Bush: Good or Bad

[Portuguese]

Do you really think that 2 Vs 8 is the issue here.
The real question is teh attitude...
Just compare both!

 

[Alcibiaties of Athenae]

I have just about ENOUGH of certain posters attempting to turn CFC's Off Topic into the Democratic party's crying towel.

Interestingly enough, they also happen to be the most insolent and disrepectful posters as well, prone to saying "Bush is a moron", and other such drival.

Normally, I care not for this nonsense, only a first class idiot would say something like that, but that DOESN'T mean I have to read it day after day.

Change your ways, explain WHY you disagree with Bush, and do it in a conversational manor, becasue this stupidity has prompted yet ANOTHER new rule, "Bush/US rants", will deleated ON SIGHT.

If you cannot articulate why you feel as you do, don't bother posting.

And for those who like to make little scarcastic comments about the moderating, they WILL DRAW A ONE WEEK BAN.

I will return the civility to this board if I have to ban a 100 posters.

 

[JollyRoger]

I feel that since Bush/Cheney/Ashcroft have took power that there has been a sort of trickle down effect of their disrespect for freedom of expression. Ashcroft basically says that anybody that voices criticism of Justice Department actions regarding terrorists and the potential dilution of civl rights for law abiding Americans gives aid and comfort to the terrorists. That makes Ashcroft a shill for the terrorists as he has allowed them to cut into a basic value of the American system (freedom to voice concern without being labelled as treasonous). AgentsOfAshcroft see the treason but not the reason. Silliness and reasoning are assigned addresses on a one-way dead-end street and dissent is held to a higher standard than defense.

With all that being said, I do not think Bush is a moron or semi-literate. He has a vision that is not shared by me and drives me just as crazy as Clinton drove partisan Republicans crazy. I think he is making several diplomatic mistakes. Iraq does not have the power to launch weapons of mass destruction on U.S. soil. The concept of pre-emptive retailiation makes no sense. If it does, then consider this post as pre-emptive retailiation and tell me if that label makes my post any less aggressive or foolhardy. Bush's aggressive action against Iraq will only mobilize the terrorist community and make it more inspired and determined to cause damage in terms of American lives and the American way of life. If that happens in light of an ongoing war with Iraq, we will not garner as much sympathy from the rest of the world as we did for 9/11. For these reasons among others, in answer to the question posed by the poll, the Bush regime (that includes his appointees) has not been good for America.

 

[The Troquelet]

AoA, interested to hear [in all due respect] where the line will be drawn on this. If I post a topic saying, "Yes, Bush is completely unintelligent" and bring up EVIDENCE to back me up [such as his grades in college, his recent actions as president], will THAT be deleted too? I can't remember ranting without bringing facts to corroborate my argument

And once more I see people equating Clinton with liberals. I am a liberal, I did not support Clinton. 'Nuff said.

 

[Portuguese]

Stop arguing about that Dem/Rep disput. Wgat we are talking here is not which one is better, is if Bush should even be his party chosen one!!!
How could so meny people have chosen him to run for US president?!?
I'm not here defending Al Gore or any other option, please note.
As for Clinton, he was not perfect (in many many ways, as you know...), but at least he seemed to be much better when leading with other countries.
Bush's, Rumsfeld's and (that lady... I don't know the name but you sure know... it's an Italian name, I think...)'s attitude and Bush's desastrous speeches and low-justified actions (when they are even justified ) make him difficult to beat as the worst US president since... it's creation. Therefore, Clinton was bad, but better than Bush Junior!

Just an opinion, I know, but many many people thinks this way. I can assure you that. Just read international press...
If you understood brazilian, I would even recomend you Globo's humour centre, charges.globo.com . That would be ellucidative.

 

[onejayhawk]

Originally posted by JollyRoger
With all that being said, I do not think Bush is a moron or semi-literate. He has a vision that is not shared by me and drives me just as crazy as Clinton drove partisan Republicans crazy.

This is a fascinating observation. I find him one of the most straight forward, upfront and consistently frank politicians on the stage. When he says there is a war on terror, I believe him. Just that. A war. On terrorism. No need to look for ulterior motives.

J

 

[JollyRoger]

Originally posted by onejayhawk


This is a fascinating observation. I find him one of the most straight forward, upfront and consistently frank politicians on the stage. When he says there is a war on terror, I believe him. Just that. A war. On terrorism. No need to look for ulterior motives.

