George W. Bush

[rustyslacker]

So, what's the deal with Georgie? Discuss.

[Nomad]

You're not a very good conversation starter, Rusty. It's generally good practice to, you know, give some kind of starting argument.

[rustyslacker]

Okay.

I think he's a n00b. He's based his whole presidency on a war that only 30-some percent of American citizens approve of, and his speeches leave something to be desired. His terms have been plagued by high oil prices, which can somewhat be attributed to him as well. Free speech is dying. NOW discuss. ;)

[Doom_Dude]

...actually some of his speeches are very well done. After 9/11 and a lot of air traffic was redirected here to Halifax and Canadians responded by offering people places to stay and such, Mr. Bush came and gave a speech (to thank Canadians for thier support and such). I was kinda impressed with what he had to say (watched it on the TV), although I don't personally like the guy at all. Whoever writes his stuff did a good job at least on that one occasion. ;) I don't listen to many political speeches tho.

[rustyslacker]

Sorry, I meant press conferences. I watched his most recent one and he weaseled out of a bunch of stuff.

[Nomad]

Last I heard, he doesn't read any of the speeches that are handed to him. He likes to "wing it," apparantly. Which is why he slips a lot with making up words.

I've never really paid much attention to his speeches myself. I think he's a douchebag, and most likely doesn't have much important to say that I dont' already know.

[jetflock]

he is a puppet.

[Nomad]

he is a puppet.

All Presidents are.

[jetflock]

no shit,lol. seriously though, they don't get much dumber than him.
(only in regards to the last comment, i don't wanna stretch the obvious)
EDIT: "....Politicians are 2 notches under child molesters...."
-Woody Allen

[Doom_Dude]

Unfortunately Bushwacker will never pull the troops out of Iraq and they won't be coming home until the next president makes it so. Lets hope the next guy has his shit together, whoever that may be.

[Phoebus]

I'm done with Bush. I've given him the last benefit of the doubt, and am tired of making excuses for him. He's an idiot. I can't stand to hear him / watch him speak.
Can't wait for 2 years to go by, when we can replace him. Anyone but Hillary, please Lord. It's impossible to think of a worse president. Maybe Carter was, but at least he was intelligent and could string two words together coherently. Actually, Bush isn't *dumb*. He just sounds that way. Nobody who graduated from Harvard with honors can be considered stupid. And no, you can't just get by on your connections alone. I'm sure he has some sort of mental/speech impediment. But he's wrong, on so many accounts. And he's dangerous, because he's arrogant. And he has absolutely zero likeability factor, which of course Clinton at least had in spades. Anyway, Bush is the worst President we've ever had, and I don't think he'll be redeemed by historians, no matter how much time lends a kinder perspective.

Oops! What am I doing here?

[Doom_Dude]

Yeah he is indeed arrogant to the point where I believe that he thinks he can do no wrong.

Oops, I gotta go make a corn chowder. hehe.

[jetflock]

well, I use "dumb" just because you can say so many negative things about him at this point, its a subject thats not even interesting anymore because its one of those things thats been talked about so much....

[rustyslacker]

It's impossible to think of a worse president.
I can think of two, and one of them is Hillary. I think a few people know the other one is. subeohp lieh

[jetflock]

Not to be off subject, but its an interesting point of view-
"Hey Rube" by Hunter S.Thompson
Its Thompson's sports writings during the September 11 shit-he touches on Bush and how he came to office.
I just found it an interesting read because I never came across anything he wrote regarding Bush before.
Skim through it at a bookstore, its a fairly short book.

[eX_Do0mY]

George Bush is simply a Warmonger, and he takes the executive in chief of military a little too seriously. He does have a few good things going. The immigration reform sounds pretty good, even though the U.S. will be shoving lots of people back to Mexico. But shoving those illegals down where they came from opens jobs back up for legal Americans, and allows more tax money to flow back into the government, and therefore improving America's economic situation somewhat.

On the other hand, Clinton was a good president, and had America's economy in the best shape it had been in a long time. Although he ruined his reputation with Monica Lewinsky. (sp?)

[Yagisan]

As a someone from outside of the USA, I have to say, he sure acts a lot like those terrorists he claims to be protecting us (the free world) from. He is convinced his way is right, He's convinced God is on his side. At least with Afganistan he had a plausable excuse, Iraq ? that looks like it was personal revenge.

[FATAL]

It's impossible to think of a worse president.
Nixon has been the worst one I think.

The main problem with Bush is that he doesn't do anything by the UN book, and actually I believe that almost every single decision USA has made about foreign politics has been frowned upon in the rest of the world. For example, UN didn't agree at a single point to allow anyone to attack Afghanistan or Iraq. USA plays by its own rules, and it should clean up its own mess. Asking for UN's support to help rebuilding Afghanistan and Iraq is incredibly hypocritic.

[Grimlock[EOD]]

Let me ask a question? What crisis has the UN ever solved? Lets look at the conflict in Darfur where the UN threw it's hands up and said there's nothing we can do.

Has the UN solved the NK nuclear crisis? Did the UN solve the Iraq crisis? I mean they had 10 years and a dozen plus resolutions. They threw out the UN inspectors for years. Is the UN solving the Iranian Nuclear crisis?

Name one they have solved.

Now tell me why we want to do something by their book when their book has yet to produce results?

Was the UN or Reagan responsible for the Berlin wall falling? Was the UN or Reagan responsible for the end of the cold war? Was the UN or Reagan responsible for democratization of various countries that were part of Russia?

I'm not saying Reagan was perfect, I have quite a few issues with stuff he did, but on the whole he was far better than any that have followed him, Bush included.

[Sigma]

Iraqi crisis? What crisis?

Iranian crisis? They've managed to enrich uranium. America has 20 megaton hydrogen bombs!

I have been to Berlin and most of the east and west Germans wished the wall had not come down actually.

The Cold War? That was half the fault of America!

America hasn't solved anything.

[Aliotroph?]

Last time I checked a bunch of rowdy Germans were responsible for the Berlin Wall falling. Reagan just escalated an arms race. The USSR would eventually have collapsed anyway. But yeah, the UN sucks. They spend too much time being politically correct because that's all they can do. You can't take 192 countries and get them to agree on practical stuff when their interests are conflicting. The WHO is good though.

Bush is a retard. I remember watching one of his campaign speeches and thinking "WTF!" I can't understand why the Republicans wanted him and not a smart guy like McCain who believes in things like debating issues and who can speak well.

That said, Bush has gotten a lot better at parts of his job. He seems to have finally given in and decided to read speeches. I saw him make an excellent one on TV when the Pope died. It was way too clever for him -- he even got the Terri Schiavo thing in there via his "culture of life" euphamism.

And I agree. Let's hot have any Hillary. She's scary. I'm fairly convinced she doesn't believe in anything but power and money.

[Grimlock[EOD]]

What Iraqi crisis.... Why are we in Iraq right now? That crisis. Had the UN with all their resolutions solved the problem, we wouldn't be there.

I see... Iran is not a problem. Using your logic, we should not have worried about North Korea saying it wasn't developing nukes. Only it was, it lied. Now by the way it's threatened to Nuke us, claims to have a missile that can reach us (except it failed on launch), and threatens to light Japan ablaze should we act against it. Ok so we were wrong to believe NK but we should believe Iran, that they won't develop a nuke, and give it to a terrorist org, because hey they love us... and they don't already sponsor terrorism. Oh wait, they don't love us, and they do actively sponsor terrorism. Oh and they are committed to destroying another country and have said such openly.

Most "wars" are half the fault of someone. Honestly I'm not well versed on how it all started, and I'm not going to research it for the purposes of this thread. My point still stands. What did the UN do to ease the conditions that fueled the cold war? Nothing.

