Do you still think Bush is doing good?

[steveyo]

Watch this video compilation. (http://streaming.americanprogress.org/ThinkProgress/2006/sotu_final.320.240.mp4.html)
It's entertaining, in an OMG-are-we-screwed sort of way.

[andycookuk]

http://www.wimp.com/presidential/

"I believe that the human being and fish can co-exist peacefully"
George Bush

[johnfoss]

What happened? Did public opinion polls suddenly change?

Otherwise, it's a trick question. I didn't think he was doing "good" before.

[phlegm]

I think Bush has done some good and some evil. If nothing else, he's been around long enough, so he's bound to have done some good, right?

[steveyo]

I think Bush has done some good and some evil. If nothing else, he's been around long enough, so he's bound to have done some good, right?
Name one thing. Please.

[Jethro]

What happened? Did public opinion polls suddenly change?

Otherwise, it's a trick question. I didn't think he was doing "good" before.

I think it is a relevant question if it is addressed to the people who voted for him. Take me, for instance. I voted for him. I did not see him as an outstanding candidate, but for me anyway, he presented himself to be a person of more integrity and principle than either Gore in 2000 or Kerry in 2004.

I also think that his leadership in the immediate moments following 9-11 was helpful. But I think that since the 2004 election, he has proved himself to be incompetent and untrustworthy.

I wouldn't vote for him again if the elections were today. But I don't think
it would be an issue because I don't think the Republicans would put him forward as a candidate again even he was eligible to run.

[phlegm]

I think you're too cynical. Do you really believe Bush's intentions are purely evil?

I don't think enumerating Bush's good and evil actions are worthwhile because:

1. Each of us potentially has his/her own ideas about what is good and what is evil.
2. I believe more of Bush's actions are unknown by the public than those that are. So our judgments of Bush are largely based upon very narrow views of what he has done.

Thus, I will leave my comments in the abstract. And since I believe Bush has some good intentions, I don't believe that he has gone 6 years without at least getting lucky in having a good intention bring forth a good end.

[johnfoss]

I think Bush has done some good and some evil. If nothing else, he's been around long enough, so he's bound to have done some good, right?
I'm sure there has been much good done along the way. I like his very tough approach to dealing with terrorists/enemies. I do not agree with most of the actual actions. I like that he finally fired Michael Brown. I do not like that he was hired in the first place.

Evil? Possibly. Some of his actions seem to be aimed more at making people rich than serving the larger population. His hiring/appointing choices seem to have been weak, and smelled of cronyism. Some of this we will have to live with for many years after his term is done.

[boo radley]

the terrorism policy is one of the worst things about his presidency. he completely squandered all the goodwill we had with other nations following 9/11 by going into iraq, a war that was planned before he even took office. democracy is never going to fly in iraq, he's just pissing the entire middle eastern world off and making it easier than ever for these terrorist groups to find new recruits. he's the greatest thing that ever happened to them, they're bigger than ever. you kill one innocent person over there and suddenly their entire family and everyone who hears about it might be willing to join the fight against us. these people want to be ruled with an iron fist, they need it. look at the recent pelestinian elections, they have no idea what is in their best interest, they're just pissed off morons. bush has never been doing a good job. he wants tax cuts for the wealthy, war in iraq, corporate welfare, and all these other things that do nothing good for the majority of americans but they're happy because he doesn't like abortion or gays. let the future generations work till they're 90 to pay for these things because we're just having too much fun right now.

[john_childs]

the terrorism policy is one of the worst things about his presidency. he completely squandered all the goodwill we had with other nations following 9/11 by going into iraq,
Other nations, even friendly nations who are our allies, do not have the security and safety of the US as their priority. They aren't going to make policy or decisions or public opinion based on some sort of fiduciary or benevolent responsibility to the US. Other nations have their own needs and they make decisions and form public opinion based on those needs. They aren't going to make decisions good for the US out of the goodness of their hearts, just like the US doesn't make decisions based on some benevolent or altruistic feeling of responsibility to other nations. Every nation tends to put their own needs first. And yes, that tends to cause strife between nations but that's they way the world works and the motivation behind why things get done.

So what if we squander a bit of goodwill to accomplish what we need to do. It needed to be done. We and the rest of the world can deal with the consequences. It's better than sitting around doing nothing or letting all the other countries go on doing the same old thing that made the situation what it was.

Iraq is a gambit. If it works out successfully and they get a functional democratic style government that meets the needs of the diverse groups in the country then that is a very good thing. It would be the best way to get peaceful coexistence in the middle east and the best way to get people over there to at least tolerate the US and the Western world. It is also a gambit that is just the opening move in a very long term process. It's not going to make great progress in a short time. It is going to be a long term commitment to keep Iraq and other areas in the middle east moving in the right direction. It's not going to be over when the troops come home. That will only be the middle game. Still have a long game ahead.

[johnfoss]

these people want to be ruled with an iron fist, they need it. look at the recent pelestinian elections, they have no idea what is in their best interest, they're just pissed off morons.
I hope that by the time you really are 100 years old, you'll learn not to be a racist.

[unign]

I think it is a relevant question if it is addressed to the people who voted for him. Take me, for instance. I voted for him. I did not see him as an outstanding candidate, but for me anyway, he presented himself to be a person of more integrity and principle than either Gore in 2000 or Kerry in 2004.

I also think that his leadership in the immediate moments following 9-11 was helpful. But I think that since the 2004 election, he has proved himself to be incompetent and untrustworthy.

I wouldn't vote for him again if the elections were today. But I don't think
it would be an issue because I don't think the Republicans would put him forward as a candidate again even he was eligible to run.

That's the kind of answer I'm not suprised to hear from somebody who is always preaching their religious shit on a forum. Listen, you made an ok post, but it also made you cliched as just another cristian white guy.

[john_childs]

That's the kind of answer I'm not suprised to hear from somebody who is always preaching their religious shit on a forum. Listen, you made an ok post, but it also made you cliched as just another cristian white guy.
And you're just another atheist who wishes he was an ethnic minority. Talk about cliched.

Jethro has never preached here. I have not seen any posts here by him that quote verses or were all preachy. God forbid that he publicly admit that he's a Christian. If publicly announcing that you're a Christian and publicly talking about it amounts to preaching then you're going to have to develop a thicker skin and learn to be more tolerant.

[Jethro]

That's the kind of answer I'm not suprised to hear from somebody who is always preaching their religious shit on a forum. Listen, you made an ok post, but it also made you cliched as just another cristian white guy.

Your never-ending quest to say something informed and intelligent will have to continue.

[steveyo]

That's the kind of answer I'm not suprised to hear from somebody who is always preaching their religious shit on a forum. Listen, you made an ok post, but it also made you cliched as just another cristian white guy.

Though I'm a confirmed jewish atheist (!), I've never been offended by or seen a post from Jethro that wasn't thoughtful. He never preaches here, as far as I've seen. Take a step back.

[unign]

Your never-ending quest to say something informed and intelligent will have to continue.

Your never ending quest to say moronic things on forums will continue, even though you and people like john_childs are the "minority" who want it too. John_Childs, you have no right to say I am a specific religion, I am not a redneck like you are, actually, I'm Jewish. So take back your loudmouth accusations, because that is a minority, and that is not atheism. And Jethro has made posts. He made a post about redemption and being a preacher. Use the search function. It was mildly annoying but they went on and on. And before you reply smartass John_Childs who I'm guessing doesn't have a life because all he does is post on this forum, ask what religion I am.

[Checkernuts]

I also think that his leadership in the immediate moments following 9-11 was helpful. But I think that since the 2004 election, he has proved himself to be incompetent and untrustworthy.



I have a question for you...

What since the 04 election has changed your opinion from good leader to incompetent??. 9-11 was 3 years before the election so that couldnt have been on your mind.

You also say somewhere in there that you wouldnt vote for him again but dont think the repubs would put him back up either, does this mean you just vote on party lines typically?

I have only been alowed to vote in one presidential election and as a new voter I am disgusted at the way that this country only has two views (that are often so close to each other I want to puke) and anything outside of the dems and pubs is concidered too extreme for anyone to stand a chance at winning an election.

Even if your not jethro please just chime in as I do want to hear from some older voters on this.

Cheers.

[RichVoice]

Your never ending quest to say moronic things on forums will continue, even though you and people like john_childs are the "minority" who want it too.
Jethro and john_childs want their own never-ending quest to say moronic things to continue even though they want it to? That doesn't make sense. Or is that "too" not a typo, as in "also?" It doesn't make sense that way either.
And before you reply smartass John_Childs who I'm guessing doesn't have a life because all he does is post on this forum, ask what religion I am.
Didn't you just say you're jewish?

Geez, if you're going to start and participate in a flame war, at least grab a clue before you go in swinging.

Rich

[john_childs]

Your never ending quest to say moronic things on forums will continue, even though you and people like john_childs are the "minority" who want it too. John_Childs, you have no right to say I am a specific religion, I am not a redneck like you are, actually, I'm Jewish. So take back your loudmouth accusations, because that is a minority, and that is not atheism. And Jethro has made posts. He made a post about redemption and being a preacher. Use the search function. It was mildly annoying but they went on and on. And before you reply smartass John_Childs who I'm guessing doesn't have a life because all he does is post on this forum, ask what religion I am.
Your post says more about you than I ever could.

Interesting debating technique. I'm going to guess that you learned that style of informed debate in middle school.

I would suggest staying away from the threads about politics and religion until you're ready for discussing controversial topics in a civilized manner. Till then just stick to controversial pop culture issues like who is going to win American Idol and you'll do OK.

[boo radley]

So what if we squander a bit of goodwill to accomplish what we need to do. It needed to be done.
iraq didn't need to be done, afghanistan did. if we would've kept going after legitimate threats like al-qaeda instead of finishing up the bush/hussein family feud, then maybe we wouldn't have such a pathetic list of supporters like we do in iraq. bearing the burden of this "war of terror" alone is compromising our ability to defend ourselves at home and it creates a terrible image of the u.s abroad. this bad rep brings new hatred that manifests itself in more attacks. he's done us no favor, the country is a bigger target than ever.
I hope that by the time you really are 100 years old, you'll learn not to be a racist.
don't be so sensitive that you block out the truth ;)
I am not a redneck like you are, actually, I'm Jewish.
dirty jews... (that one's for you jf) unign i think you might be mistaking jethro's politeness/decency/whatever for preachiness because of his occupation.