J

I don't think my post implied that he was not straight forward. But now that you mention it, his administration has tried to justify a potential war on Iraq by stating that they are linked to and supporting the terrorists when it is obvious that Iraq is less linked than say Saudi Arabia. He strongly suggested that his tax cut would be paid for with the surplus, but now that there is a deficit again, he does not propose to roll back his tax cut but instead wants to cut taxes further. Any proposal to responsibly roll back or cancel future tax cuts is unfairly labelled by Bush as "raising taxes." He claims that his tax cut would eliminate the death tax, but it merely changes the way one's assets are taxed at death. He said the need for a tax cut was immediate, but the bulk of his tax cut comes when he is out of office (even if he gets two terms) and it will be the next sucker's job to fix the mess of diminishing tax revenues (from the cut & from Baby Boomers retiring) combined with increased need for government services (Baby Boomers retiring). He boldly claims that doing drugs supports the terrorists (money for drugs finds its way into the hands of terrorosts) when there is a much more obvious and direct link to driving an SUV and supporting terrorists. (God, how I despise people that think putting a flag on their SUV makes them patriotic).

The main point to the part of my post that you quoted is that I do not share his vision for America. I think he his bad for the economy on the domestic front and is permantly scarring some of our diplomatic ties on the foreign front. When we are in a social security crisis 10 to 20 years from now and have less world support diplomatically, I don't think anyone will be able to blame Clinton. It will be Bush squandering what Clinton handed him (a budget surplus and general respect for America's role on the world stage).

 

[klazlo]

Originally posted by onejayhawk
I find him one of the most straight forward, upfront and consistently frank politicians on the stage. When he says there is a war on terror, I believe him. Just that. A war. On terrorism. No need to look for ulterior motives.J

Actually you're not wrong. I do believe that he really does believe in what he is saying. When he says war on terror, he really means it because due to the extreme simplicity of his personality he is unable to decode the big picture. I saw him in some talkshow saying that Saddam wanted to kill his daddy so he has to go! That's a really good reason for a war...
My point is that his associates, first of all Cheney and Ashcroft are the real danger for America because they don't give a damn to any other people only their own corporate interests. They tell Bush what to do, how to see things and since they are really smart and pursuesive people, Bush buys all their stuff and of course they filter and comment any information from the outside world for the president.
I'm not saying that Bush is some evil dictator. He is a simple, straight man from texas who is probably late about 150 years. The president and his administration together do the wrong think with short term thinking and misinterpreting the way how the only superpower should run. It can pay off in the short run and maybe gain W. another term, but in the long run the US will definitely loose.
And I don't care who is republican and who is democrat. I'm not american, I'm not allowed to vote and I'll be out of the country in a couple of years. But most of you guys will live here in the rest of your lives. If this is what you want - your call.

 

[Juize]

Bush? Good for America? In the long run? Ummm... No?

 

[Alcibiaties of Athenae]

Originally posted by The Troquelet
AoA, interested to hear [in all due respect] where the line will be drawn on this. If I post a topic saying, "Yes, Bush is completely unintelligent" and bring up EVIDENCE to back me up [such as his grades in college, his recent actions as president], will THAT be deleted too? I can't remember ranting without bringing facts to corroborate my argument

No, it would not!
That's EXACTLY what I want to see, THE REASON WHY you feel as you do!
Usually I don't mind people blowing off steam, but they always seem to forget that what may be a release, is an attack on someone else, and I don't mean Bush, but people who support the US President in times of war (like now).
I don't agree with everything he says or does, but I can say WHY, and I expect everyone else to as well, it makes for stimulating and interesting conversation.
9 times out of ten, is someone begins with "Bush is a semi-illerterate moron, in the pocket of big buisness...ECT" it will bring the predictable counter-insult, either at the poster or his nation of origin.
All I ask is you EXPLAIN, and be polite, when you meet people on the street, do you yell in their faces?
Most of us don't, I can't see why it's such a strech to ask for good manors on the net.

And once more I see people equating Clinton with liberals. I am a liberal, I did not support Clinton. 'Nuff said.