Name me one conflict the UN has gotten into where they have made a difference? People talk about the bad things some troops in Iraq do. I'm sure some of it's true. Take 300,000 citizens of any country, you will have rapists and murderers in that group. Statistically you are going to find bad apples in the Military as well. But hey you have UN peace keepers raping and killing people and that doesn't get anywhere near the press coverage. Because we all love the UN and yet they do nothing of value.

Don't tell me I'm wrong. SHOW me I'm wrong. Back it up with facts and not conjecture.

[Grimlock[EOD]]

I'm really amazed that you base a person's intellect and quality on their public speaking abilities. Some of the most brilliant people in the world are also some of the worse public speakers and many are completely socially inept. John McCain on the other hand needs to pick and issue and stick with it. Now he's cozying up to the right wing christians that he previously criticized because he knows he needs their vote.

I don't believe McCain is a bad person. I think he means well but I don't think he'd be effective. I don't think Bush has been that effective but I do believe he's a genuine person with strong beliefs and doesn't waiver over opinion polls. It's like he said. He'd rather be right than popular. That's not to say that if everyone says don't do this and you do, you're a genious. I'm not saying that. But public opinion on the invasion of Iraq was high at the time he did it. Now that people are getting turned off by casualties they want to bail. That's not what you do in terms of leadership. Just because it became unpopular you don't change the course if you still believe what you did was right. We'd never get anything done if we did it all by opinion polls. We had 8 years of that and what did we get? An economy that was tanking in 2000, terrorist extremists blowing us up all over the world and on our own soil and plotting a massive attack against us, rogue states developing nuclear weapons, and a host of other issues.

Oh and just to slam a Bush for a moment. I'm going to slam George H.W. Bush (41) for not taking out Saddam in the first Gulf war. They should have finished it then and we wouldn't be in this position now.

[Aliotroph?]

The public speaking assessment I have is based on what he appears to know too. In a lot of cases he never appeared to know what was even going on. He's become a lot better at that now. He has a lot of smart guys around him who can brief him well as long as he's willing to read the stuff.

Yeah, he believes things alright. But I don't like most of the things he believes. If McCain is really pandering to the polls then screw him too though. That's a very Hillary Clinton thing to do (does she even know what GTA is before she rants about it?).

[Doom-Dork]

Being from the UK I never had much of an oppinion about Bush. Then I saw the Movie/documentory Farenheit 9-11. If that is true then Bush wants lining up against a wall and shooting.

[rustyslacker]

Fahrenheit 9/11? PROPAGANDA!

[Sigma]

Not a single "weapon of mass destruction" was found in Iraq. I do not see a crisis there. I am sure this has quite a bit to do with the "public opinion" you spoke of. Being lied to by your leader tends to disillusion the people quite a bit. And that is exactly what he did to prompt us to invade Iraq.

Concerning genocides and Darfur, America has done that with the Native Americans. Britian with the Indians. Frace with the Vietnamese. Germany with the Jews. Russia with the Jews. Japan with the Chinese and et cetera. However, even then, the so-called "crisis" is negated considering we knew what was going on for well over a decade.

War on terror? Ridiculous. It isn't bad enough that America is fighting an invisible enemy, but that coupled with rampant Communist-like wolf crying has reduced this nation to a state of idiocy in the likeness of the fifties and sixties "red" scare.

Berlin wall:

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/europe/germany/10/02/unified.anniversary/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/europe/9911/09/wall.head/index.html?eref=sitesearch

Speaking to German people who live in Berlin is much more profound than reading an article. While I was in Germany, I heard a fair amount of anguish being demonstrated by people from both sides. One individual from East Germany even proclaimed he wanted the wall to be rebuilt.

To understand the Cold War, you need to start from the beginning. The beginning was World War I. I insist that you research World War I and World War II.

North Korea's "nuclear power" is hand-me-down junk from the USSR. North Korea has not done anything America hasn't done thousands of times. Furthermore, as I had previously stated, the nation is only frustrated because America has consistently screwed the nation (this time in the form of offering a resolution to the Iran "problem" that happens to be several times better than the deal North Korea had been given).

The UN does little because it is not backed up properly. Of course no one takes the UN seriously, and thus achieves little; it attempts to take diplomatic action when countries like America and Britian are a part of it! You cannot do this! You cannot do that! But we can do whatever we want! I believe this is how other nations regard the UN and therefore, is the reason it does little. It makes perfect sense to me.

I believe America "checking" other nations so to speak will only work so long. The current definition of terrorism is something America in part created with the CIA, and has only helped fuel with the nation's unfair foreign policy ideologies. In respect to Iran, I agree-- however, it still isn't going to stop them. Perhaps the reason for nuclear stock building in other nations can be understood when analyzing the viewpoint of other nations looking at the US. Why does America need such immense nuclear capabilities?

Oh and they are committed to destroying another country and have said such openly.

Did Iraq, the USSR and Vietnam slip your mind when you made this statement? It seems to be a contest of the lesser of two evils as this point.

You seem to write as though the rest of the world does not know anything and that America knows best. Quintessential of an American individual. I do not mind being ostracized for my beliefs. I seem to be one of the few people who understands the fact that national boundaries are imaginary. The fallout from nuclear bombs does not care-- therefore, why would I?

[Aliotroph?]

Nothing wrong with propaganda. Yes, that's what that movie is, and Michael Moore is particularly manipulative (as a person he tends to make liberals look bad) but he is funny.

Now he should try doing his digging on his favourite democrat or green guy and see if the same thing doesn't happen. Of course he won't, but meh.

EDIT: Damnit, he posted that big thing while I was posting this.

There's a crisis in Iraq alright. It's a crisis for Iraqis though. They're all screwed as long as a lot of them want to keep fighting over nothing.

What you said about the UN was kind of what I said about the UN. :)

[rustyslacker]

Propaganda is only effective because people are stupid.
War on terror? Ridiculous. It isn't bad enough that America is fighting an invisible enemy, but that coupled with rampant Communist-like wolf crying has reduced this nation to a state of idiocy in the likeness of the fifties and sixties "red" scare.

You're dead on there.

[Grimlock[EOD]]

Not a single "weapon of mass destruction" was found in Iraq. I do not see a crisis there. I am sure this has quite a bit to do with the "public opinion" you spoke of. Being lied to by your leader tends to disillusion the people quite a bit. And that is exactly what he did to prompt us to invade Iraq.

Ok lets establish for the sake of argument that Bush lied about WMD's.

If you accept that argument, then you have to accept that President Clinton lied for 8 years about WMD's in Iraq, that presidential contender John Kerry lied about WMD's in Iraq, that the UN lied about WMD's in Iraq and the intelligence agencies of most major powers lied about WMD's in Iraq because all of those states that Iraq did in fact have WMD's before Bush was ever elected president.

If you agree with that statement I'm ok with that, it's consistent. If you don't, then how do you explain how you believed them when they said it but it became false only when Bush said it?

[Grimlock[EOD]]

Ah yes, the red scare... How many red attacks occured during the red scare? None. How many terrorist attacks have hit US soil? 2. How many have hit US operations around the world? Half a dozen. What about other places such as Iraq... Night clubs in Bali, Spain, there was a plot against Australia recently I believe, Brittain...

Shall I go on? Or do you believe there's no such thing as a terrorist?

[Aliotroph?]

Maybe Saddam just got scared and shipped his stuff somewhere else. Could just have been bad intelligence too. :)

You guys are right about a "war on terror." WTF is that? At best you can defend against terrorism and kill terrorists. Hard to fight a guerilla war aimed at civilians with a regular army though.

[Grimlock[EOD]]

Actually I do believe he carted a lot of it off to Syria, but that's not really the point I was making. All the people saying that Bush lied have that 2-4 year memory cycle I was referring to. They forget that everyone was calling Saddam a threat before Bush ran for office, and they just use their personal hatred for the man as a reason to ignore this and act as if he was the first person to say it, and he made it all up to deceive the world.

