opinions I say George W Bush is NOTa turkey. that was like way way Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Count Posted November 28, 2003 Share Posted November 28, 2003 Try saying this to all the people who are suffering as a result of global warming or those families who have lost members fighting his war in Iraq. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyrion Posted November 28, 2003 Share Posted November 28, 2003 He probably is in much danger as he would be over in America. Surrounded by Coalition forces, as well as black helecopters and tons of secret service men. Hell, he landed in the Queen's garden over in England(ruined the garden), with a bunch of secret service and black helecopters, not to mention that the windows on the castle were replaced with bullet proof ones. Still, it does mean he cant spend time with his family on Thanksgiving. Props to him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted November 28, 2003 Share Posted November 28, 2003 LOL no. Al quaeda doesn't want anything to do with Saddam. They're islamic extremists and he's a guy who splitted state affairs from religious ones. There's no link between them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted November 28, 2003 Share Posted November 28, 2003 Originally posted by Lathain Valtiel Considering the other choices right now.... I'll stick with Bush. What is it about the "other choices" that Bush is a clearer choice? Originally posted by Lathain Valtiel As for a failure of Clinton... Five words. Osama bin Laden in Sudan. But this thread isn't about Clinton... his failures and successes are irrelevant. But since you brought it up, why was Clinton's failure to nab Bin Laden any more significant than Bush's? Originally posted by Lathain Valtiel On a side note... Wasn't a memo recently released by that one White house investigator detailing Saddam and Al Queda links? Doubtful. In fact, probably not. But if you come across it, please let us know. Care to take the "Top Ten Challenge? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted November 28, 2003 Share Posted November 28, 2003 Originally posted by The Count Try saying this to all the people who are suffering as a result of global warming Global warming is Bush's fault? Dont get me wrong, I dont like him as a president, and I dont agree with the war....but global warming? Explain because i've never heard that before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samuel Dravis Posted November 28, 2003 Share Posted November 28, 2003 Try saying this to all the people who are suffering as a result of global warming I think he was just trying to be pointlessly inflammatory, spouting the first thing he thought about. OR He accidentally posted that. Besides, doesn't this belong in the Senate Chambers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lathain Valtiel Posted November 28, 2003 Share Posted November 28, 2003 Originally posted by SkinWalker What is it about the "other choices" that Bush is a clearer choice? But this thread isn't about Clinton... his failures and successes are irrelevant. But since you brought it up, why was Clinton's failure to nab Bin Laden any more significant than Bush's? Doubtful. In fact, probably not. But if you come across it, please let us know. Care to take the "Top Ten Challenge? Not interested in the challenge. As for the other choices... I don;t like the bashing. It sounds like they have nothing better. Clinton's failure was significant because the Sudanese government basically called up and said: "We have OBL in our sights and can get him for you." The Clinton White House declined, I think citing that they couldn't convict him, and it's been reported by I believe Dick Morris (Clinton's political advisor) and Monsoour (Spelling?) Ijaz that Clinton knew OBL was dreaming up terror plots. Something along those lines. I'll see if i can find it.. it was on Fox News awhile ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheJackal Posted November 28, 2003 Share Posted November 28, 2003 Althought i respect the fact he actually decided to GO there and support his troops, i still think its a publicity stunt ready for the upcomming elections. but why would you like/love/vote for someone just because he showed his face to a place he told nobody he was going to be. I would of respected him a lot more if he would of showed his face where everybody KNEW he was (the trip to London, UK) I mean, your biggest allie, the UnitedKingdom. And he goes to visit them but makes no public appears because of such wide spread hatred for this man... riiight. More cops have been on the streets on Londo since WW2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyrion Posted November 28, 2003 Share Posted November 28, 2003 Yeah...over in Iraq, there wouldnt be anything but government-loving people within 20 miles. Nothing but lots of troops. (Oh, and I looked at your portfolio, Jackal. Pretty good stuff, I especially liked Set 1) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.