[GILD]

dont think the repubs would put him back up either
The hand will want to change puppets.


An expected comment in defence of the Bush cabal has just started peeking out in this thread. 'But he/we bring/s democracy to oppressed people.'
Yeah?
Go tell that to the Palestinians. They have the shit kicked out of them by a rogue, terrorist state propped up by US money for decades. Then they have a democratic election with a 78% turn-out and Dabbayoo's first comment is to refuse to deal with the people elected to power.

So, is it Democracy that's the ticket?
Or is it Democracy-as-long-as-you-elect-the-people-we-want-you-to-elect?

I havent been able to see the video Steve linked to in his first post.
Here's a bit of reading matter (http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/1539/)that might chill the blood.

But relax, even Nixon got two terms.

[steveyo]

The hand will want to change puppets.
...
Here's a bit of reading matter (http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/1539/)that might chill the blood.
Yowza! Quite the list.

[BillyTheMountain]

dirty jews... (that one's for you jf) unign i think you might be mistaking jethro's politeness/decency/whatever for preachiness because of his occupation.

Unign, John Childs, Jethro, and boo, I hope you can see how this is spiraling downward and making you all look bad. Then it hits these awful extremes, and nobody is laughing.

Take this to the PMs, please. Not in public.

You may wish to heed the advice of a very wise man. If someone had called Jesus what boo called unign, Jesus would have said:
Turn the other cheek.

Enough said.

Also, this was ignored and belongs here:Wednesday, Jan 25, the Times reported that the Bush admin is stonewalling a congressional investigation into its Hurricane Katrina response! Yes, KATRINA!

The Bush administration, citing the confidentiality of executive branch communications, said Tuesday that it did not plan to turn over certain documents about Hurricane Katrina or make senior White House officials available for sworn testimony before two Congressional committees investigating the storm response. (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/25/politics/25katrina.html)

What do you folks think of their claims to confidentiality? Since they're most careful with their image, this means to me that the truth must be worse than the potential damage to their image caused by the stonewalling. The same thing happened with the inquiries into Cheney's energy task force meetings, the 911 investigation, the wiretapping investigation, and I suspect many more secrets we don't yet know.

They're the worst ever, n'est ce pas? (my French was intentional) If this bothers you, do something, for goodness sake! Write a letter to the editor of your local paper, email your senator (http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm), email the whitehouse (http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/), but do something to raise public consiousness of this most recent outrage.

[johnfoss]

don't be so sensitive that you block out the truth ;)
Truth #1: You made a racist statement. This makes you sound like a racist. If you think about it and do not consider it a racist statement, you probably are more of a racist than you think. This behavior can be unlearned.

Truth #2: The democratic government being set up in Iraq is an experiment. It may work, and it may fail. All anyone can do at this point is guess. Some of the Iraqi people are very much in favor of this form of government, while some are very much agsint it.

These people did not grow up in a democratic society, so it may be harder for them to grasp the possibilities, and realities, of that form of government. It may take time for more people to get behind it. Maybe they'll feel better about things when their country is no longer, or is less occupied by American forces.

Being from an Arab/Muslim/Middle-Eastern background does not make someone incapable of understanding other forms of government. In the former Soviet Union, the vast majority of the people had to learn how a market economy works, from scratch. Most people totally didn't get it at first. But they're getting it. And China's way ahead of them.

Anyway, we can hope the new Iraqi government works, or we can hope it won't. I hope it works, even if it makes George W. Bush right. Even if it makes him a hero and gets libraries, of all things, named after him. But nobody will know if it's going to work long-term until the Iraqi people are running it on their own.

And hero or not, George W. Bush will never make it onto my list of favorite presidents.

[boo radley]

Unign, John Childs, Jethro, and boo, I hope you can see how this is spiraling downward and making you all look bad. Then it hits these awful extremes, and nobody is laughing.

Take this to the PMs, please. Not in public.

You may wish to heed the advice of a very wise man. If someone had called Jesus what boo called unign, Jesus would have said:
Turn the other cheek.

Enough said.

Also, this was ignored and belongs here:
yeah i didn't really mean anything by it. jf called me a racist so i figured i would try to act like one. maybe we should bring back the rep system so we can more easily insult eachother privately. continue the discussion...

[boo radley]

even if the iraqi's got some sort of democracy to work out it's not worth the price we're paying. there are many other places where we could set up democracy cheaper.

[steveyo]

even if the iraqi's got some sort of democracy to work out it's not worth the price we're paying. there are many other places where we could set up democracy cheaper.
No other places have the planet's second largest known oil reserves, and so are much less attractive to the military/industrial forces behind Bush/Cheney et al.

[BillyTheMountain]

even if the iraqi's got some sort of democracy to work out it's not worth the price we're paying. there are many other places where we could set up democracy cheaper.

What would it take to set up a democracy in the USA?

Here the executive branch (Bush) was given more power by the legislative branch (Congress). Bush then grabs more authority claiming "wartime" priveleges. Even his supporters are uncomfortable with his claiming a right to "eavesdrop," yet he makes it clear he will persist.

Judge Alito ignores our system of checks and balances, elevating the President over everything else and has shown little enthusiasm for restrictions on Presidential power.

Billy

[unicycle6869]

My 2 cents;
As far as I'm concerned, Bush will be/is the worst president ever period. That's all I have to say-I don't even want to get started....

[steveyo]

My 2 cents;
As far as I'm concerned, Bush will be/is the worst president ever period. That's all I have to say-I don't even want to get started....No question. Well, only if you consider ruining the planet to be a bad thing.

[john_childs]

No question. Well, only if you consider ruining the planet to be a bad thing.
The planet survived Reagan and also survived Carter. It will survive Bush.

[steveyo]

The planet survived Reagan and also survived Carter. It will survive Bush.
As Bush kills more and more innocents (as in Iraq), or fails to act to protect lives (as in 911 and Katrina) he's the most heinous of all. As our planet careens closer to massive and irreversible global warming, Bush will be seen as the worst science contrarians.

FWIW He could partially redeem himself if he'd make non-fossil fuels his personal "moonshot". Like that'll happen.

[boo radley]

Judge Alito ignores our system of checks and balances, elevating the President over everything else and has shown little enthusiasm for restrictions on Presidential power.
alito would be all for restrictions as soon as a democrat takes office.

it's important that people stop pretending bush knows what he's doing and realize just how badly he's screwing us over, but in order for that to happen he has to do more stupid things. i'd much rather see him actually do a good job than see ppl realize he's doing a terrible job.

[entropy]

The planet survived Reagan and also survived Carter. It will survive Bush.
Most assuredly things won't go _straight_ to hell before 2009, but the problem is compounding, and the current administration has been the worst ever in regards to the environment and twisted "science."

Ex-EPA Chiefs Criticize Bush on Warming:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060119/ap_on_go_ot/global_warming

(That would be six republicans and one democrat taking the Bush administration to task on current policy & practices)

Also, the Union of Concerned Scientists (nonpartisan interest group) keeps track of immoral attempts at warping scientific studies with political agendas. It's been a growing problem over the past two decades, and is currently at the worst level ever. They recently released a statement criticizing the Bush administration's attack on science:

http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/reports-scientific-integrity-in-policy-making.html

The statement is signed by many high-profile scientists, including 49 Nobel laureates, 63 National Medal of Science recipients, and 171 members of the National Academies. It is an honest, stinging and thorough conviction.

The Bush administration's record on the environment and science in general is dismal, and should not be brushed off as "temporary". Whoever comes next must not be allowed to continue to erode scientific ideals. We must begin a process of scientific and environmental accountability now, or the United States will lose its status as a superpower, and the planet will someday be lost to our children.

[john_childs]

It is funny to see people in a panic thining the world is going to end just because of a slight move along the political scale. There were right wingers in a panic when Clinton was in office and now there are left wingers in a panic because Bush is in office. The US frankly doesn't swing far enough either left or right for anything too drastic to ever happen due to the Democrats and the Republicans switching places in the White House.

I wasn't happy while Clinton was in office and always wary about what would happen due to what he was or wasn't doing, but I was never in a panic and never thought the planet was in trouble. This is somewhat funny to see the other side in an absolute panic because of Bush.

[steveyo]

It is funny to see people in a panic thining the world is going to end just because of a slight move along the political scale.Slight? With mass illegal imprisonment, widespread torture, massive domestic eavesdropping, quelling of dissent? From center to extreme right, this is a slight change to you?!?

I wasn't happy while Clinton was in office and always wary about what would happen due to what he was or wasn't doing, but I was never in a panic and never thought the planet was in trouble. This is somewhat funny to see the other side in an absolute panic because of Bush.

The world wasn't in nearly as much trouble.

Bill Clinton was a d!ckhead, and, in a way, I blame him for our current state of affairs. He singlehandedly (single-organned-ly) cemented many people's opinion against the democratic party with his philandering.

But Clinton was making science and the interchange of different viewpoints the basis of his decisions toward medical matters, the environment, dependence on foriegn oil, and especially global warming.

Bush & Co. had a chance to lead a push for true, meaningful fossil fuel conservation after 911, with his approval rating of 90%. Instead, they said things like "the jury's still out on global warming" and "go out, spend, travel". They prevented better mileage legislation which would have done much more for our country's gluttonous oil dependence than all the oil in ANWAR and now we're buying hybrids from overseas. This is all incredibly illogical, until you consider the alliances and close ties between the Bush family oil and arms partnerships with the Saudis (literally with Bin Laden's relatives) via the Carlysle Group and the huge oil companies.

We're now in a war in Iraq, not Afghanistan, (where Al Qaeda was centered), nor in Saudi Arabia, (one of the most oppresive regimes in the world who are financing Al Qaeda with our oil money). Again, please show me logic here, unless you consider that Mr. Cheney, by far the most powerful VP ever, has been planning to invade Iraq (2nd most oil of any nation) since they came to office in 2000. (He still won't release details or attendees of his "energy task force" meetings.)