It's possible that he in fact invented all of this and convinced everyone long before he was elected so that he would eventually have an argument for war should he ever become elected, but that wouldn't support the argument that those same people make in calling him and idiot.

Often the President is called the most powerfull man on earth. If he's an idiot then that means there are a lot of people less intelligent than he is because he's President and we're not. I keep hearing over and over and over by the Democrat party how he deceived us.. (Note I say party as in elected national officials, I'm not trying to paint anyone who calls themself a democrat with the same brush)

To quote Ben Kenobi "Who's the more foolish... the fool or the fool who follows him?"

[Grimlock[EOD]]

You guys are right about a "war on terror." WTF is that? At best you can defend against terrorism and kill terrorists. Hard to fight a guerilla war aimed at civilians with a regular army though.

I really need to get all my thoughts together in one post reply... I'll work on it.

Anyway I agree here. It is hard. Terrorists say they will fight to the last man... All I can say is ok, we'll take you up on that offer and take you to the last man.

[rustyslacker]

Or do you believe there's no such thing as a terrorist?
Like hell. There is a such thing.

[Nomad]

The word "terrorist" is conditional, and depends on who is using it. The Islamic based Al Qaeda are considered "Terrorists" to Americans, but the PIRA in Ireland would only be considered "activists," and are nowhere to be found on the American agenda for eraticating "terrorism".

However, I'm sure that most Irish folk could care less about Al Qaeda, but are terrified of PIRA and IRA.

Of course, I'm only using an example I only have a vague understanding of, but I think you guys probably get what I'm saying.

[Doom_Dude]

On the WMD thing... they could stash that stuff anywheres in the sand and nobody would know it's there. Not like anything looks disturbed when you move a bunch of sand around. ;)

[Sigma]

Let us assume there were WMD. Why weren't they used? Saddam knew he would be removed from power, why didn't he go out with a fight? Why did Iraq as a nation put up no fight to speak of? Why did the terrorists prefer using our own planes to attack us rather than a WMD? The Middle East is a sickening mess. I do not believe anything happening there, regardless if it the action of America/Britan or Iraq/terrorists, is justified.

I am a true American at heart. The American founding fathers proclaimed "do not get involved with foreign affairs." I am quite sure this is because of the possibility of such a situation as this one manifesting itself.

The weapons of mass destruction argument is a bunch of propaganda. China does not even attempt to hide the fact it has nuclear capabilites, why haven't we invaded them? The Federal Government controls so much of what we hear that I tend not to believe any of it.

There's a crisis in Iraq alright. It's a crisis for Iraqis though. They're all screwed as long as a lot of them want to keep fighting over nothing.

A crisis that prompted America to invade or a crisis created from the invasion? ;)

How many red attacks occured during the red scare? None. How many terrorist attacks have hit US soil? 2. How many have hit US operations around the world? Half a dozen. What about other places such as Iraq... Night clubs in Bali, Spain, there was a plot against Australia recently I believe, Brittain...

As Nomad stated, "terrorist" is somewhat of an ambiguous word. To the Middle East or the former USSR, the CIA's actions could be considered terrorist. How many American bombs have been dropped in the Middle East? I guarantee that the number is higher than two.

[Grimlock[EOD]]

Well there was some discussion about using WMD's, if he had them and used them, it very well may have prompted a nuclear response. I believe before going in Bush hinted that he would respond that way. If he meant it or not, who knows. I kind of doubt it because you would have issues of fall out going into neighboring countries. It's kind of hard to drop a nuke and contain the results to just the ground.

We know he at one point had chemical weapons because he used them on the Kurds and Iran. He did do quite a bit of posturing and acting like he was still the big man. All he had to do was let the inspectors finish and verify that he had none but he kept denying them access to places and then throwing them out as if he were hiding something.

It's possible he was and that we may find them or we may not. I mean I could hide chemical weapons in Chicago and I bet you couldn't find them. It's a literal needle in a haystack type of thing. It's also possible that he used whatever he had and did not make anymore. Why then would he put up the facade?? Why have the chemical suits in the republican guard bunkers? Perhaps because he needed to maintain that strong image to the world, but more importantly to his own country. It could be a case that he feared revolt from his own troops if they suspected weakness. Sanctions were crippling the country, and they were under no fly zones basically imprisoned in their own country. It could be that he needed to look strong to stay on top.

There's a lot of speculation that's what's going on with Kim Il Jong over there. The missile tests are more about internal politics and keeping up the image of still being in full control and not letting the world tell him what to do so that some underlings don't get the idea that he's lost his edge. That's the problem with a military dictatorship. You are only the leader so long as you project the image that you can effectively lead. Otherwise someone may knock you off just as you knocked someone else off to get where you were.

For the record, I was not implying that you were anti american or questioning your patriotism or anything. I'm not one of those who thinks that if you disagree you are unamerican.

I do however have a problem in the manner in which some people disagree. There's disagreeing and then there is deliberately undercutting for the sole purpose of boosting your own political image. We have a few pieces of political trash doing that right now.

Oh and I'm going to second NO to Hillary. I hear Rudy Giulliani is going to run on the Republican side. That might be interesting. There's also talk of Obama from Illinois running for the Democrats. He's from my state. Seems like a genuine guy but with no experience at the moment. I'll have to watch and wait. Generally I'm very republican but I think there's some good Democrats out there I agree with. Likewise there's a bunch of Republicans I wouldn't trust to wash my car :)

[Aliotroph?]

A crisis that prompted America to invade or a crisis created from the invasion?

Both. The whole Middle-East is basically a big ongoing crisis. Without an invasion Iraq was a more organized crisis for its people and surrounding countries.

[Sigma]

I doubt there would have been a nuclear response. That would have been ridiculous and would have disillusioned people immediately, regardless if Saddam used mustard gas, anthrax, et cetera or not. However, he didn't respond in this manner and the weapons have yet to be recovered (granted they exist). I find it to be a bit ridiculous to use events that never transpired to defend America.

"Creating more problems than solving..."

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/03/19/1079199432028.html

For the record, I was not implying that you were anti american or questioning your patriotism or anything. I'm not one of those who thinks that if you disagree you are unamerican.

I do however have a problem in the manner in which some people disagree. There's disagreeing and then there is deliberately undercutting for the sole purpose of boosting your own political image. We have a few pieces of political trash doing that right now.

I agree. However, I detest it when people fail to consider the opposition's viewpoint before making conclusions.

[Grimlock[EOD]]

Ali,

Just for the record, had Saddam never invaded Kuwait, we wouldn't have been there at all.

As for the nuclear attack, I'm sure it was just a game of rhetoric one upsmanship on our part. But you have to wonder if say mustard, or something like Sarin gas took out 10K of our troops, if we seriously would have considered that option. Or if in retaliation he unleashed it on what was left of Kuwait at the time....

Iraq's a mess right now, and it will be for quite some time. Most wars leave messes like this for a decade or two. The problem I see is that the middle east was a cesspool of conflict for decades before this, and it probably will be after this. People there have been killing each other for a few thousand years.

It's going to take a revalation of sorts on their part that there is a better way and you have to pull it together and try and make something better rather than killing a guy driving down the street because he believes something different than you.

[lucius octavion]

In case you guys don't notice, but I think that many things are already schemed out just to brainwash the american people. And it sure has to do something with Bush as well. It doesn't look like there will be anyone better after he's gone either. For example when they said that the al qaeda leader guy has been killed, they drop two 700 pound bombs on where ever he was, supposedly at a concentrated target, and the body is intact?!!?

