does anyone like bush?....really?,,yes im being serious?
K~:stupid:

I like bush. :D ;)

I, like Snouter, also like sex.

Sigh. (Come on boys, seriously now)

I think Bush has overall done a decent job post 9/11. At least of crsis management. Things could have very easily fallen into much larger panic and chaos than it did.

I think Bush realized the floundering position his presidency was shaping up to be pre 9/11. Thats why his entire presidency to date has basically been about 9/11 related things.

War on Terror, Axis of Evil, Iraq, etc.

There are some major social/economic and more importantly domestic issues that do not get properly addressed or properly looked at.

I think a lot of the war on terror 'stuff' is a knee jerk reaction and giving the majority what they wnat (swift sweet revenge)

I think the fact that our borders are not secure, the fact that the INS is still a mess, and corporate accountability hasn't been addressed at all.

So, in a word? Do I like? Not particularly. Do I think any other 'typical' politician would be any better? Probably not.

Originally posted by A_open_Fire_
does anyone like bush?....really?,,yes im being serious?
K~:stupid:

I give him a B- so far. He's done well in some areas, he's shown there's room for improvement in other areas.

Overall, I'm happy with him as Prez, and I 'like' him, (so far as it goes), just fine. If I were'nt happy with his performance in office, it's a given I would'nt 'like' him either, and vice versa.

I like him. I voted for him. I'd do it again.

Anything, in my opinion, was better than "I invented the internet" Al. He's a joke.

-Gomtuu

Originally posted by Manu

I think Bush has overall done a decent job post 9/11. At least of crsis management.



I must disagree with you, jefe. I think that he did poorly in crisis management. I mean, Rumsfeld now comes out and basically gives a generic fortune cookie message to keep the American public in a state of fear. "I don't know when, I don't know where, but something bad is going to happen."

Crisis management? Hah! If anything he's prolonged the situation far moreso than was necessary for reaction/retaliation.

I think you need to look at the bigger picture...

We faced the LARGEST attack on US soil. Possibly the largest single terrorist attack EVER.

There could have been chaos...

Rioting, more hysteria/fear than there was...

I think in the GRAND scheme he did a good job.

I think the NOW cryptic messages and info is a different story.

He did a good job in preventing panic, I'll give him that.

The only bush I like is the kind between Laura Bush's legs.

George and Jeb can both take a flying leap for all I care.

No. I think anybody who could be defeated by a pretzel shouldn't be the leader of a country.

Seriously though, he's an idiot. He's only just barely squeeking by because Americans are bloodshirsty for revenge, and thats what he's giving us.

And lets not forget his "past" drug problems. Notice how nobody's spotlighting that anymore? Wait until...oh...October of next year when the '04 campains start going full swing. Then we'll see some interesting stuff pop up.

Originally posted by Stage Monster
He did a good job in preventing panic, I'll give him that.


C'mon man, he took on the religious right yesterday >>> http://www.discussanything.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18327

Originally posted by TheGreatMonkey
No. I think anybody who could be defeated by a pretzel shouldn't be the leader of a country.

Seriously though, he's an idiot. He's only just barely squeeking by because Americans are bloodshirsty for revenge, and thats what he's giving us.

And what an amazing idiot he is. For someone who has trouble snapping his own pants, he's now the single most powerful man in the world. For a man who has yet to grasp the English language, he's neatly turned the tables on history, and taken control of all three branches of the Federal govt. All this while continuing to enjoy a 68% approval rating.

Originally posted by DngrMse


And what an amazing idiot he is. For someone who has trouble snapping his own pants, he's now the single most powerful man in the world. For a man who has yet to grasp the English language, he's neatly turned the tables on history, and taken control of all three branches of the Federal govt. All this while continuing to enjoy a 68% approval rating. Isn't it funny how that happened?

I like him... I voted for him and would do it again. If someone better came along, I would have voted for that person... but no one did

He is OUR Pres.. we should support him.