JC, this is why your support for Bush baffles me, as you are obviously extremely well-read and logic-minded in all (other) topics. If you respond to this post, please tell me the logic or reason you still support this approach to the foreign-oil dependence that is such a bane to the US.

Re: Clinton...
If you're still reading this far down, please compare Bush & Co.'s actions, which have directly led to tens of thousands of deaths and otherwise ruined lives, to what you consider the worst thing Bill Clinton ever did.

[steveyo]

Most assuredly things won't go _straight_ to hell before 2009, but the problem is compounding, and the current administration has been the worst ever in regards to the environment and twisted "science."

Ex-EPA Chiefs Criticize Bush on Warming:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060119/ap_on_go_ot/global_warming

(That would be six republicans and one democrat taking the Bush administration to task on current policy & practices)

Also, the Union of Concerned Scientists (nonpartisan interest group) keeps track of immoral attempts at warping scientific studies with political agendas. It's been a growing problem over the past two decades, and is currently at the worst level ever. They recently released a statement criticizing the Bush administration's attack on science:

http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/reports-scientific-integrity-in-policy-making.html

The statement is signed by many high-profile scientists, including 49 Nobel laureates, 63 National Medal of Science recipients, and 171 members of the National Academies. It is an honest, stinging and thorough conviction.

The Bush administration's record on the environment and science in general is dismal, and should not be brushed off as "temporary". Whoever comes next must not be allowed to continue to erode scientific ideals. We must begin a process of scientific and environmental accountability now, or the United States will lose its status as a superpower, and the planet will someday be lost to our children.

I believe Mr. Childs will not repond to these statements backed by basically every peer-reviewed scientist in the world, except with generalities. Please, JC, explain away their statement in which the "scientists charged the Bush administration with widespread and unprecedented 'manipulation of the process through which science enters into its decisions'", or will you ignore the issue?

[john_childs]

Slight? With mass illegal imprisonment, widespread torture, massive domestic eavesdropping, quelling of dissent? From center to extreme right, this is a slight change to you?!?
It is slight on the scale of politics. You're acting like the right is some sort of extreme regime when actually they are so far within the bounds of american democracy that there is no need to worry about democracy falling apart or some destruction of government. Yes, there have been some lack of proper oversight and yes on what the government wants to do with the Patriot Act in the name of protecting us. But all that will balance out. The political game will play out and anything that is too extreme will get put in check. It is good to have the left keeping an eye out to make sure that the government doesn't go too far in its desire to police and investigate and restrict our rights in the name of saving us from terrorists. The checks are working, and that's good (and I support that).

Did you listen to right wing talk radio when Clinton was in office and when Kerry was running? They were piling on the issues to create a feeling a doomsday. Clinton was going to destroy the free market, plunge us into despair to save the environment, create a catastrophic foreign policy nightmare in North Korea and China and other areas by giving them technology that could be used to build better weapons and such. It was all quite a doomsday scenario. Much like the doomsday scenario you're painting, only in reverse.

I'm not in a panic. I'm watchful and want to make sure that the checks and balances work to keep things within reason.

And yes, if Kerry was President now I'd probably be bellyaching especially with him getting appoint at least two Supreme Court justices.

[Checkernuts]

I have a question for you...

What since the 04 election has changed your opinion from good leader to incompetent??. 9-11 was 3 years before the election so that couldnt have been on your mind.

You also say somewhere in there that you wouldnt vote for him again but dont think the repubs would put him back up either, does this mean you just vote on party lines typically?

I have only been alowed to vote in one presidential election and as a new voter I am disgusted at the way that this country only has two views (that are often so close to each other I want to puke) and anything outside of the dems and pubs is concidered too extreme for anyone to stand a chance at winning an election.

Even if your not jethro please just chime in as I do want to hear from some older voters on this.

Cheers.

ahem..

[steveyo]

Did you listen to right wing talk radio when Clinton was in office and when Kerry was running? They were piling on the issues to create a feeling a doomsday. Clinton was going to destroy the free market, plunge us into despair to save the environment, create a catastrophic foreign policy nightmare in North Korea and China and other areas by giving them technology that could be used to build better weapons and such. It was all quite a doomsday scenario. Much like the doomsday scenario you're painting, only in reverse.JC, your replies do not address the issue I asked you about, that is the manipulation of science and intelligence by the right to further their idealogies.

Right wing radio piled the doomsday charges onto Clinton. The charges against Bush are NOT the same, and do NOT come from "left wing radio", which is all but non-existant.

People now painting the "doomsday pictures" are pretty much all the scientists in the world and many low and high ranking govt officials, including former staunch republicans from Bush's own staff and cabinet, some there through the last 20 years, who quit when the stench grew too great.

...[Bush & Co.'s] mass illegal imprisonment, widespread torture, massive domestic eavesdropping, quelling of dissent

Again, I noticed you avoiding the issues raised here, and just saying, yeah, well Clinton was bad, too.

Why won't you compare Bush's specific actions I've discussed here (repealing of environmental regs, stripping citizens of Constitutional rights, starting a war with already debunked intel) to actions by Clinton? There is no way you could win in such a debate, so your answers are general GOP talking points instead of substantial.

I don't expect you to address real issues like these, but please prove me wrong and discuss mass illegal imprisonment, widespread torture, massive domestic eavesdropping, misuse of science, vote-fraud, and quelling of dissent.

[entropy]

It is funny to see people in a panic thining the world is going to end just because of a slight move along the political scale. There were right wingers in a panic when Clinton was in office and now there are left wingers in a panic because Bush is in office. The US frankly doesn't swing far enough either left or right for anything too drastic to ever happen due to the Democrats and the Republicans switching places in the White House.

I wasn't happy while Clinton was in office and always wary about what would happen due to what he was or wasn't doing, but I was never in a panic and never thought the planet was in trouble. This is somewhat funny to see the other side in an absolute panic because of Bush.
Don't brush my statements aside as liberal rhetoric. There is no substance to this argument. Poke holes with real discussion and debate. Show where the Bush administration has done well with science in policymaking. Or offer a plausible alternate explanation as to why 49 Nobel Laurates are finding it necessary to back a statement of this nature. These people aren't loose canons.

[john_childs]

I don't expect you to address real issues like these, but please prove me wrong and discuss mass illegal imprisonment, widespread torture, massive domestic eavesdropping, misuse of science, vote-fraud, and quelling of dissent.
I don't really feel like defending the whole of conservative or Republican philosophy.

What you call a disregard for science I call a fundamental difference in policy ideas and political philosophy about what reasonable solutions are.

[steveyo]

I don't really feel like defending the whole of conservative or Republican philosophy.I knew you wouldn't specifically address the problems we are discussing. You couldn't as their actions are utterly indefensible and you'd have to open the door between the impressive analytical side of your brain (I love your air-seat, for example (http://www.unicyclist.com/gallery/?g2_view=core.ShowItem&g2_itemId=140776)) and the section of your brain unperturbed that President Bush and his cronies enrich and promote themselves while they poison our air and water and spill the blood of other people's children in the Iraqi desert and the Louisiana deltas.

What you call a disregard for science I call a fundamental difference in policy ideas and political philosophy about what reasonable solutions are.Difference in policy would be choosing between taxing bad mileage vehicles vs. pushing research on renewable energy. Anti-science is the removal of countless pollution regulations for coal-fired power plants, and encouraging people to drive 6000+ lb vehicles by allowing a tax deduction for them while the entire scientific community says we're at the brink of a disastrous warming trend, with deep oceans heating up and millions of acres of open water at the North pole for the first time ever.

[musketman]

That's the kind of answer I'm not suprised to hear from somebody who is always preaching their religious shit on a forum. Listen, you made an ok post, but it also made you cliched as just another cristian white guy.


another athiest who can go to hell

Man it gets me mad to hear this kind of crap on here!

P.S. jethro hasn't preached anything to you on this forum, so dont make stuff up because you didn't vote for bush and you think everyone is wrong but you!

WOW!

Stupid PEOPLE!!

[entropy]

I don't really feel like defending the whole of conservative or Republican philosophy.

What you call a disregard for science I call a fundamental difference in policy ideas and political philosophy about what reasonable solutions are.
Conservatism (or being Republican) has nothing to do with bad scientific practices. These things are happening across party lines because of greed and ignorance. Its the same reason that the DMCA was passed, and why copyright enforcement has become so draconian.

From this (http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/specific-examples-of-the-abuse-of-science.html) UCS website:

Agency Abuses: The Environment

Deleting Scientific Advice on Endangered Salmon (http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/deleting-scientific-advice-on-endangered-salmon.html): Scientists asked to remove science-based recommendations from an official report
Endangered Species: Florida Panther, Bull Trout, Trumpter Swans (http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/endangered-species-florida-panther-bull-trout-trumpter-swans.html): Research at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is distorted and suppressed
Mountaintop Removal Mining (http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/mountaintop-removal-mining.html): Administration officials intentionally disregard extensive scientific study on mountaintop removal in Appalacia
Climate Change (http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/climate-change.html): Administration officials undermined science behind climate change by suppressing reports and publicly misrepresenting scientific consensus
Mercury Emissions (http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/mercury-emissions.html): White House suppressed information about the impact of mercury on public health
Multiple Air Pollutants (http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/multiple-air-pollutants.html): The Environmental Protection Agency withheld an analysis showing the benefits of a bipartisan alternative to President Bush's Clear Skies Act
The Endangered Species Act (http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/the-endangered-species-act.html): Administration officials are manipulating the scientific underpinnings of the policy making process
Forest Management (http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/forest-management.html): A "review team" primarily composed of non-scientists overruled a science-based plan for managing old-growth forest habitat and reducing fire riskAgency Abuses: Public Health

Emergency Contraception (http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/emergency-contraception.html): FDA appointees overruled staff scientists and two independent advisory panels to deny access to emergency contraception
Abstinence-only Education (http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/abstinenceonly-education.html): The Administration has obscured scientific evaluation of abstinence-only education programs and pressured scientists to promote abstinence.
HIV/AIDS Education (http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/hivaids-education.html): The CDC was ordered to change its website to raise scientifically questionable doubt about the effectiveness of condoms in preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS.
Airborne Bacteria (http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/airborne-bacteria.html): A microbiologist was prohibited at least 11 times from publishing research on airborne bacteria originating from farm wastes.
Breast Cancer (http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/breast-cancer.html): Information suggesting a link between abortion and breast cancer was posted on a National Cancer Institute website despite objections from staff scientists.Science Advisory Committees