There's always going to be another one to replace the dead guy, you cant win unless there is a full scale assault. But that is not a very desireable thing for bush because he wants his oil and whatever and it would probably cause more conflicts. Just leave the poor guys in al qaeda alone and mind your own business! I know that sounds weird, but....

You know what really is stupid too? Those big huge vehicles that hold the soldiers, they are big heavily armored things, and guess what? They don't have any armor on the bottoms of them! Next thing you know, they drive over a huge mine and everyone in the vehicle dies!

[jetflock]

delete post. wrong can of worms, in retrospect.

[Kuwabara]

Now all i say is that this Iraqi war is a repeat of the Vietnam War..in the fact that it is lasting too long,no one supports it anymore and that the presidents approval has droped uberly. "History is doomed to repeat itself."

[Sigma]

Had Britian and America not attempted to privatize crude oil in the nation of Kuwait, a nation that was born out of the business-interests of Britian and America, Iraq would not have invaded the nation. The middle east has but one resource that the world cares about. Considering the sale and export of this resource is the single commodity keeping the middle eastern nations from being third-world, I have some understanding for the predictament. As for hoarding wealth, America is a thousand times worse, therefore, nothing can be stated without hypocrisy shadowing such statements.

The mustard gas, et cetera, never was an option. America bombed the nation of Iraq to dirt. Furthermore, we never found such things. If it is hidden in the sand somewhere, it does not do Saddam Hussein much good-- as it is not available for use without a massive excursion to retrieve it.

Iraq's a mess right now, and it will be for quite some time. Most wars leave messes like this for a decade or two. The problem I see is that the middle east was a cesspool of conflict for decades before this, and it probably will be after this. People there have been killing each other for a few thousand years.

Exactly my point. Now add a common enemy to the middle east (America) and you have one of the biggest messes since Vietnam. Nothing, short of stripping away the fabric of thousand year old cultures and several religious practices, will change this. And let us suppose this were to happen, even then America would have to install several military bases and revert the nation to a police-state (Korea comes to mind). America has outdone itself this time. The single nation that is behind America is Britian (let us be honest with ourselves), and that only goes to make perfect sense considering the situation.

[asdf]

']...Did the UN solve the Iraq crisis? I mean they had 10 years and a dozen plus resolutions....

i know someone has said this (since its a quote from the first page, but) what crisis, they were fine on there own, the person in charge was a bit messed up but, they were fine, and we went in and screwed it up, what we SHOULD have done, never woudl have tho, would be to give sadam (sp?) about 100 billion dollars to put us in charge of the country (comeon 100billion dollars, most people would go for that,well most not big countrys would,)how much have we spent so far 200billion or something? and bush is an stupid puppet, being controled by the vice president

[Nomad]

Thought you guys might enjoy this.

GEORGE W. BUSH
1600
Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington , DC 20520

EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE

LAW ENFORCEMENT
I was arrested in Kennebunkport, Maine , in 1976 for driving under the influence of alcohol. I pled guilty, paid a fine, and had my driver's license suspended for 30 days. My Texas driving record has been "lost" and is not available.

MILITARY
I joined the Texas Air National Guard and went AWOL. I refused to take a drug test or answer any questions about my drug use. By joining the Texas Air National Guard, I was able to avoid combat duty in Vietnam

COLLEGE
I graduated from Yale University with a low C average. I was a cheerleader.

PAST WORK EXPERIENCE
I ran for U.S. Congress and lost. I began my career in the oil business in Midland , Texas , in 1975. I bought an oil company, but couldn't find any oil in Texas . The company went bankrupt shortly after I sold all my stock.

I bought the Texas Rangers baseball team in a sweetheart deal that took land using taxpayer money. With the help of my father and our friends in the oil industry, including Enron CEO Ken Lay, I was elected governor of Texas.

ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS GOVERNOR OF TEXAS
I changed Texas pollution laws to favor power and oil companies, making Texas the most polluted state in the Union.
During my tenure, Houston replaced Los Angeles as the most smog-ridden city in America.
I cut taxes and bankrupted the Texas treasury to the tune of billions in borrowed money.
I set the record for the most executions by any governor in American history.
With the help of my brother, the governor of Florida, and my father's appointments to the Supreme Court, I became President after losing by over 500,000 votes.

ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS PRESIDENT
I am the first President in U.S. history to enter office with a criminal record.
I invaded and occupied two countries at a continuing cost of over one billion dollars per week.
I spent the U.S. surplus and effectively bankrupted the U.S. Treasury.
I shattered the record for the largest annual deficit in U.S. history.
I set an economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any 12-month period.
I set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12-month period.
I set the all-time record for the biggest drop in the history of the U.S. stock market.

In my first year in office, over 2 million Americans lost their jobs and that trend continues every month.

I'm proud that the members of my cabinet are the richest of any administration in U.S. history. My "poorest millionaire," Condoleeza Rice, had a Chevron oil tanker named after her.
I set the record for most campaign fund-raising trips by a U.S. President. I am the all-time U.S. and world record-holder for receiving the most corporate campaign donations.
My largest lifetime campaign contributor, and one of my best friends, Kenneth Lay, presided over the largest corporate bankruptcy fraud in U.S. History, Enron.

My political party used Enron private jets and corporate attorneys to assure my success with the U.S. Supreme Court during my election decision.
I have protected my friends at Enron and Halliburton against investigation or prosecution. More time and money was spent investigating the Monica Lewinsky affair than has been spent investigating one of the biggest corporate rip-offs in history.

I presided over the biggest energy crisis in U.S. history and refused to intervene when corruption involving the oil industry was revealed.
I presided over the highest gasoline prices in U.S. history.
I changed the U.S. policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded government contracts.
I appointed more convicted criminals to administration than any President in U.S. history.
I created the Ministry of Homeland Security, the largest bureaucracy in the history of the United States government.

I've broken more international treaties than any President in U.S. history.
I am the first President in U.S. history to have the United Nations remove the U.S. from the Human Rights Commission.
I withdrew the U.S. from the World Court of Law. I refused to allow inspectors access to U.S. "prisoners of war" detainees and thereby have refused to abide by the Geneva Convention.
I am the first President in history to refuse United Nations election inspectors (during the 2002 U.S. election).
I set the record for fewest numbers of press conferences of any President since the advent of television.
I set the all-time record for most days on vacation in any one-year period. After taking off the entire month of August, I presided over the worst security failure in U.S. history.
I garnered the most sympathy for the U.S. after the World Trade Center attacks and less than a year later made the U.S. the most hated country in the world, the largest failure of diplomacy in world history.

I have set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously protest me in public venues (15 million people), shattering the record for protests against any person in the history of mankind.

I am the first President in U.S. history to order an unprovoked, pre-emptive attack and the military occupation of a sovereign nation. I did so against the will of the United Nations, the majority of U.S. citizens, and the world community.
I have cut health care benefits for war veterans and support a cut in duty benefits for active duty troops and their families-in-wartime.
In my State of the Union Address, I lied about our reasons for attacking Iraq and then blamed the lies on our British friends.
I am the first President in history to have a majority of Europeans (71%) view my presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and security.
I am supporting development of a nuclear "Tactical Bunker Buster," a WMD. I have so far failed to fulfill my pledge to bring Osama Bin Laden [sic] to justice.

RECORDS AND REFERENCES
All records of my tenure as governor of Texas are now in my father's library, sealed and unavailable for public view.
All records of SEC investigations into my insider trading and my bankrupt companies are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view.
All records or minutes from meetings that I, or my Vice-President, attended regarding public energy policy are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for publi c review. I am a member of the Republican Party.

PLEASE CONSIDER MY EXPERIENCE WHEN VOTING IN THE 2006 MIDTERM ELECTIONS.

[rustyslacker]

Where'd you get that, Nomad? Seems like a gag/propaganda. Is it true?