Clinton was a Reagan Democrat, as I recall.
He also seemed to love to attack people (Kosovo, Sudan, Somalia {Really Bush senior's fault} Afghanistan), yet he was the darling of Europe.
It's a fasinating double standard, and I'd like to see people articulate on it.

 

[DinoDoc]

IIRC, You forgot a few countries in that list Chris.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by Ming
No need for this to get ugly... it's just a matter of opinion.

I'm an American, and my only response is...

He beats the Alternative.

<--------Me Too.

We dodged a bullet, not getting that Chinese agent named Gore. I voted for Nader, hoping to upset the apple cart and get an independant some of the funding that they should get, but no avail.

 

[Alcibiaties of Athenae]

It serves it's purpose Dino.

Clinton was a continous warmonger, was proven to have lied to a court (The offense he was impeached for), and then lied to the US in general, tried to avoid a court deposition by starting a convient "attack" on Bin Laden, yet I see people go on about how they prefer him over Bush.

Instead of insisting that Bush is a moron, I'd like to hear why they prefer a man with zero scrupples who loved to bomb at will (Clinton) over a man that has followed internation law every step of the way(Bush).

 

[The Troquelet]

That's a false dilemma. There aren't just two options, Bush or Clinton/Gore, or else I'd agree with you! I think the Democrats can put up someone better as a paragon of liberalism to face off Bush than Clinton - or even Gore.

FL2, nice to hear what source you're reading that I'm not that reveals that Gore was ever a Chinese agent.

 

[onejayhawk]

Originally posted by The Troquelet
FL2, nice to hear what source you're reading that I'm not that reveals that Gore was ever a Chinese agent.

I thought the fund raising from a bunch of monks who had taken vows of poverty was common knowledge.

J

PS I would have voted for Gore over Clinton in a heartbeat. Gore is IMHO a reasonably honest politician. Clinton is demonstratably not, even by the low standards we use for politicians, remotely honest. Using a 10 point standard, with Gore as 5 and Carter as 8, Clinton scores negative numbers.

PPS Tentitively I give Bush 7.5.

 

[Sultan Bhargash]

Originally posted by onejayhawk

PS I would have voted for Gore over Clinton in a heartbeat. Gore is IMHO a reasonably honest politician. Clinton is demonstratably not, even by the low standards we use for politicians, remotely honest. Using a 10 point standard, with Gore as 5 and Carter as 8, Clinton scores negative numbers.
PPS Tentitively I give Bush 7.5.

Carter only merits an 8? Who gets a ten in your book?

Funny, I would NOT vote for Gore over Clinton (I would certainly have taken McCain over Bush though...). It has nothing to do with honesty and everything to do with authoritarianism. Gore turned me off long ago when his wife started labelling record albums for us. He'd have gotten in and spent the first year trying to do too much to change the system, and then IF September 11 happened with Gore and Lieberman in charge, why FEMA would be escorting every citizen to work and the mall every day by now.

Whereas Clinton would have said "Don't worry", we would have stopped worrying, and he would have secretly committed troops all over the world and quietly altered the constitution and gotten just about the same results as Bush but with cleaner underpants for me...

 

[CurtSibling]

Originally posted by Steve Winer


Hate is not what I was saying. Involvement in the middle east conflicts caused Arabs to dislike America, and thus Sept. 11 came of it (Remember, over 2,000 Americans died). Non- involvement in the Middle East conflicts will save more American lives than all this stepped up security in America.

Hate goes both ways.
And I am talking worldwide here.

The mercenary media lies and spin has to stop in;
America, Europe, Mid East, Asia and Eurasia.

This is what is feeding the ignorance and hate.

 

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Sultan Bhargash
Whereas Clinton would have said "Don't worry", we would have stopped worrying, and he would have secretly committed troops all over the world and quietly altered the constitution and gotten just about the same results as Bush but with cleaner underpants for me...

That's a very strange view to take.

 

[VinCaiden]

I voted Non-American: Yes, cause I think bush has been good for America. I, however, disagree with all the actions he has taken since Sept. 11. I think they have been what was best for america but again, America thinks only of america. If the vote had have been do you think Bush is a good president, I'd have voted no

 

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by VinCaiden
If the vote had have been do you think Bush is a good president, I'd have voted no

A president is suppossed to do what is good for America. That's one of the reasons Carter is considered a bad president.