Fogarty International Center Advisory Board (http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/fogarty-international-center-advisory-board.html): Qualified scientists, including a Nobel Laureate, were rejected after being subjected to political litmust tests.
President's Council on Bioethics (http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/presidents-council-on-bioethics.html): Two leading scientists were dismissed from the panel because of dissenting opinions on the ethics of biomedical research.
Arms Control Panel (http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/arms-control-panel.html): A scientific committee that advised the State Department on matters of arms control was dismissed and never reappointed.
Army Science Board (http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/army-science-board.html): An engineer was rejected from a panel because of a contribution to John McCain's 2000 presidential bid.
National Nuclear Security Administration Panel (http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/national-nuclear-security-administration-panel.html): A committee set up to advise the administration on scientific issues regarding the maintenance nation's nuclear weapons stockpile and the design and testing of new nuclear warheads was dismissed.
NIH: Drug Abuse Panel (http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/nih-drug-abuse-panel.html): Potential panel members were asked if they voted for President Bush.
Lead Poisoning Prevention Panel (http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/lead-poisoning-prevention-panel.html): Staff-recommended scientists are rejected from a panel considering acceptable levels of lead in drinking water and replaced by appointees with financial ties to the lead industry.
Workplace Safety Panel (http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/workplace-safety-panel.html): Well-qualified scientists were rejected from a panel that evaluates grants for workplace injuries because of their support for a workplace ergonomics standard.
Reproductive Health Advisory Committee (http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/reproductive-health-advisory-committee.html): An underqualified nominee was suggested as chair of an FDA committee on reproductive health despite scant credentials and highly partisan political views.Additional Topics

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Peer Review (http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/office-of-management-and-budget-omb-peer-review.html): A deeply flawed new peer review rule was proposed and, while the most egregious abuses of science were taken out, the rule was ultimately adopted.
Aluminum Tubes in Iraq (http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/aluminum-tubes-in-iraq.html): The Administration knowingly disregarded scientific analysis of intelligence data that contradicted its case for war against Iraq.

[chucknorrisunicycles]

chuck could do better.

[john_childs]

Mixing science and policy and politics just creates confusion and distracts from the actual science. The complaints here are about policy and politics and not about the actual science or about being ignorant of science.

Being a scientist does not make you apolitical. Just because a scientist has an opinion about proper policy in response to his scientific knowledge does not mean that the policy is sound or proper or unbiased.

Why don't we just turn over all government policy decisions to the well known and well regarded universities, like say the Ivy League schools. They're full of scientists and very learned people. They can develop a set of policies to maximize personal well-being, economic well-being, the environment, security, public transportation, and all other issues facing government. They're obviously the best qualified to come up with policies for all that. They have engineers, scientists, very learned people in philosophy, political science, public safety, and all other maters. How could anyone possibly disagree with any of their opinions?

So don't confuse scientists speaking about science and scientists speaking about policy. Two different issues. People who disagree with scientists about policy are not necessarily ignorant about science or ignoring science. Just like disagreeing with Kyoto does not automatically mean that you don't believe in the greenhouse effect or global warming.

[chucknorrisunicycles]

cHUUUUUUUUUCKKKKKKKKKKK NOOOOOOOOOOORISSSSSSSssss

[steveyo]

Mixing science and policy and politics just creates confusion.. I understand there are differences between science and policy. But the policy should be guided by science, right JC, and not vice versa? Bush&Co has repeatedly censored science reports they themselves commissioned. I can give you a list if you want.

Just like disagreeing with Kyoto does not automatically mean that you don't believe in the greenhouse effect or global warming.Thank you for citing an actual issue, and I totally agree with your statement.

Since you brought this up, however, can you name one thing Bush&Co have done to combat global warming? Thier end-run around the argument is to say that although %100 of scientitically-reviewed evidence points to human-caused warming, that this isn't proof. They prevent any meaningful legislation on that basis. Really.

[entropy]

[...]The complaints here are about policy and politics and not about the actual science or about being ignorant of science. I disagree. The items in question are about obscuring consensus of the scientific community, changing the results of studies to say what supports a policy, and blocking input from knowledgeable scientists during a decision-making process. This cannot yield good policy, and deceives the public into supporting an issue without knowing all the facts. It promotes ignorance to the truth.


Being a scientist does not make you apolitical. Just because a scientist has an opinion about proper policy in response to his scientific knowledge does not mean that the policy is sound or proper or unbiased. Point taken. Studies are not always unbiased, and quite often a single study is not enough to base any sort of decision upon. Grain of salt rule applies.


Why don't we just turn over all government policy decisions to the well known and well regarded universities, like say the Ivy League schools. They're full of scientists and very learned people.[...] Although I know this is said in jest, I feel at liberty to point out that most colleges and universities are rife with internal politics of their own. Something about intelligence, performance and egos in a tight space tends to breed power struggles.
So don't confuse scientists speaking about science and scientists speaking about policy. Two different issues. People who disagree with scientists about policy are not necessarily ignorant about science or ignoring science. Just like disagreeing with Kyoto does not automatically mean that you don't believe in the greenhouse effect or global warming. Like I said in the first paragraph, I'm not confusing anything. People who disagree with Kyoto are not necessarily stupid, and quite likely have reasons based in more than just climate studies (say, economics) which they believe warrant their stance.

People who base their opinions and support of policy on data that is incomplete or has been misrepresented are being deceived. Their support was ill-won. To come full circule, a large group of distinguished and nonpartisan scientists believe that this deception is occuring frequently and unchecked.

[entropy]

[...]a large group of distinguished and nonpartisan scientists believe that this deception is occuring frequently and unchecked.
To correct myself, "nonpartisan" is a baseless assumption. I have no idea what political affiliation (if any) these people have.

Doing some further research (as in, using Google), I found this:
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/new-law-restricts-political.html

"January 3, 2006

New Law Restricts Political Interference in Science
Disseminating False Information, Political Litmus Tests Banned

The Union of Concerned Scientists today applauded Congress for outlawing the deliberate dissemination of false or misleading scientific information at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The law, which was tucked away in the HHS appropriations bill the president signed on Friday, also prohibits questioning scientific advisory panel nominees about their political affiliation, voting history and positions on topics unrelated to the capacity in which they are to serve."

That's a huge step. I might even stop complaining for awhile. I should read the news more often. ;)

[GILD]

Conservatism (or being Republican) has nothing to do with bad scientific practices. These things are happening across party lines because of greed and ignorance. Its the same reason that the DMCA was passed, and why copyright enforcement has become so draconian.

From this (http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/specific-examples-of-the-abuse-of-science.html) UCS website:[/LIST]
That's a hell of a post.
Thanx for taking the time.

[maxisback]

he's dumber than me and he's president !!!

[john_childs]

Here's something I saw in a blog (probably digg or fark):
Administration official: “Big Bang” is just a theory (http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/02/04/administration-official-big-bang-is-just-a-theory/)
You’ve heard, I hope, about NASA climate scientist James Hansen, who the Bush administration tried to silence when he called for reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases. Cosmology, as it turns out, is not exempt from the radical anti-science agenda. The New York Times, via Atrios:

These sorts of things do need to be called out. I'm not going to overreact about it, but that sort of mixing politics in science is not good for science.

[steveyo]

Here's something I saw in a blog (probably digg or fark):
Administration official: “Big Bang” is just a theory (http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/02/04/administration-official-big-bang-is-just-a-theory/)
These sorts of things do need to be called out. I'm not going to overreact about it, but that sort of mixing politics in science is not good for science.Yeah - that guy George Deutsch is a gem.

[paco]

First, I want to say that I think Bush is a lousy American President. I thought he was the better candidate in the last election, but he scares me with his recent policies.

Second, I'd rather live in the United States than in many other countries. Bush is very tame in comparison with some other recent political leaders. For example:

The deaths of millions Congolese, starting in 1885 and continuing into the 20th century, while the Congo Free State (now the Democratic Republic of the Congo) was controlled by King Leopold II of Belgium. It was a regime of widespread forced labor, mass murder, mutilation and torture.

The massacre of the Armenian Christians by the Turks during 1915 & 1916.. Although the government of Turkey denies that this actually happened, the evidence of the genocide is overwhelming.

The artificial Ukrainian famine of the 1930s, perpetrated by the communist government of the USSR.

The highly organized extermination of about 11 million persons by the Nazi government of Germany, including six million Jews, millions of Poles, and 400,000 Roma, during World War II. There are Holocaust deniers who say that it never happened. Again, the evidence is overwhelming.

The genocide of Muslims, Roma, Serbian Orthodox and others by the Ustaša -- a Roman-Catholic/Fascist regime) which controlled Croatia from 1941 to 1945.

The avoidable "Great Bengal Famine" of 1943, which was under British control at the time. This almost forgotten, needless holocaust killed about four million lives.

The destruction of over one million of the Cambodian intelligentsia and others by the Khmer Rouge Communists in the mid 1970s.

The genocide of the Roman Catholics in East Timor by the Muslim government of Indonesia from 1975 to 1999. About one in three were exterminated.

The genocide of hundreds of thousands of people, mainly Muslims, primarily by Serbian Orthodox Christians in Bosnia-Herzegovina during the 1990s.

The genocide of Christians and Animists by the Muslim government of Sudan. This program continues today, although it does appear to be slowing down.

The 1994 genocide of about 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus in Rwanda.

(Taken from this page) (http://www.religioustolerance.org/god_cana0.htm)

Bush is causing mass torture and mass murder? I don't think what he's doing is right or justified, but it's nothing compared to the above regimes. You want to see extreme right wing politics? Look at Saddam Hussein or the previous Afghanistan government.
John Childs is right. Bush may not be doing a very good job, but the checks and balances are holding well enough to make it to the next election.