[Nomad]

Another forum.

I didn't really read the whole thing. Just up to the "accomplishments as president" part, which all I read was true, as far as I know.

[Grimlock[EOD]]

That whole writeup is pretty laughable.

Again Bush gets credit for all the Enron stuff as if it suddenly happened the moment he took office and wasn't in development prior to his arrival. Short term memory strikes again.

Oct 10,2000 Enron hired Linda Robertson from the Clinton Administration.

Bush takes office Jan 2001, October 2001 was when the first SEC investigations took place into Enron's huge losses in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Did that company tank in the 10 months Bush was in office, or was it collapsing under the previous administration and suppoea'd by the Bush administration?

If you look at the American Lung Associations ratings of the Most Polluted Cities for Short Term Particle Pollution and year round partical polution, none of the top 25 most polluted are in Texas, but 1 texas city is in the top 25 cleanest by particals, two are in the top cleanest for ozone. (To be fair there are 2 in the top worse for ozone as well).

http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=50752

In terms of records not being available? Clinton law firm records anyone? Oh wait those aren't unavailable, they are just lost... until they are found in their personal residence.

The AWOL issue has yet to be proven other than someone's conjecture.

Please explain to me what control you think the president has over oil prices. I'd really love to know. Since oil prices are set by Opec. We aren't allowed to drill here anymore. The democrat party has opposed any drilling anywhere for as long as I can remember. Alternative energy? How about wind power... So long as it's not in Ted Kennedy's back yard of his Rich Democrat friends. The democrats complain about the rich this.. the rich that... Have you seen a poor democratic leader yet? I haven't. Cape Cod sure is nice this time of year...

Build a new refinery so we don't have to import gas? Yes we import gasoline too which is much more expensive than refining it... Not if democrats have a say. Now to be fair here, I've heard energy companies say they don't need to because they are improving capacity at existing ones. While that may be true, they still need to because if one goes offline we have shortages. Running at 99% peak is not a good thing. You have to have a buffer zone. So assuming we could actually get the DNC to let a refinery be built, then I would expect the government to put pressure on "big oil" to increase refining capacity.

While prices may be high, does anyone remember the lines we had under Carter? I do. I remember only being able to get gas on a certain day.

If it's public knowledge that he got a DUI and pled guilty then obviously the record is public. Does it matter if someone can find the piece of paper when everyone knows? I mean really. It's one thing when papers are missing to cover up something but when the issue is already a matter of public record there's nothing to cover up.

I see that person still hasn't gotten over the election. Al Gore was all geared up for legal challenges if he won the Electoral vote but lost the popular vote. Get over it. You had democrat wards run by democrats and democrats designed the ballots and they claim the ballots were a problem. The Texas Supreme Court (democrats mind you) were trying to go outside the law and do things that was not permissable. The US supreme court said, no, you can't do that. Everything that went on in Texas was done according to the law. You can't rewrite the rules of an election after the voting has taken place.

Oh wait lets rewrite election law and swap candidates out after the legal cutoff. Wait that's the democrats again with New Jersey Senator Frank Lautenberg as memory serves.

People need to start taking things in perspective. Now my post is probably as one sided as that piece of trash that was posted earlier, but at least mine is factual.

Sigh I'd need about an hour to go through all that crap and rebut it but it's just not worth it as nothing I say will change the mind of the person that wrote that, posted that or agree with that.

[Grimlock[EOD]]

And for the record, if anyone thinks I'm a Bush appologist that supports him on everything and loves everything he does, I'd be happy to provide a list of all the things I think he's legitimately screwed up, but if you want to blame him for things, do it for stuff that's actually his fault.

[Aliotroph?]

Funny how people always blame presidents for the whole economy. Doesn't make one bit of sense really.

[PumpkinSmasher]

The average American is probably too stupid to realize that their are other people in power besides the president. And when anything goes wrong they also need an easy scape-goat, and this president is very easy to blame even though its usually not entirely his fault.

[Sigma]

That "short-term memory" argument is completely irrelevant. Presidents inherit all of the positive and negative things that happen within the nation during their tenure when they step into the position. It has been that way since the conception of this nation and is unlikely to change. Look at Roosevelt. He created Social Security! ;)

Please explain to me what control you think the president has over oil prices.

You're proclaiming that fighting a large scale "war on terror" has no effect on oil prices? Considering how many barrels of crude oil and its derivatives are used in one day among aircraft carriers, jet planes, tanks, et cetera? That America, despite getting most of its oil from the middle east and proceeding to destabilize the area has nothing to do with this as well? Be realistic. Stop thinking inside the box.

If it's public knowledge that he got a DUI and pled guilty then obviously the record is public. Does it matter if someone can find the piece of paper when everyone knows? I mean really.

The AWOL issue has yet to be proven other than someone's conjecture.

You're arguing both ways.

Regardless if you want to specifically blame President Bush or not, most of those statements provided by Nomad are true. The rest are, I believe, undeterminable.

As for Houston and smog:

http://www.climatehotmap.org/impacts/texas.html

Specifically, "Will the Texas air crisis worsen?"

[FATAL]

As for the oil prices, they have not only affected the US, but also the rest of the world. That means that the whole world has to pay much more for oil than before, only because Bush decided to attack Iraq.

The rest of the world has to suffer from the actions of one country. I believe that the USA should start thinking about the consequences of their actions, or soon they'll have little to no friends.


Against Bush I have plenty of stuff overall. One is that he refused to follow Kyoto treaty on pollution, declaring that there is no greenhouse effect and that reducing pollution would hurt the US economy too hard. Yet again a great example from the world leader for others to follow.

As for UN not being able to solve anything, you're wrong Grimlock. Couple of times it has successfully managed to solve tricky situations. One rather close to me is the Yugoslavia incident, when Slobodan Milosevic began butchering everyone who wasn't a serb. The UN stepped in and quickly gained control of the situation. There are one or two other instances too, but I can't recall them right now. Also, the USA doesn't allow UN to work at its maximum by restricting peace protectors from going to Palestina and Israel and tell Israel to stay in their "own" country and stay the hell out of others'. And we should remember, that even though UN isn't the most mobile and flexible, it is absolutely necessary for at least some kind of peace remaining here. It's job is to stop the idiotic attacks such as the USA's attack to Iraq.

There's a lot of shit that Bush has done, and it's no coincidence that only during his time have people overall truly started to hate the USA for its actions. If the president acts and talks like a idiot (come on, that kind of freedom propaganda doesn't strike anyone), it's no big jump to the point where everyone considers the people to be stupid as well for choosing such leader. Twice.

[asdf]

Someone said something about road rage the other day, they asked who's fault i thought it was, well, the angry person fault, no, the other person fault, no, whos fault is it, the person said that it was Bush's fault :| thats one thing that i can't connect to being bush's fault :|

[Grimlock[EOD]]

Bush refused to sign Kyoto because it pretty much punishes the US and nobody else. China, which is arguably the top polluter in the word is exempt. Do you hear about the "American brown cloud" drifting around the world? No. It's the Asian brown cloud. China spends 20% of it's gdp or something to that effect on pollution controll. There's a huge concern that the air won't even be high enough quality for the olympic games there. Not to mention whole villages having their rivers rendered undrinkable by huge toxic chemical spills. But China is exempt, as are other countries. Russia got it's levels set from a point where it was years ago so they basically have to do nothing.

Why would you want to sign something that totally screws you and lets everyone else off, especially when some of those people are far bigger offenders?

Have you not noticed that most of the countries chiding us for not signing and pointing out how they quickly jumped on board, are exempt from having to do anything?

[Aliotroph?]

Kyoto isn't about toxic poisoned water at all though; it's pretty much just about CO2, which gets the US and Canada in all kinds of trouble since we make lots of that. We cheaped out and signed it counting on our trees as some kind of credit. Now THAT is a load of crap.