An idiot? why do people think he is an idiot? Because he does not excel at public speaking? Well, I don't either, so, am I an idiot? The whole "Bush is an idiot thing" is :bs: he has more degrees then many of us do :)

Originally posted by Stage Monster
Wait until...oh...October of next year when the '04 campains start going full swing. Then we'll see some interesting stuff pop up.

The only thing we'll see, is the regurgitation of the same bs his detractors used against him the first time. I expect it will do as much good, too.

I find it interesting that people focus to respond to those 'typical regurgitations' instead of my more in depth comments. :)

I don't think he's an idiot. He's a less than adept public speaker. I feel he relies HEAVILY on his staff, but in a smart move, he's surrounded himself with a good staff.

I think he knows his weaknesses and tries to circumvent them, which is as a whole an intelligent thing.

He doesn't have the raw charisma or speaking ability that Clinton or Regan had but he's not stupid. (but it is funny to joke about him)

He is OUR Pres.. we should support him.
Thats a loaded statement Geoff. Just cause he's our elected official does NOT mean he should get our tacit support.

Originally posted by Manu
I think a lot of the war on terror 'stuff' is a knee jerk reaction and giving the majority what they wnat (swift sweet revenge)
Is there any other option? Diplomacy with a rouge terrorist group?

I think the fact that our borders are not secure, the fact that the INS is still a mess, and corporate accountability hasn't been addressed at all.
This can be attributed to the last 10 years though. The Clinton admin did nothing to tighten our borders. On this note, we're reaping the whirlwind of his neglect.

Do I like Bush? Can't say, never met him. Do I like him as our president? Yes.

I didn't vote for him (my guy didn't make it past the primaries).

In terms of the lessor of 2 idiots..eh..evils I think the country got lucky.

Alot can happen between now and the next election, but his "performance" to this point has been more of a RINO instead of a true conservative. This stems from confusing leadership with representation, but i guess it could be worse.

If he manages to produce a pilots license before the next election without stumbling on a toy tank and breaking his neck I may possibly vote for him seeing that the Dems have been absorbed and the Greens still lack reality and I'm sure someone will assasinate Rush before he even considers it again (and NO, he was not "my guy").

Well, I think a begining of our terror options should have been WHY were we hit.

This doesn't mean that we deserved it, should have expected it, NOR obsolved the criminals of their actions, but we need an examination into why us?

And the idea that we're the 'big dog' and thats why is bunk.

Its because of our iterventionalist/imperialistic foreign policies.

Its because we coddle/lay in bed with the same countries that demonize us in private because of their oil.

Its because we want to play world leader/cop but in the same breath we dismiss 'world problems' as 'not ours.'

Further, I say its a knee jerk reaction, because hours after the attacks, Rumsfeld was blaming Bin Laden and Iraq and asked for battle plans to be readied. Thats why its a knee jerk reaction.

We had NO IDEA what was going on yet, who did it, but we 'knew that OBL and Iraq' were involved.

Now, I think the OBL connection can easily be supported given past circumstances, but Iraq?


You're right, the borders can be attributed to the last 10 years. Clinton did nothing. Though an argument can be made no clear 'sign' of danger was present. Or even if it was, admonish Clinton for his failures but that has nothing to do with the CONTINUED failures.

Many people, post 9/11, have admonished Clinton for not getting Laden, for squandering attempts to nab him and for letting this process go on.

Bush was in the white hose almost a year before 9/11 and he had made NO steps to tightening our borders or getting Bin Laden. I am sure in his first weeks as president he was briefed on the Bin laden situation.

Further, SINCE 9/11 we've made no real attempt to destory the ability of terrorists to enter this country. We have not thoroughly looked at our MULTIPLE intelligence community failures. We have not looked at the PROBLEMs with our system, we've just bombed.

I don't like the Georges or Jeb,but I like bush.:D

Well, I think a begining of our terror options should have been WHY were we hit.

...simple hate will never be enough?