And I think his environmental policies stink. ;)

[GILD]

My main concern remains what 'paper-trail-less' electronic voting machines mean for the pretence of elections.

Next time we talk about the troops (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/013006J.shtml)...

[john_childs]

I have a question for you...

What since the 04 election has changed your opinion from good leader to incompetent??. 9-11 was 3 years before the election so that couldnt have been on your mind.

You also say somewhere in there that you wouldnt vote for him again but dont think the repubs would put him back up either, does this mean you just vote on party lines typically?

I have only been alowed to vote in one presidential election and as a new voter I am disgusted at the way that this country only has two views (that are often so close to each other I want to puke) and anything outside of the dems and pubs is concidered too extreme for anyone to stand a chance at winning an election.

Even if your not jethro please just chime in as I do want to hear from some older voters on this.

Cheers.

Time to get this question addressed, at least in part from my opinion.

Every democratic style government needs an effective opposition party to keep the ruling party in check. Without an effective opposition party the ruling party would get out of control.

The way the US Constitution was made and how the government was constructed has basically defaulted us to a two party system because that is the easiest way and most natural way that a ruling party and the opposition can find a balance. Three or more parties would really complicate the consensus building and the ability of the minority to form an effective opposition. It is easier in our system for just two parties to duke it out for control. Each party will tend to create their platform to attract 51% or more of the vote. That guarantees that there will always be an effective and strong opposition party that even if they are in the minority now will be in the majority at some time in the future. Each party will jockey for position to become the majority.

Our system of consensus building in the House and Senate and division of control doesn't have the structure that would make it likely or effective to work with three or more parties. It would be too unnatural to have two different and competitive parties work together to form an effective opposition to a majority party. It would also be too unnatural for three parties to emerge that could split opinion in the country evenly in thirds. One of the three would always be doomed to be a very minor minority and that wouldn't bode well for any effective consensus building on the minority side and would end up giving the majority party far more freedom and leeway to abuse their power.

A system of government and legislative control more similar to the UK system would be more likely to have three or more parties evolve. They have a different system of consensus building along with a different system of checks and balances. If the US system was a little more like the UK system then we probably would have three or more parties over here.

So we are and were destined to have two main parties in the US political system. To have more would be unnatural, not sustainable, and would create a ruling party that would gain too much control.

That is just my pop psychology review of why the US political system only has two main parties and always will have only two main parties. I have never studied political science so that's just my layman's opinion on the matter. If anyone has studied political science and knows of some resources that address this I'd be interested.

So we've just got to live with the two party system in the US. Work within it to effect change. When enough of the US is ready to join in that change one of the parties will move in that direction and adopt it cause it will help them get elected. Think of it as a built in buffer that keeps anything too radical from happening too soon.

I have some opinions that are not going to be adopted any time soon by the Republican party. I'd like to see drugs legalized cause that is a far better solution than our current situation where drugs are illegal, criminal gangs and cartels gain power and leverage, large numbers of citizens break the law, and all because drugs are deemed illegal. I'd also like to see a change in the tax system to something similar to Steve Forbes' Flat Tax idea. That is far more fair than our current system and much more in line with my belief that government shouldn't micromanage the populace like they do now with the tax system.

Neither of my two opinions mentioned are likely to see the light of day any time soon. However, it is not impossible that some time in the future, maybe long after I'm dead, that those changes will be made by one of the two political parties. It could happen. Just gotta work withing the system as it is to push those ideas. No sense tilting at windmills to think that some third party will emerge to take those ideas and actually be able to make a difference.

[steveyo]

Here's something I saw in a blog (probably digg or fark):
Administration official: “Big Bang” is just a theory (http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/02/04/administration-official-big-bang-is-just-a-theory/)


These sorts of things do need to be called out. I'm not going to overreact about it, but that sort of mixing politics in science is not good for science.
Hey - Deutsch resigned! (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/08/politics/08nasa.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin)
(He's the Bush-appointed NASA public relations official who insisted that NASA scientists referring to the Big Bang in public must preface it with the word "theory")

Maybe he read our thread and thought it was a blog.

[john_childs]

Hey - Deutsch resigned! (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/08/politics/08nasa.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin)
(He's the Bush-appointed NASA public relations official who insisted that NASA scientists referring to the Big Bang in public must preface it with the word "theory")

Maybe he read our thread and thought it was a blog.
Yup. News of his resignation also made Slashdot (http://science.slashdot.org/science/06/02/08/1240226.shtml). Some of the comments there are interesting (but of course, being Slashdot, most of them are not).

Sometimes things work out as they should.

[BillyTheMountain]

Time to get this question addressed, at least in part from my opinion.

Every democratic style government needs an effective opposition party to keep the ruling party in check. Without an effective opposition party the ruling party would get out of control.

The way the US Constitution was made and how the government was constructed has basically defaulted us to a two party system because that is the easiest way and most natural way that a ruling party and the opposition can find a balance. Three or more parties would really complicate the consensus building

I have some opinions that are not going to be adopted any time soon by the Republican party. I'd like to see drugs legalized cause that is a far better solution than our current situation where drugs are illegal, criminal gangs and cartels gain power and leverage, large numbers of citizens break the law, and all because drugs are deemed illegal. I'd also like to see a change in the tax system to something similar to Steve Forbes' Flat Tax idea. That is far more fair than our current system and much more in line with my belief that government shouldn't micromanage the populace like they do now with the tax system.

Good ideas. I'd like to see a true 2 party system, instesd of one party parading with 2 names.

Instead we have the very wealthy paying NO taxes, and getting corporate welfare. Fat chance that will stop.

Stop the drug war? Massive unemployment due to downsizing in the prison-industrial complex--a very fast growing industry in the last 15 years, more than tripling the prison bed capacity in NY, Texas, FLA, the Fed Prison System, and other states. No other nation comes close to incarcerating the percentage of its own citizens.

Bush is hellbent on being our first 3-war president. His job approval is down to 34%--so he thinks it's time to invade Iran.

www.VelvetRevolution.US

86% of Americans oppose another illegal preemptive war, 69% are afraid Bush will act rashly. They know another war will create more terrorists, kill more US soldiers, send gas prices soaring, and make the world less safe.

[Crackbrain]

People are irrationaly afraid of terrorists, they hardly do anything inside of america exept 911 deal wich did its job in instilling fear into the american poplulation by fearing terrorists you are only supporting George Bush is on witch hunt against terrorrists.

[uniMcPeat]

Yes.

[Bud-Litebulb]

I support the president.
President George W Bush.
at least he has the guts to do what he thinks is right for our country, even if you disagree with him, you have to admit that he is true to his principals, and those principals can be summed up in one great american word:
F-R-E-E-D-O-M.

--bUDDY

[boo radley]

you have to admit that he is true to his principals, and those principals can be summed up in one great american word:
F-R-E-E-D-O-M
it would be a lot funnier if i didn't suspect you were actually serious about that. still pretty funny though.

[napalm]

I find it so interesting that people like Bud-litebulb can support bush because of his "principals of freedom" when all he has ever done is restrict others freedom. I can, however, congratulate the American nation at producing such effective speech writers.

John_Childs seems to be suffering from defeatist realsit syndrome, where there is no point doing anything properly- but instead relying on a compromise that is defined by the flawed system. Why do anything right when it is easier to just go along with it all and settle for what is easy?
mark

[ThisGuyIKnow]

I support the president.
President George W Bush.
at least he has the guts to do what he thinks is right for our country, even if you disagree with him, you have to admit that he is true to his principals, and those principals can be summed up in one great american word:

C-O-R-P-O-R-A-T-E-W-E-A-L-T-H

Oh wait that is two words.

P.S. freedom is not an American Word it comes from Old English, it's very similar to the liberty which comes from France

[Bud-Litebulb]

P.S. freedom is not an American Word it comes from Old English, it's very similar to the liberty which comes from France
true, but it has become an american word because the americans have elevated its meaning to heights that the rest of humanity can only sit in awe of. american freedom.
no offense to the non-americans here, but freedom in the american sense is something we are very proud of, and it is something that maybe we americans can o nly understand, in an american way.
pride. proud to be american and prouid to be free.
i know that there are many other free countried in the world, and england and france are also free countries, but i dont think they feel tied to the word freedomn that we americans are always tied to.
"its an american thing, you wouldn't understand"

i know that liberty comes from the french, and they have a saying over there in france, "liberty, equality, and fraternity (I think that means brotherhood) and it is a nice phrase, but i8t is not as deep in the french soul as "freedom" is deep in the american soul

but sometimes i do wonder, if the english gave us the stATue of liberty instead of the french, would the statue of liberty be called "the statue of freedom"?

it makes you think......

[phlegm]

true, but it has become an american word because the americans have elevated its meaning to heights that the rest of humanity can only sit in awe of.

The only thing more representatively American than freedom is freedom fries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_fries)! Hooray! :rolleyes:

[Bud-Litebulb]

The only thing more representatively American than freedom is freedom fries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_fries)! Hooray! :rolleyes:
i was never into the whole Freedom Fries thing, but i have some friends who were really into that, and they were very vocal about boycotting the french and the french products like wine and french cleaners and anything with the word french on it. im a proud conservative, but i never went along with the freedom fries stuff, it had nothing to do with the task of getting the war happening, it was just a lit of misguided anger at the french, and the whole french position was no fdifferent from the russain or the german position, so why just pick on them?
no use making fun of the french, we might need them some day, and frankly, for the iraqui invasion, it was not necessary to have any other countries come along, the other countries in the coilition of the willing are just symbols, when you think about it, it really was a unilateral american invasion.
the british are a possible exception, but their numbers no not approach the americans, and anyway, before the war, when there was vocal opposition in the UK (united Kingdom or ENGLAND) there was that moment when it looked like the brits might opt out, and Secretary Romsfvelt indicated that we could do it without the english.
French or no, we are getting the job done, no no use getting all upset about the French. Better to have them on our side later for another war, they are still our friends and the whole freedom fries thing just hurts their feelings and it made a lot of people think tht we are a stupd people who get all out of shape over potatoes.

[JJuggle]

no use making fun of the french, we might need them some day
How apropos. I might be French soon, assuming I'm that lucky. Alcatel to Acquire Lucent in $13.4B Deal (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060403/ap_on_bi_ge/alcatel_lucent_27).