The problem is you can't get anyone to agree on anything fair because all countries just want a money scramble. Economics sucks. I have no real solution to this other than when we get to the point where we can pollute less we really will have to shove the tech down the throats of the third world whether they want it or not.

Meanwhile we just sit here and hope we don't mess up the planet too much. Good thing I'm walking to my friend's tomorrow... :/

[FATAL]

']Bush refused to sign Kyoto because it pretty much punishes the US and nobody else. China, which is arguably the top polluter in the word is exempt. Do you hear about the "American brown cloud" drifting around the world? No. It's the Asian brown cloud. China spends 20% of it's gdp or something to that effect on pollution controll. There's a huge concern that the air won't even be high enough quality for the olympic games there. Not to mention whole villages having their rivers rendered undrinkable by huge toxic chemical spills. But China is exempt, as are other countries. Russia got it's levels set from a point where it was years ago so they basically have to do nothing.

Why would you want to sign something that totally screws you and lets everyone else off, especially when some of those people are far bigger offenders?

Have you not noticed that most of the countries chiding us for not signing and pointing out how they quickly jumped on board, are exempt from having to do anything?
If USA is playing world police, it should act like one. Performing only operations that benefit the country isn't going to help the world at all. There has to be an example, so that the others can be forced into such treaties as well. The remaining countries who then wouldn't join the treaty would be forced with economical pressure. Limiting foreign trade with such countries would definatly give a little kick in the ass for countries going their own way. Everyone has to take responsibility if we're going to properly live here for more than some hundred years. If USA would join the Kyoto treaty, it would put pressure on other countries to join it as well.

[Grimlock[EOD]]

It doesn't have to be strickly for the benefit of this country, but given that China is an enviromental craphole, it should apply to them as well. And Russia got a pass as well.

Lets be fair and do it across the board. I know there's supposed to be exemptions for developing countries, but I'd rather see something along the lines of developed countries pitching in technology to help those developing countries do cleaner energy.

Coal is the biggest problem. We have ways to burn clean coal. I'd be all for sharing this type of technology with the CHinese if they don't already have it.

[TheDruid]

I love this discussion but hate politics because things like mass air polution are able to go on because it would hurt the economy to set some rules down. Making the world a safe and liveable place to live should be our main goal. Not protecting the private interests. If one thing has killed this world it's the Corporate in which members don't care about the happyness of their employees or happyness of customers. To them they just see sales charts and how to make more money.

[Grimlock[EOD]]

Corporate management is a hoot. I love how they say oh well we have to pay our CEO's millions in order to retain them! Because we want to keep that tallent that ran the company into the ground to begin with... Then they can bail out with their golden parachutes.

[Sigma]

Bush refused to sign Kyoto because it pretty much punishes the US and nobody else. China, which is arguably the top polluter in the word is exempt. Do you hear about the "American brown cloud" drifting around the world? No. It's the Asian brown cloud. China spends 20% of it's gdp or something to that effect on pollution controll. There's a huge concern that the air won't even be high enough quality for the olympic games there. Not to mention whole villages having their rivers rendered undrinkable by huge toxic chemical spills. But China is exempt, as are other countries. Russia got it's levels set from a point where it was years ago so they basically have to do nothing.

Why would you want to sign something that totally screws you and lets everyone else off, especially when some of those people are far bigger offenders?

Have you not noticed that most of the countries chiding us for not signing and pointing out how they quickly jumped on board, are exempt from having to do anything

Why is the fact that America has to actually do something a problem? Is it Japan's fault that America has such high CO2 emissions?

China and Russia are not "exempt." The US and Australia are the only two nations that outright oppose it. President Bush did not sign it because he doesn't believe global warming exists (of course he doesn't, he is dedicated to big oil interests) and because the restrictions on emissions would, in some form, cripple the US military. However, this only applies to foreign applications of the US military-- like the forces stationed over in the Middle East.

The real argument across the board deals with the economic situation in most countries. On the other hand, if nations do not deal with the situation now, they are going to have an even bigger, more expensive problem in the future. Most nations recognize the Kyoto Treaty an effort of good will, and will not lose anything out of the deal. Many nations (Canada especially) are concerned because the US will not ratify, giving the nation an unfair advantage. Australia will not sign because it will supposedly cost jobs and the nation is already doing enough to cut emissions.

Russia has a hard time because the nation is so poverty stricken. This, coupled with disparate facilities and ancient industrial practices makes the nation a problem. There would need to be millions and millions of dollars invested into the nation to reach the status of an Annexed nation.

China is still developing and needs to purchase trade emissions from other nations until it develops an adequate system for dealing with its pollution problems.

Even so, if Russia and China's emissions do not increase over the period of time the Kyoto Treaty encompasses and manage to go down this is a semi-success. Russia does not currently pollute one-tenth as much as America does, therefore, your Russia argument is void.

Which leaves America. The US has been a giant instigator of the problem that the Kyoto Treaty intends to amend (which only demonstrates the logic behind such strong American opposition to it). Setting off dozens of nuclear and hydrogen bombs, having such a displaced urban, suburban and country demographic, laws designed around the interest of big corporations (companies in Texas, California, Michigan and Illinois come to mind) and the wasteful and superflous US military certainly does not help either.

As FATAL more or less stated, this is another case of America picking what it likes, doing what it likes and failing to give a damn about any other nation other than itself (unless helping the nation will benefit the US considerably in some way).

You cannot expect a nation that is still developing or on the verge of economic collapse to adhere to the same, exact regulations that an overwhelmingly wealthy and advanced nation has to (thus the implementation of the Annexed and non-Annexed system). There was a time when America was just as bad as China even. I find it to be a disgusting display of ignorance on America's part-- the US continues to set precedents that are counter-productive to the health and best interests of the rest of the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Kyoto_Protocol_participation_map_2005.png

[rustyslacker]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:K...n_map_2005.png
*rofl*

As if that's any suprise. :p

[Kelthan]

Righ'... I'm a bit young, and am confused by some of the things you're all saying, despite the fact that I rank in the top 100ish smartest kids in my school... But all I know is that Bush is killing the enviroment by doing away with more enviromental protection laws/agencies/ect. in 9 months than Reagan did in his entire term as president, and thats bad. VERY bad. As for America polluting the rest of the world (( pretty sure someone said that... )), I'd laugh if Bush blaimed it on the "Coral-losis" (( as he'd probably say it )) effect.

[Grimlock[EOD]]

And yet Bush created the largest federally protected marine reserve in the world. For top 100, I'd think you'd spell the former presidents name correctly ;)

[Kelthan]

']And yet Bush created the largest federally protected marine reserve in the world. For top 100, I'd think you'd spell the former presidents name correctly ;)

Thank you for pointing that out to me, I corrected it. Learned about him at the start of last school year. Tha's a LOOOOOOONG way back. I think I heard about the Marine Reserve.

Ah yes! The famous qoute!

"I want a world where humans and fish can co-exist peacefully"

[Grimlock[EOD]]

FYI, we're also a member of the The Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum (CSLF) and we lead the international effort in developing technology for the safe and cost effective capturing co2 and storing it underground.

I was just poking a little fun at ya, hope you didn't take that as a slam or anything. You just learned about Reagan? May I ask what grade you are in?

[Kelthan]

Just finished 8th, going into 9th, so the goings-on in the world really most likely would be of greater interest to someone like me, since I'm going to end up paying for this little escapade with my tax dollars.

[Grimlock[EOD]]

Hey, it's nice to see that you are even interested. Even if we don't agree on things, at least you are trying to become informed, and I'd say that does put you in the top 100 of your class vs most of the others who could probably give a rats ass, and won't get off their butts to vote when they get the priviledge.