Originally posted by Manu
I
Thats a loaded statement Geoff. Just cause he's our elected official does NOT mean he should get our tacit support.


why shouldn't it? I gave Clinton support (well, I would have if needed I guess) I respect the position he holds, which should in turn require me to give the person holding that position my support.


If Gore would have made it, as much as I disliked him, I would have supported him

Ha im sorry he is such a fraud!

George W Bush is one of the few people who I strongly believe the world would be better off without.

Do you suppose many Democratic senators send him pretzels as gifts? :D

...Maybe sugar-coated pretzels? :p:D

I dont agree with everything G.W. has done so far(ie. caving in the the Red Chinerse on the "spy plane" thing last year, and sucking up to the Hispanics) but anything is an improvement over the scumbag we had in there before him. America can be thankul that AL Girl and his DemocRAT thugs didnt steal the election(yeah thats right, it was them who damn near stole it), because if they had, we would have already surrendered to the Mud-slum terrorists...
DEATH TO THE LEFT!
L88r JL

Originally posted by John Long
Dude... you should really take a xanax or something.

Redline-

Why do they hate us?

Originally posted by Manu

Its because of our iterventionalist/imperialistic foreign policies.

Its because we coddle/lay in bed with the same countries that demonize us in private because of their oil.

Its because we want to play world leader/cop but in the same breath we dismiss 'world problems' as 'not ours.'[quote]

So the solution here is what? Isolationism? If we played that game, Saddam would now control SA, Kuwait, the Emirates, and would probably be duking it out with Iran again. Why should we be expected to sit quietly while this happens?

Which world problems have we dismissed as not being ours? Are you talking about the Kyoto agreement? If so, it was dismissed, (by Clinton, and his congress years ago), because it was seriously flawed, and bad for the U.S.

[quote]
Further, I say its a knee jerk reaction, because hours after the attacks, Rumsfeld was blaming Bin Laden and Iraq and asked for battle plans to be readied. Thats why its a knee jerk reaction.

We had NO IDEA what was going on yet, who did it, but we 'knew that OBL and Iraq' were involved.

And it was a "knee-jerk" reaction that was spot-on. Hind sight is always 20-20, and it does'nt take much to put the pieces together after the fact. Hardly knee-jerk, in my opinion.


Now, I think the OBL connection can easily be supported given past circumstances, but Iraq?

Yes, Iraq. There is still evidence that Iraq was peripheraly involved, at least. Given that he has, and has used some nasty stuff in the past, and his promises to use them, and even worse stuff if he gets it, again, is reason enough to neutralize that threat. Remember, it does'nt have to end with war. Saddam has it within his power to end this peacefully. Just like he did ten years ago. He has something of a track record established already.


You're right, the borders can be attributed to the last 10 years. Clinton did nothing. Though an argument can be made no clear 'sign' of danger was present. Or even if it was, admonish Clinton for his failures but that has nothing to do with the CONTINUED failures.

There were signs that Osama was both behind several attacks, and planning others. Clinton did nothing because it was easier, and less risky to his popularity than taking action.



Bush was in the white hose almost a year before 9/11 and he had made NO steps to tightening our borders or getting Bin Laden. I am sure in his first weeks as president he was briefed on the Bin laden situation.

Clinton was in the WH for eight years, and did nothing. Comparing this to nine months in the WH for Bush is hardly fair.


Further, SINCE 9/11 we've made no real attempt to destory the ability of terrorists to enter this country. We have not thoroughly looked at our MULTIPLE intelligence community failures. We have not looked at the PROBLEMs with our system, we've just bombed.

Now we're talking! The FBI was more concerned with shutting down brothels than tracking, and eliminating terrorist threats in this country. The 'plum' assignments, and positions are filled within the FBI by political appointments. Favors received, result in cushy fed jobs. Even when these people are shown to be grossly incompetent, are they fired? No, they are transferred. This is'nt happening in just the FBI either. This is a practice that has to stop....but it won't. It continues. For this reason, I'm glad Bush got what he wanted in the Homeland Defense Bill.....the power to fire people in that agency. It's late, and it does'nt address all the other abuses, but it's a start.