[ThisGuyIKnow]

i was never into the whole Freedom Fries thing, but i have some friends who were really into that, and they were very vocal about boycotting the french and the french products like wine and french cleaners and anything with the word french on it. im a proud conservative, but i never went along with the freedom fries stuff, it had nothing to do with the task of getting the war happening, it was just a lit of misguided anger at the french, and the whole french position was no fdifferent from the russain or the german position, so why just pick on them?
no use making fun of the french, we might need them some day, and frankly, for the iraqui invasion, it was not necessary to have any other countries come along, the other countries in the coilition of the willing are just symbols, when you think about it, it really was a unilateral american invasion.
the british are a possible exception, but their numbers no not approach the americans, and anyway, before the war, when there was vocal opposition in the UK (united Kingdom or ENGLAND) there was that moment when it looked like the brits might opt out, and Secretary Romsfvelt indicated that we could do it without the english.
French or no, we are getting the job done, no no use getting all upset about the French. Better to have them on our side later for another war, they are still our friends and the whole freedom fries thing just hurts their feelings and it made a lot of people think tht we are a stupd people who get all out of shape over potatoes.

Actually the French didn't seem to give much of a damn about freedom fries it just proved their point about how juvenile and silly America is.

If we didn't need the French why diud Bush go and apologize to Chirac and ask for his helping, saying something along the lines of "you were right, we are in over are heads can you please help us now?" No one of course remembers this because it happened the same day Reagan's death was announced so it got swept off the radar.

Last time I checked pride was still included among the cardinal sins. It is our pride that got us into all this trouble in the first place.

This war has nothing to do with freedom, here or there it has to do with power, control, and wealth.

Get off your high horse Bud Lite Bulb. America is a lot free than you'd like to believe. You say you're driven by freedom but you're willing to let be trompled on here. I don't see how someone can say they are for freedom, and still side with Bush and his illegal wiretapping.

[Bud-Litebulb]

If we didn't need the French why diud Bush go and apologize to Chirac and ask for his helping, saying something along the lines of "you were right, we are in over are heads can you please help us now?" No one of course remembers this because it happened the same day Reagan's death was announced so it got swept off the radar.

I idid not know that, but it is interesting in that it shows that Bush is cabible of great humility, to apologize like that. if more people knew about that, it would be good for Bush.

Last time I checked pride was still included among the cardinal sins. It is our pride that got us into all this trouble in the first place.

the pride i am talking about is a different kind of pride that is considered a sin. its AMERICAN pride, and it is different. it has to do with putting the flag out and defending your president, not the personality pride that is considered a sin. im not very religis, so the sin thing is out with the jury

Get off your high horse Bud Lite Bulb.
what id like to do is get off my high horse and get on a high coker!;)

You say you're driven by freedom but you're willing to let be trompled on here.
do you mean here on this website? someone trompling me? what does tromple mean?

I don't see how someone can say they are for freedom, and still side with Bush and his illegal wiretapping.
lets see if it is really illegal. if the wiretapping catches terrorists, then that might be good exchange, while the war is on at least

This war has nothing to do with freedom, here or there it has to do with power, control, and wealth.

the jury is still out on that>>reedom is not an overnight fstfood that one buys at burger king, it takes time, and paitence, a little like learning to ride the unicycle

[phlegm]

the pride i am talking about is a different kind of pride that is considered a sin. its AMERICAN pride, and it is different. it has to do with putting the flag out and defending your president, not the personality pride that is considered a sin. im not very religis, so the sin thing is out with the jury

I think you meant to say "is NOT considered a sin." Some might say that I'm religious, and I would consider pride a sin--yes, even American pride. I am grateful for the life I have in the U.S., but pride is a different thing. Pride is waving your flag in everyone's face to proclaim how great you think your country is, how life is so much better because of "the American way." Everyone else in the world should take note because we're the example of the right way to do things. :rolleyes:

lets see if it is really illegal. if the wiretapping catches terrorists, then that might be good exchange, while the war is on at least

End justifies the means? So, if the police storm down your front door, handcuff you, and then discover that you have a handful of mp3s on your computer that you "borrowed" from your friend, they would be justified?

the jury is still out on that>>reedom is not an overnight fstfood that one buys at burger king, it takes time, and paitence, a little like learning to ride the unicycle

The jury is still out? The U.S. involvement in the Middle East has always been about oil. Go to your local library, and look up some government publications. You'll find plenty of talk of how vital oil is to our economy and how we must preserve our access to oil in the Middle East. This isn't some crazy left-wing conspiracy theory. Our government's intentions are very clear in publically available documents.

[Bud-Litebulb]

Everyone else in the world should take note because we're the example of the right way to do things.
I agree

End justifies the means? So, if the police storm down your front door, handcuff you, and then discover that you have a handful of mp3s on your computer that you "borrowed" from your friend, they would be justified?

I borrow MP3s all the time from my friends. Why are you comparing it to terrorism?
if the mp3s were a threat to national security, i would understand it. and if the cops arrested me for copying somgs illegally, i wou.ld explain it to them, and they would let me go. I never do any illegal downloading anyway, so im not worried

The jury is still out? The U.S. involvement in the Middle East has always been about oil.
I kmow, all the liberals always say that. Yawn....i think there is more than meets the eye here besides ioil. yes, there is oil there, and of course we have AN INTEREST IN OIL but there is more there, like a history of opression that needed liberation from tyranny. We did it because we could do it (like clinton;) )and the process of turning the mideast into a stable region is no easy task, it will take time and troops, a lot of troops and i am convinced that freedom will prevail if we hang tight and support our president and our brave soldiers while we get over this "hump' period, this period of difficulty, that will pass.

Freedom is like a garden, you have to get your hands dirty while you kneel in the dirt planting seeds.

Our government's intentions are very clear in publically available documents.
I agree. documents like the declaration of the independence (1776), the USA constitution, the BILL of rights. Good documents, good AMERICAN documents, full of good laws for the american people, open for all the world to see and behold.

[phlegm]

I agree

I was being sarcastic. :rolleyes:

I borrow MP3s all the time from my friends. Why are you comparing it to terrorism?
if the mp3s were a threat to national security, i would understand it. and if the cops arrested me for copying somgs illegally, i wou.ld explain it to them, and they would let me go. I never do any illegal downloading anyway, so im not worried

I'm comparing the principle, but apparently you trust your government to know what's best for you.

I kmow, all the liberals always say that. Yawn....i think there is more than meets the eye here besides ioil. yes, there is oil there, and of course we have AN INTEREST IN OIL but there is more there, like a history of opression that needed liberation from tyranny. We did it because we could do it (like clinton;) )and the process of turning the mideast into a stable region is no easy task, it will take time and troops, a lot of troops and i am convinced that freedom will prevail if we hang tight and support our president and our brave soldiers while we get over this "hump' period, this period of difficulty, that will pass.

I don't consider myself a liberal, and I do admit that perhaps there is more at stake than just oil. But all speculation aside, what we are certain of is that oil is a main reason for our military being in the Middle East. I've read government publications that clearly spell out that we need to preserve the conflict among Arab nations, otherwise the cost of oil could destroy our economy. We want the conflict. We don't want a single united Arab nation where freedom "rings." Does this not provide a good motive for installing democracy in Iraq in the name of freedom? Again, I'm not trying to vie for my favorite political party. I'm speaking merely in terms of factual evidence that is freely available in government publications. Do the research at your library.

Further, I support our President. I pray and sincerely hope that he does what is right. I don't want our country to fall apart. But this is democracy. I don't necessarily agree with everything that has come out of his administration. We are supposed to have opinions and voice them.

I agree. documents like the declaration of the independence (1776), the USA constitution, the BILL of rights. Good documents, good AMERICAN documents, full of good laws for the american people, open for all the world to see and behold.

I wouldn't necessarily label them as 'good'. They do seem to work pretty well for the U.S. But it is naive to think that we should simply transfer laws and ideas created by one culture for a given circumstance to another culture and expect them to work as well as they have for us. Maybe they'll work, and maybe they won't. If the other culture perceives ulterior motives (like getting our hands on their oil), our intentions really don't matter.

[napalm]

Bud litebulb, your trust in your government of war criminals, environmental terrorists, and capitalists whose main objectives is a financial gain never ceases to amaze and scare the shit out of me. Have you seen the movie "goodnight and goodluck?"- if not i suggest you do. There is a great quote about freedom. It goes

"We proclaim ourselves as indeed we are, the defenders of freedom where ever it still exists in the world. But we cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home."

mark

[Bud-Litebulb]

Not a good day for me!
First I get drowned by Phlegmn, then then i get burned by napalm!

If the other culture perceives ulterior motives (like getting our hands on their oil), our intentions really don't matter.

I agree with you on that. bush and his buds have been very poor at spreading their message to other countries in a way that does not look like they want to conkquer the world. this is a big problem.

Have you seen the movie "goodnight and goodluck?"- if not i suggest you do.

I have not seen it yet, but I will. my ultra-left liberal girlfriend wants to see it, so we willo rent a DVD of it and watch it together, and then probebly have an argument about uit.
my left-pinko father saw it and lo9ved it and told me that I can forget about getting anything for christmas if I fail to see this film within the next 8 months. my conswervative mo0ther saw it, and she said she liked it but with reservations.
i guess Ill see it because the pressure is on from numerous sorces.

Bud

PS Napalm, I like your cartoon drawings a lot. they are very cool

[napalm]

bud- i cannot take credit for the cartoons- they are from a site called "toothpastefordinner.com". The guy who draws them releases one or two a day. I have his entire collection on my computer and realised just recently how appropriate they were for a lot of the discussions in these forums.
mark

[monkeyman]

Not a good day for me!
First I get drowned by Phlegmn, then then i get burned by napalm!

My turn.
First off, I'd like to say that your ability to completely destroy english while you type, is both hilarious, and slightly scary.
Secretary Romsfvelt
You asked me in another thread why I called you an idiot (in jest of course)
This is why

Bud, your holier-than-thou attitude towards non-Americans is exactly the thing that es most of the world off about Americans.