[jetflock]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6805063692754011230&q=genre%3Acomedy

[Grimlock[EOD]]

Sheesh, all the video cuts and looping in the beginning gave me a headache. *plop*

[Sigma]

Our nation (and Bush) have horribly conceived priorities.

Our nation is trillions of dollars in debt. We have invested little into New Orleans since hurricane season. We have large water springs being contaminated by nuclear waste being stored underground and in mountains. We've destroyed several ecosystems in central USA as well as in Alaska for small gain in resources. We've destabilized an entire region (Middle East). We have several nations that have become infuriated with us. We have essentially destroyed the UN. We apparently have a nearly unconstitutional "amendment" that people aren't even being educated about. America's CO2 levels have risen nearly 600% since Bush became president. We're facing a resource crisis, et cetera.

(I could compose several dozen more points.)

A world's largest federally protected marine reserve sounds great!

Bush (and your support for him) are idiotic.

[FATAL]

Our nation (and Bush) have horribly conceived priorities.

Our nation is billions of dollars in debt.

Trillions (http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/) may I correct.
Ever since Bush was elected the whole nation's economy has gotten into a huge downfall.


More against Bush: Bush uses veto right to stop federal funded stem-cell research (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/18/AR2006071800182.html), due to religious beliefs. I think we're nearing the border of stupidity, it's difficult to go further than this.

Well don't dare to complain when the rest of the world has cure to type 1 diabetes and whatnot, your people is in the hands of god! How can it get any better than that?

[Aliotroph?]

The economy was going to go splat no matter who was elected (thought I made that point before). The .com bubble would have popped in everybody's face anyway. Granted a war and a 9/11 didn't help but you can't give Bush all the credit for those either.

[FATAL]

The economy was going to go splat no matter who was elected (thought I made that point before). The .com bubble would have popped in everybody's face anyway. Granted a war and a 9/11 didn't help but you can't give Bush all the credit for those either.
Well I don't have much detailed info, just numbers on that case, and how can you not give Bush credit for the pointless wars?

[Aliotroph?]

Because they're planned and orchestrated by everyone else around Bush and then congress has to authorize and fund them. Bush certainly gets ideas for/about wars and encourages them though.

[FATAL]

Because they're planned and orchestrated by everyone else around Bush and then congress has to authorize and fund them. Bush certainly gets ideas for/about wars and encourages them though.
To me it seems as Bush doesn't have to listen to the congress. At least the case with stem-cell research indicates so.

The American goverment is far from democracy if such things are allowed to happen.

[Sigma]

The economy was going to go splat no matter who was elected (thought I made that point before). The .com bubble would have popped in everybody's face anyway. Granted a war and a 9/11 didn't help but you can't give Bush all the credit for those either.

Granted a war didn't help much? Show me one piece of evidence that September 11th had anything to do with any of the current US interests in the Middle East. Over half of the nation's accumulated debt is from its "war on terror." We haven't even caught Osama Bin Laden, nor do we have any leads!

Outsourcing thousands of jobs and wasting superflous amounts of capital on specific, corporate based interests certainly doesn't help either. All of which Bush has spear-headed while keeping his ridiculous smile, lying bold faced to people just like his father.

"Read my lips...!" ;)

The Executive cabinet is nothing more than an advisory part of the Presidential office. President Bush could completely ignore everything the cabinet has to say if he wished to. In "war times," the Executive branch (Presidential office) can over-ride a great number of things, as well as do things without counseling the other two brances. President Bush has explioted this relentlessly and reaffirmed his position with the Patriot Act. The Legislative and Judicial brances are currently dealing with issues from the late 90's (the two brances are overwhelmed). Congress only really deals with changes in the Federal system (admendments and laws especially). Also, the Executive branch can veto any proposed law, instantly exiling it from existence or back to the drawing board. If Bush does not believe in stem-cell research, that is about all there is to say about the issue. Congress can over-ride a veto, but it is very time-consuming and difficult because it involves the people and/or land-slide approvals from Congress. Let us be reasonable with ourselves however, what are the chances that the President and at least one-fourth of Congress will not agree on an issue? The Judicial branch can only over-ride a veto if it proves to be unconstitutional or in direct conflict with other, withstanding laws or practices.

Trillions may I correct.
Ever since Bush was elected the whole nation's economy has gotten into a huge downfall.

Thank you for the correction. Trillions is correct. I also meant to state earlier that the current debt is the highest ever (Congress had to set a new debt limit to withstand how much Bush's administration has spent).

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

The National Debt has continued to increase an average of
$1.65 billion per day since September 30, 2005!

America went from a budget surplus to an all-time low during Bush's presidential run. Coincidence? Absolutely not. I'm afraid I will not be convinced that Bush has simply had successive misfortunes while managing to set dozens and dozens of record "worst's."

Regardless of the specific debt issue, there are still nine more issues (that I posted) to be dealt with (and I can always post more). I understand this is not all the fault of Bush (or I mean to write, Bush alone), but he does have an enormous part in all of it, has condoned or even instigated much of it and inherits responsibility for the rest as president. Either way, he is quite easily, the worst president ever. That is not a hyperbole.

End of story.

[Doom_Dude]

Apparently Mr Bushwacker is into giving surprise back rubs now to German Chancellors at G-8 summits. Might be a fetish. :P

Linkage Here (http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/internet/07/21/bush.youtube.ap/index.html?section=cnn_tech)

[Aliotroph?]

LOL It's funny how much that upset people.

[Phoebus]

My reaction was:
What a hick. How un-Presidential.
He's a continued embarrassment.
She should have hit him! *byte*

[Doom_Dude]

LOL. Yeah she should've slapped him one. :p

[Aliotroph?]

I disagree. I think they should all just learn to be comfortable enough with each other that they all give each other back rubs. We have WAY too much formality in this world. :p Besides, it would look funny if they all did that on TV. :D

But yeah, he should have known that would get him in trouble. What a dumb guy.

[Doom_Dude]

I can't imagine politicians giving one anouther back rubs, foot massages and stuff. LOL

[Phoebus]

It's not just that. Bush's constantly doing things that turn people off to him on a personal level.

I remember seeing footage of him a while back, just sitting in his chair, as diplomats filtered into the meeting room. And the way he was sitting, with one knee cocked up, rocking himself in the chair with a nervous, simpleton sort of a tick.

It just gave the impression of, here's this Texas (pronounced "takes ass") good ol' boy, who somehow found himself the leader of the free world, so to speak, and he can't even bring himself to look the part, before the distinguished heads of state, at the time when one really needs to convey a sense of formality. The thing is, he has to know how he looks, but he's too arrogant to even care. In short, he's just being himself, damn all else and others.

I'm also struck by the overwhelming sense of alone-ness he must feel. This little monkey-boy wandering bewildered in the realm of intellectuals.

[iori]

[Note from D_D: iori is responding to a post that later got deleted] People care about current [political] events, that is why this forum is here. If you don't carethe more power to you, but then why post in a politically dedicated section? As for your last comment, that's the sort of thing this section doesn't need.

Anyway, I've seen vids of Bush debating 10 years ago, and he was coherent and precise - a stark contrast to his debates with John Kerry in 04. Either it's an elaborate ruse (to what?) or the guy's just getting dumber.

[Aliotroph?]

It's not just that. Bush's constantly doing things that turn people off to him on a personal level.

I remember seeing footage of him a while back, just sitting in his chair, as diplomats filtered into the meeting room. And the way he was sitting, with one knee cocked up, rocking himself in the chair with a nervous, simpleton sort of a tick.

It just gave the impression of, here's this Texas (pronounced "takes ass") good ol' boy, who somehow found himself the leader of the free world, so to speak, and he can't even bring himself to look the part, before the distinguished heads of state, at the time when one really needs to convey a sense of formality. The thing is, he has to know how he looks, but he's too arrogant to even care. In short, he's just being himself, damn all else and others.