Originally posted by DngrMse


And what an amazing idiot he is. For someone who has trouble snapping his own pants, he's now the single most powerful man in the world. For a man who has yet to grasp the English language, he's neatly turned the tables on history, and taken control of all three branches of the Federal govt. All this while continuing to enjoy a 68% approval rating.
68%, from who?
Nobody ever asked me my opinion.

If we really were Imperialists why didn't we "keep" Kuwait and invade Iraq and keep all the oil?

Cosmo, the core distinction of neo-imperialism is that economic power, not direct political power, is the key controlling element in the "conquered" nations.

Originally posted by Manu
Redline-

Why do they hate us?

Those that attacked us? (Bear in mind, I consider the list longer than that).

The OBL types use the words of their religion as justification so I feel that has far more to do with it than simply a clash of cultures.
Without oil, from which atleast the arabs have benefited greatly, and the existenance of Israel, what do they really have to hold against? Our presence in Saudi will lack justification once Iraq is dealt with. If they were smart they would welcome this, but then, look at Egypt. Their wishes are suppressed far greater among their own than by us directly. Indirectly though, we are the obvious cause, but it is not America alone. Personally, I don't think they can accept the concept of equality or the lack of individual status within a modern society. In some ways it is a battle of the rich against the poor and you look at the Palistinians and see that even the poor cannot find leadership with reason.
To me, it is an issue of dominance that cannot be achieved through politics. And that usually does lead to some form of war.

Originally posted by A_open_Fire_
does anyone like bush?....really?,,yes im being serious?
K~:stupid:
I think he is dong much better than I wanted to give him credit for.

I also think he is miles ahead of how he is being slandered by the dems.

However, there were better people, but considering he was thrust into a situation that I would dread any living democrat (or dead democrat for the last 100 years) to be in control of, He is doing a great job!

Imagine for a minute, inheriting a government hat never pursued the terrorist threat in any serious manner, and then, less than 1 year into your leadership, having all the attacks and threats against us come up?

Not one democrat ever faced the issues facing bush.

This coming war with Iraq will speed up events that we are going to face anyways, I just dont know what to think. We will get attacked again, but when we start bombing Iraq, the attacks will start immediately. That is what I believe. If we do nothing, they will happen, too, just at THEIR liesure.

I would rather see them come out in the open and fight, but that is not the Islamikaze way, they are guerilla fighters, they hide behind women and children and to kill women and children.

Not one democrat in the last century could do as good a job as Bush is doing. Also, he has great people backing him up. Only a Republican Govt could get smart people like Powell/Cheney/Rice/and others in power. We would haev Reno, the WACO baby killer instead if we had Algore, even worse, we would have Tiny Tim if Nadar won!

I think Redline is right.

Originally posted by A_open_Fire_
I cant wait for a responce
I'm just wondering... did you ever get the one you wanted?







:D

Danger-

The point of comparison is NOT to say 'Clinton was better' or anything such. The point is that HE failed us. This is a BIG rallying point for many people FOR Bush. Bush was going to bring honesty, integrity and ACTION to the WH. Bush was going to not 'flounder' where Clinton did.

Bush had ALL the intel Clinton had. Bush knew ALL of the historical events (93WTC, OK city, and 98 Embassy, and USS Cole) that Clinton knew, yet NOTHING had been done regarding OBL in the first 9 months of his presidency. (It is relatively safe to assume the status quo would have continued had the WTC attacks not occured)

Further, you saiy now there is evidence that Iraq was 'peripherally' involved. I do not know that, so I won't comment on that. My point was that FIVE HOURS after the attack the connect to OBL could be made, supported, and was understandable, even given the quick nature.

A connect made, 5 hours to the attack, without any evidence, cannot be made without a 'target' in mind before making the statement.

Further, IF there is a CREDIBLE connection of Iraq to 9/11 why hasn't bush HIGHLIGHTED that in his NUMEROUS addresses regarding Iraq? Seems to me there is no credible link.