Do we have the right, and duty to go into the Middle East and "liberate" [read:get good oil resources] them?
Do they want this?
Even if they do, are we obligated to go help them, leaving ourselves open to more hate and ridiculing, only pushing for more anti-American propaganda?

[primus]

no no no no no bush sucks that is all

[GILD]

no no no no no bush sucks that is all
Finally!! Someone who cuts to the heart of the matter.

[Bud-Litebulb]

First off, I'd like to say that your ability to completely destroy english while you type, is both hilarious, and slightly scary.

I understand why you think it is hilarious. I don't understand why my typing is scary. The reason why I make so many typing errors is because my access to a computer is very very limited. Sometimes I have only a few minutes on line, and I have to type very quickly. The keyboard is very strange, and my fingers hit 2 keys at the same time, but because I am in a hurry, I have a habit of sending before I check.
Sometimes I like the way my posts come out. It is sort of my style, and if the spelling mistakes make people laugh, then it is OK because I have brought a little bit of humor into the cyber life.

Bud, your holier-than-thou attitude towards non-Americans is exactly the thing that es most of the world off about Americans.

I don't recall ever writing anything religious, so i don't understand why you think I have a "holy" attitude. Not all conservatives are religious. I'm basically a christian guy, but sometimes I don't care about all that. I have comitted lots of sins, and I do'nt thi nk I'm going to go to Hell because no sin of mine has ever hurt anyone--my sins usually involve partying a lot and getting a hangover the next day, hardly holy behavior. And not something that the americans do exclusively, I hear a lot about how the french, the germans, the english, the australians, heck, EVERYBODY likles to party, and I am the first one to say that partying unites the world in a feeling of brotherhood and sisterhood, so I don't understand what you mean about my holy attitude/american thing. But it is a free country, you can say what you want, and I am free to make lots of typos because the computer keyboard I use really sucks, and I am always in a hurry.[/QUOTE]

Do we have the right, and duty to go into the Middle East and "liberate" them?
Do they want this?
Even if they do, are we obligated to go help them, leaving ourselves open to more hate and ridiculing, only pushing for more anti-American propaganda?
Only for now. In the future, maybe not in our lifetimes, the world will thank us, and Bush will be seen in the same light as a Lincoln or Eisenhower.

[GILD]

There's a SpellChecker built into the new forum software (top right hand corner of the post-window).
Might be an idea to use it and make 'being understood' part of your 'style'?

And thanx for the laugh at the end of your post.
It's right up there with Hitler being selected as Time Magazine's 'Man of the Year' (http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,1101390102,00.html) back in 1939.

[GILD]

the world will thank us
Time to put your money where your mouth is (http://action.ajws.org/campaign/millionvoices?qp_source=dar306e%5falternet).
Unless you have some cheap political points to score.

[monkeyman]

I understand why you think it is hilarious. I don't understand why my typing is scary. The reason why I make so many typing errors is because my access to a computer is very very limited. Sometimes I have only a few minutes on line, and I have to type very quickly. The keyboard is very strange, and my fingers hit 2 keys at the same time, but because I am in a hurry, I have a habit of sending before I check.
Sometimes I like the way my posts come out. It is sort of my style, and if the spelling mistakes make people laugh, then it is OK because I have brought a little bit of humor into the cyber life.
I think this can all be summed up by the classic :rolleyes:
I'm laughing at you, not at some joke you made...do you not realize that people might take you seriously if it looked like you were typing with your hands and not your feet?

I don't recall ever writing anything religious, so i don't understand why you think I have a "holy" attitude. Not all conservatives are religious. I'm basically a christian guy, but sometimes I don't care about all that. <snip>
But it is a free country, you can say what you want, and I am free to make lots of typos because the computer keyboard I use really sucks, and I am always in a hurry.

-sighs-....the dictionary (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=holier-than-thou) is your friend...learn to use it for words you don't quite understand....
I was seriously trying to hold back from critizing your idiocy here when I read the stuff about partying, and realized how completely irrevelant it was to any of this discussion, and just made you look like a 12 year old.
However, I gave up on that

Only for now. In the future, maybe not in our lifetimes, the world will thank us, and Bush will be seen in the same light as a Lincoln or Eisenhower.


as A Lincoln or Eisenhower? I wasn't aware there were more than one....

This is more of that holier-than-thou attitude I was talking about...just because Bush thinks its right, and just because you blindly follow him, doesn't mean the rest of the world agrees or wants us to interfere with anything

[ThisGuyIKnow]

"I will fire who ever is responsible for this" -Bush (paraphrased) on the person that released classified information about Valerie Plame

Hmm so does that mean he has to fire himself?

[boo radley]

yeah this new information about the leak is unbelievable. an article if anyone hasn't heard... White House won’t challenge leak story (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12187153/)

[BillyTheMountain]

"I will fire who ever is responsible for this" -Bush (paraphrased) on the person that released classified information about Valerie Plame

Hmm so does that mean he has to fire himself?

We think so.

[Bud-Litebulb]

I'd hate to say it everybody, but bush will be redeemed.
he is like a cat, and he always falls on all four feet.
the american people are totally behind him.
He wont resign. He wont get kicked out. In a few months, we will all be laughing at this, what a silly idea that the COMMANDER IN CHEIF (may i remind you all that he is a WAR PRESIDENT, in a time of war) actually did something illegal. There is an explaination for all this, and as soon as the feeding frenzy calms dowm and all the pirranahahs stop chewing at out president, the facts will emerge, and he will be shown to have done nothing wrong.
So, go ahead, Bring It On!
the anti-bush crowd will look foolish in the end, as they always do.

I for one (like britney spears:p) will continue to trust President Bush.

You guys go ahead and continue to be on the side of the terrorists by trying to drag this brave man down.

(i dont mean that you are consiously on the side of the terrorists, you all mean well in your anti-american rants against the president, and i am not calling anyone antibush a terrorist, but if you tear this man down, you can be sure that the terrorists will smile. we must not make the terrorists smile, we must make them pay for what they did!!!)

[monkeyman]

You may have promised to work on your typing, but your posts are still as unintelligible as ever.

I'd hate to say it everybody, but bush will be redeemed.
he is like a cat, and he always falls on all four feet.
the american people are totally behind him.
Yeah, I'm sure he will be...
that must explain why the polls are at...last time I heard, 60, 65% disapproval? maybe more?
Yeah, we're totally behind him :rolleyes:

[boo radley]

alright i see what's going on here... bud-litebulb is a staunch democrat getting off on pretending to be the stereotypical flag-waving, truth avoiding, mindless bush supporter.

am i right?

[Bud-Litebulb]

am i right?
No, mr 2-eyeballs in one.
You are whrong!
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA !

I mean, you can believe all you want to believe, but I am an all-american bud-light drinking guy who believes in america.

a breath of fresh air among all the stale old liberals who sit around these forums:rolleyes:

[Bud-Litebulb]

Yeah, we're totally behind him
I'm glad, Mr. Monkeyman, that my powers of persuasion are finally gettimg through to you.
Welcome to the club of Bush supporters.
Good to see that you admit that you are behind our presudent:)

[johnfoss]

Oh boy.
he is like a cat, and he always falls on all four feet.
Remember that time he crashed a Segway? :)

Hey, wait a second. How many feet does George Bush have?
the american people are totally behind him.
An interesting thought. Today I heard approval rating is 35%. At least a few of us are not totally behind him. What on earth makes you think the above? The fact is, a continually shrinking number of American people are totally behind him.
In a few months, we will all be laughing at this, what a silly idea that the COMMANDER IN CHEIF (may i remind you all that he is a WAR PRESIDENT, in a time of war) actually did something illegal.
A lot of presidents do illegal stuff, it's true. Are you implying that because we're at war the laws *don't count as much* or something? Or maybe they should only be applied to some people, but not the president and his supporters? That's not a new thought, but it still doesn't play.

BTW, EVERY president is commander-in-chief, war or no war. Real war or artifically-produced war.

So anyway, A lot of us are laughing at this now.
There is an explaination for all this, and as soon as the feeding frenzy calms dowm and all the pirranahahs stop chewing at out president, the facts will emerge, and he will be shown to have done nothing wrong.
Why wait? Why not kill the feeding frenzy before it starts, with said facts? What facts are being withheld? Why?
the anti-bush crowd will look foolish in the end, as they always do.
The "opposition" always looks a little foolish, because it always contains naysayers that disagree with everything the president does, simply because he's doing them. However, the 35% approval rating says that the anti-Bush crowd is growing. As time goes on, the Bush administration is the one that is slowly backing into a political corner.

The war in Iraq is not very similar to the Vietnam war, but there are elements of similarity. Say it's 1971 or so, and you're a big supporter of President Nixon. What should we have done with Vietnam then? Was it a "just" war? A "winnable" war? A "worthwhile" war? Brief history lesson: we lost.
You guys go ahead and continue to be on the side of the terrorists by trying to drag this brave man down.
There's more to the world than "us" and "the terrorists." A Democrat is not a terrorist. Someone trying to protect the integrity of the United States Constitution (which is the President's job, BTW) is not a terrorist. Someone who wants their country to do right is not a terrorist. If any of those people seem like terrorists to you, it's time for you to re-examine things.
if you tear this man down, you can be sure that the terrorists will smile. we must not make the terrorists smile, we must make them pay for what they did!!!)
Which terrorists? The 9/11 terrorists or the insurgents in Iraq who are trying to get their country back? If insurgents, which ones of those? They aren't all members of the same group you know, there are many different agendas out there.

Blah.

[GILD]

No, mr 2-eyeballs in one.
You are whrong!
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA !

I mean, you can believe all you want to believe, but I am an all-american bud-light drinking guy who believes in america.

a breath of fresh air among all the stale old liberals who sit around these forums

I believe BooRadley called this one correctly, the only challenge now is to try n figure out who is behind this BLB persona.
So far I have two suspects.

[maestro8]

I mean, you can believe all you want to believe, but I am a drunk who believes in whatever the TV says.

There, I fixed it for you.

Troll.

*yawns*

Thanh-uni was a wa-a-a-ay better troll than your kind.