I voted for him.
I am cautiously optimistic about him.

Thus far I think he has done a decent job, but I think I will reserve giving him a grade until I see what he does now that he has control of the house & senate.

I am quite pleased with how he handled the WTC attack, but we will see if he gets carried away , or allows Ashcroft (whom I am less thrilled with) to get carried away.

I was pleased that he suspended funding for agencies overseas that provided abortion (as you know I am extrememly opposed to abortion and the though of my money being used to fund what I consider to be murder is a wretched idea to me).

We will see if he continues to make strides toward bringing the US to a palce where RvW can be overturned. Hopefully he will be able to appoint a good number of pro-life judges.
If he can and does, I will certianly overlook the few things he has done that I disagree with (steel tarrif,etc).

so.. thus far I would say overal that I am not displeased that I voted for the guy.

Originally posted by Manu
Danger-

The point of comparison is NOT to say 'Clinton was better' or anything such. The point is that HE failed us. This is a BIG rallying point for many people FOR Bush. Bush was going to bring honesty, integrity and ACTION to the WH. Bush was going to not 'flounder' where Clinton did.

Bush had ALL the intel Clinton had. Bush knew ALL of the historical events (93WTC, OK city, and 98 Embassy, and USS Cole) that Clinton knew, yet NOTHING had been done regarding OBL in the first 9 months of his presidency. (It is relatively safe to assume the status quo would have continued had the WTC attacks not occured)

I did'nt mean to turn this into a Clinton v Bush debate, so appologies for that. But focusing on Bush, we don't know what he did, or did'nt do prior to 9/11. His actions following that attack are commendable. And we don't know what Bush would have done absent those attacks....anything we say would be nothing more than mere supposition. Sticking with what we do know, Bush has certainly made this war on terrorism his top priority, and I believe a number of his actions are pretty smart. His stance on Iraq is overdue.....deal with Saddam now, with limited weapons, or deal with Saddam, (or worse, his son Odai), later when he has deadlier weapons.


Further, you saiy now there is evidence that Iraq was 'peripherally' involved. I do not know that, so I won't comment on that. My point was that FIVE HOURS after the attack the connect to OBL could be made, supported, and was understandable, even given the quick nature.

A connect made, 5 hours to the attack, without any evidence, cannot be made without a 'target' in mind before making the statement.

Hindsight, Manu. Once the attack on the WTC had occured, it became much easier to connect the dots. There was increased communications among suspected al queda operatives....there were predictions of a large scale attack, (though info on where/when were missing)....and al queda had tried to bring down the WTC before. That is why the feds were able to link osama and his goons so soon after the attack.


Further, IF there is a CREDIBLE connection of Iraq to 9/11 why hasn't bush HIGHLIGHTED that in his NUMEROUS addresses regarding Iraq? Seems to me there is no credible link.

Possibly because he can't without compromising our ability to get future information. He has stated that Iraq was involved.....which has to be enough, at least for now. It might be a bitter pill to swallow, but that's how our country works. He's the elected leader, and he's the one that calls the shots. He will either be vindicated, or discredited in the future.

Originally posted by DngrMse
But focusing on Bush, we don't know what he did, or did'nt do prior to 9/11.


Well, we know he was/is a crack fiend...

Didn't it come out after the attack on 9-11, that Bush had already ordered plans to attack AQ in Afghi? CA even cites this as evidence that Bush was really behind 9-11.

Danger-

Good points. I do agree, for the most part, how Bush handled post 9/11 has been pretty good.

BUT, I wish that wouldn't be basically the ONLY thing he's done.

In terms of immigration, in terms of economy, in terms of 'the homeland' nothing has really been accomplished.

Bush gets a failing grade on immigration, is as bad or worse than Clinton. At least Clinton could get all the illegals to vote DEM, but Bush is delusional to think these oeople will vote GOP.

Bush got some tax cuts passed, not enough, but it was much better than an increase.

Now that the GOP has control we will see if Bush can do anything besides set a new tone in DC.