[Zzagg]

So far I have two suspects.
Please tell me Billy The Mountain hasn't gone too far with his personnality troubles;) If he happens to be BLB, then there's nothing we, or any shrink, can do for him...
Billy... you're still with us?:p :D

[GILD]

Please tell me Billy The Mountain hasn't gone too far with his personnality troubles
That's one down...

[monkeyman]

I'm glad, Mr. Monkeyman, that my powers of persuasion are finally gettimg through to you.
Welcome to the club of Bush supporters.
Good to see that you admit that you are behind our presudent:)
Funny, this is exactly how my ELEVEN year old brother responds to sarcasm...witty, no?

You are whrong!
Is it possible to make a typo this bad, or did you geniunely spell wrong whrong?

You guys go ahead and continue to be on the side of the terrorists by trying to drag this brave man down.
So, society nowadays defines bravery as giving some orders that send people to their untimely, unfair, and unneeded deaths?
Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=bravery) defines bravery as
a quality of spirit that enables you to face danger of pain without showing fear

The only bravery Bush has shown is facing the danger of assassination without showing fear

[cowsrutterlysexy]

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new waysto harm our country and our people, and neither do we"

"We discussed the way forward in Iraq, discussed the importance of a democracy in the greater Middle East in order to leave behind a peaceful tomarrow"

"I can only speak to myself"'

"It's in our country's best intrest to find those who would do harm to us and get them out of harms way"
:mad:

[monkeyman]

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new waysto harm our country and our people, and neither do we"
Never seen that one before...be original at least

"We discussed the way forward in Iraq, discussed the importance of a democracy in the greater Middle East in order to leave behind a peaceful tomarrow"
So he has a problem with tenses :rolleyes:

"I can only speak to myself"'
Yes, I'm sure you've never made a small mistake like this

If you're going to bash Bush, do it because he's a failure as a president who is destroying and alienating the Middle East, among numerous other faults.
Don't do it because he has a problem with speaking.
Is society seriously this screwed up that we''ll elect the person who speaks the best? Isn't it better to listen to the speech, and not the misspoken words in it?

[johnfoss]

Isn't it better to listen to the speech, and not the misspoken words in it?
Very well said. Mr. Bush does not suck because he's a lousy public speaker and can't say "nuclear." The other reasons definitely outweigh that.

[GILD]

If you're going to bash Bush, do it because he's a failure as a president who is destroying and alienating the Middle East, among numerous other faults.
To paraphrase Henry Rollins:"Bashing President Bush for not talkin' so well is a lot like punching out a 12 year old, satisfying, but nothing you want to build a career on."

Now, buy the T-shirt (http://www.t-shirthumor.com/Merchant2/products/nucu.html?Category_Code=tops).

[unicycle6869]

I saw a GREAT little round sticker on a car today that I LOVED. It had a picture of Bush with a red slash through it (like the no-smoking signs) and the words around it said, "No More Bushit!"

[Crackbrain]

Bush has one thing that keeps the american people following him
fear of terrorists and gays
if that doesn't work he'll just cut taxes

[monkeyman]

Bush has one thing that keeps the american people following him
fear of terrorists and gays
if that doesn't work he'll just cut taxes
yeah buddy...you keep thinking that...
"Oh no, the terrorists are coming!!! And right behind them...no...it can't be...IT'S THE GAYS!!!! Quick, let's find President Bush! He'll save us"
:rolleyes:

[Bud-Litebulb]

yeah buddy...you keep thinking that...
"Oh no, the terrorists are coming!!! And right behind them...no...it can't be...IT'S THE GAYS!!!! Quick, let's find President Bush! He'll save us"
:rolleyes:
Silly Monkeyman
I am indifferent to Gays. I dont care one way or another about them. They wanna get married, no problwm. It is none of my business what 2 hu man beings do in the sack, or who they love.
I have gay friends, and to me they are the same as my straight friends.

I do think the terrorists are coming, and I9 do think that Pressident Bush is protecting the nation.

Gays dont fit in anywhere thewre, except that there were a fair number of gays killed on 911, and they were as pissed off as anyone else.

Dont hang the homophobic label on ME, bozo.

Buddy

ps hows my typing? Better, eh?

[ThisGuyIKnow]

I have a rock that keeps away tigers

[johnfoss]

hows my typing? Better, eh?
I counted eight typos. That means yes.

[unijesse]

hes doin great

[GILD]

ps hows my typing? Better, eh?
Thanx for making the effort.

[BillyTheMountain]

hes doin great

hes doin great At widening the gap between rich and poor. More Americans moved into poverty under Bush, and more billionaires have been created. Half of those billionaires are not in the USA, because Bush is loyal to a small group of multinational wealthy folks--remember the Saudis binLaden visiting his ranch and getting a special jet out of the USA in the days after 9/11/01.

[GILD]

Bush singing 'Imagine' (vocals culled from various speeches) over isuals from Iraq. (http://www.flabber.nl/archief/015823.php)

[Gilby]

More Americans moved into poverty under Bush Is that his fault? The dot com bubble burst and this started before he got into office. This caused a recession.

and more billionaires have been created. Nothing different there as time goes on. What you need to look at is the rate of increase in these billionaires to draw a conclusion. Not just the fact that there are more, because that usually will be the case.

[monkeyman]

Silly Monkeyman
I am indifferent to Gays. I dont care one way or another about them. They wanna get married, no problwm. It is none of my business what 2 hu man beings do in the sack, or who they love.
I have gay friends, and to me they are the same as my straight friends.

blah blah blah

Buddy

ps hows my typing? Better, eh?


hmm.....my post was a little misleading...I was talking to crackbrain, the guy I quoted...not you.....I meant buddy in a generic sense


I do think the terrorists are coming, and I9 do think that Pressident Bush is protecting the nation.

The terrorists are coming because of his efforts to "protect" the nation

[GILD]

The terrorists are coming because of his efforts to "protect" the nation
Yeah, can you say Madeleine Albright?
"Collateral Damage"?

Two pics.

http://www.unicyclist.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=12903&stc=1&d=1144860493

http://www.unicyclist.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=12904&stc=1&d=1144860493



If there isn't enough pathos/irony in those two pics to knock you flat on your arse, you may want to check your pulse.

Let's give peace a chance.

[monkeyman]

Yeah, can you say Madelein Allbright?
"Collateral Damage"?
I'm afraid I have no idea what you're talking about
And what exactly is ironic about the two pictures?
I understand the pathos remark, but not the irony

[ThisGuyIKnow]

Is that his fault? The dot com bubble burst and this started before he got into office. This caused a reccession.


Whether he caused it or not he hasn't done anyhting to improve the situation only to exacerbate it, such as raising student loan rates in order to give tax cuts to the wealthy.

[GILD]

Required reading (http://www.refuseandresist.org/normalcy/111601edherman.html) re the Madeleine Albright comment.

I'm talking about the differences in the expressions on the childrens' faces. The differences in their relationships with their Fathers at those moments.
I suspect 'irony' may not be the perfect word to use in this instance.
I'm sure one of the forum-wordsmiths will be along to point out the word I need to describe it.

[monkeyman]

I'm talking about the differences in the expressions on the childrens' faces. The differences in their relationships with their Fathers at those moments.
I suspect 'irony' may not be the perfect word to use in this instance.
I'm sure one of the forum-wordsmiths will be along to point out the word I need to describe it.
I think I understand your meaning...irony definitely isn't the right word...however, I am by no means a good wordsmith...I butcher english

[monkeyman]

Wow...I just finished reading that report/essay/thing...eye-opening to say the least.
I must confess it was a little over my head, because I didn't really try to understand it as hard as I could have, but the general gist I got is that the American media and government is extremely hypocritical...big surprise there

[cowsrutterlysexy]

Never seen that one before...be original at least


So he has a problem with tenses :rolleyes:


Yes, I'm sure you've never made a small mistake like this

If you're going to bash Bush, do it because he's a failure as a president who is destroying and alienating the Middle East, among numerous other faults.
Don't do it because he has a problem with speaking.
Is society seriously this screwed up that we''ll elect the person who speaks the best? Isn't it better to listen to the speech, and not the misspoken words in it?

You're true about the "i can only speak to myself" one but the others are funny because even though they are mistakes, they are close to the truth. He does, indirectly, harm the country by making bad decisions, and He does want to leave peace behind, he showed us by going into a war with iraq. I'm not making fun of him because he makes gramatical errors, I'm making fun of him because the errors make the statement more truthful.:rolleyes:

[napalm]

Accuse me of liking to punch 12 year old kids..... but i heard a great new white house statement re: the leaking of information- not sure if it was on the Iraq invasion leadup of the information that blew the cover of that CIA agent
"president bush has never leaked intelligence" AAAHAHahahahahhahaha...... my god that was satisfying.....cigarette anyone?
mark

[GILD]

"president bush has never leaked intelligence"
Right up there with "I am not a crook."

[steveyo]

Right up there with "I am not a crook."
...and "We do no torture."

[boo radley]

well i suppose you have to have some intelligence before you can leak it.

[monkeyman]

You're true about the "i can only speak to myself" one but the others are funny because even though they are mistakes, they are close to the truth. He does, indirectly, harm the country by making bad decisions, and He does want to leave peace behind, he showed us by going into a war with iraq. I'm not making fun of him because he makes gramatical errors, I'm making fun of him because the errors make the statement more truthful.:rolleyes:

I don't think he wants to leave peace behind....he wants peace, he's just too dumb to know how to go about accomplishing that...
War is necessary for peace sometimes...like the world wars...now?
Definitely not

[cowsrutterlysexy]

I guess he is too stupid to figure out how to achieve peace, but I don't think that wars are ever at all necessary to achieve peace. Okay mabey in some cases, Hitler, but not in this case. To achieve peace in this situation, everyone could just move to Canada. Then the world would be mad at the US but thier would be no one there to bomb. Ha.:p

[monkeyman]

I guess he is too stupid to figure out how to achieve peace, but I don't think that wars are ever at all necessary to achieve peace. Okay mabey in some cases, Hitler, but not in this case. To achieve peace in this situation, everyone could just move to Canada. Then the world would be mad at the US but thier would be no one there to bomb. Ha.:p

I think my IQ just dropped into the negative range