I'm also struck by the overwhelming sense of alone-ness he must feel. This little monkey-boy wandering bewildered in the realm of intellectuals.

Yeah, that sounds about right. Makes me wonder if there's supposed to be some clever trick behind making him the president. Like I said somewhere before though, he's a lot better at giving speeches now than he was a few years ago. He has some good speech writers around him and sometimes he actually reads their stuff now.

I still think most leaders probably try too hard to look the part though. I often get the impression that's all some of them even do (idiot dictator types like Mugabe come to mind here).

[g6672D]

Looks like politics are only an indirect cause of potential flamewars. :) I won't make any decision on Bush yet since I don't understand a few aspects.

[Aliotroph?]

Bush seems to find it funny that he's so funny/stupid looking in public. And so he went along with this: http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-1921276117304287501&q=Bush+impersonator

[Kelthan]

I'm just going to start using Bush as a Scapegoat for everything that goes wrong in my life. Just like Hitler did to the Jews, except... without attempted genocide.

I just accidently kicked my kitten in the face! It's all Bush's fault!

Yep... Bush kicked a kitten, because he's Bush.

But seriously, I have a hard time rationalizing my almost irrational hatred for Bush... maybe it's just because he's from Texas, but who knows?

Or maybe... maybe it's because he's an idiot who has power? Yeah, thats probably it.

[Sigma]

Even more against Bush:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/14020234/?GT1=8307

"Bush has issued at least 750 signing statements during his presidency, reserving the right to revise, interpret or disregard laws on national security and constitutional grounds.

'That non-veto hamstrings Congress because Congress cannot respond to a signing statement,' said ABA president Michael Greco. The practice, he added 'is harming the separation of powers.'

Bush has challenged about 750 statutes passed by Congress, according to numbers compiled by Specter’s committee. The ABA estimated Bush has issued signing statements on more than 800 statutes, more than all other presidents combined."

[Aliotroph?]

Yeah, that's totally uncool. National security is a poor excuse for most things.

But seriously, I have a hard time rationalizing my almost irrational hatred for Bush... maybe it's just because he's from Texas, but who knows?

But DooM is from Texas!!!! :p

[Kelthan]

But DooM is from Texas!!!! :p

Then it's the only good thing Texas has ever done for the world.

[Aliotroph?]

What about TI and the Johnson Space Center? Or how about the Texas Revolution which made the Republic of Texas that eventually became a state in the USA and avoided being part of Mexico (face, it you know just about anyone would rather live in the USA than Mexico)? :p

Texas may spawn a lot of crap but there's a lot of neat stuff from there too. I suppose that goes for most places, even Gaza and Lebanon. :)

[Kelthan]

What about TI and the Johnson Space Center? Or how about the Texas Revolution which made the Republic of Texas that eventually became a state in the USA and avoided being part of Mexico (face, it you know just about anyone would rather live in the USA than Mexico)? :p

Texas may spawn a lot of crap but there's a lot of neat stuff from there too. I suppose that goes for most places, even Gaza and Lebanon. :)

Silence, Mortal!

I still can't believe that Texas won their independance even though some of their major leaders died to Santa Clau- erm... Anna's hands at the Alamo.

[Aliotroph?]

Maybe the USA had a hand in there somewhere. I actually have no idea. That war doesn't get taught here and I haven't bothered to read about it yet. :)

I always found it weird that Texas is known popularly as a backwards place where people are socially conservative rednecks and yet it spawns so much fancy hi-tech stuff, and even really cool things like computer games. Normally you'd associate stuff like that with places like Silicon Valley, which is known for embracing all kinds of weirdness. I suppose Texas is easily big enough to have regions with vastly different attitudes. Any Texans around who can shed some light on this?

[Doom_Dude]

I'm sure Texas is a pretty diverse state that can spawn rednecks and cool video games at the same time and other stuffs. Dr Pepper was invented there so thats a bonus point for them. :D

Also there's these famous Texans: http://www.famoustexans.com/ (Phoebus pointed that site out) I didn't know Gene Roddenberry was a Texan. :D Also I forgot about ZZ Top. They Rock!

Anyways we can't let Bush make Texas look bad. :p That sounds like a song title.

[Sigma]

Pessimism in America rising:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14044391/

[FATAL]

Moreover, regarding the recent violence there, 54 percent of respondents say they sympathize more with Israel, while just 11 percent side with Arab countries.

54% of the people who answered in the NBC poll don't know what is and has been going on outside USA.

[Sigma]

This is true; popular opinion in America is quite biased I'm afraid. This is due to the fact that (manufacturing an estimate) 75% of American's have no interest and/or knowledge of the situation and tend to develop their opinions around CNN or newspaper stories.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14055188/

"The high-level conference in Rome ended Wednesday with most European leaders urging an immediate cease-fire but the United States willing to give Israel more time to punish Hezbollah and ensure an international peacekeeping force for south Lebanon.

"President Bush declined to criticize Israel’s tactics against Hezbollah and sharply condemned of Iran’s role in the bloody conflict. Iran and Syria are Hezbollah’s key backers.

"'Hezbollah attacked Israel. I know Hezbollah is connected to Iran,' Bush said tersely in Washington. "Now is the time for the world to confront this danger.'"

How idiotic can people possibly be? The entire situation is ridiculous-- the nation of Israel especially. I find it ironic that the article has a quote of Bush proclaiming, "Hezbollah attacked Israel," while the very same article proclaims Israel was actually the one to start the fighting. Absolutely ridiculous!

[Aliotroph?]

What's so ironic about that? The article says one thing and it says Bush said something else.

That article was linked to one (at the bottom) about what Al Qaeda things. At the same time it was talking about the leaders of Hezbollah and Iran meeting with Syria in Damascus. Lots of this was reported by the Kuwaitis (and whereever they get it from). It really does sound like Iran pays for Hezbollah and tries to use it to their own ends.

[Sigma]

What's so ironic about that? The article says one thing and it says Bush said something else.

;)

"Punishing Hezbollah" by annihilating the entire nation of Lebanon is an exaggerated, disgusting display of violence. Israel denied the UN proposal made in Rome-- despite the entire conflict being primarily their fault. This doesn't suprise me, although it is maddening.

Let us bomb an entire nation to dirt in an effort to get rid of the undesired "terrorist" militants (who originated from the chaos Israel created in Lebanon to begin with)! Such logic is as wrong and poorly conceived as attempting to combat street gangs in Los Angeles by incinerating the entire city and liquidating all the people within it.

[Kelthan]

*moves to Canada*

That fixes all my moral problems about living in America.

[rustyslacker]

"Punishing Hezbollah" by annihilating the entire nation of Lebanon is an exaggerated, disgusting display of violence.
Indeed. However, it would not suprise me at all if Bush were to do something like that. He probably would, if there wasn't US military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, and if he knew that he wouldn't take a massive hit in the polls.

Or maybe not. Maybe the UN should just fix it, because it was their brilliant idea to put Israel where it is.

[FATAL]

Indeed. However, it would not suprise me at all if Bush were to do something like that. He probably would, if there wasn't US military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, and if he knew that he wouldn't take a massive hit in the polls.

Or maybe not. Maybe the UN should just fix it, because it was their brilliant idea to put Israel where it is.
UN is trying to fix it, but USA is helping Israel by halting the UN. It's all really screwed up. I would have a solution, but as long as USA keeps its current foreign politics as they are, there's no way the conflict will ever end.

Basically my solution is that the nation of Israel is removed on all world maps and the people repopulated wherever they want to. I'm eager to explain the "how"s and "what"s and my whole thinking if people are intrested in hearing them.

[Doom_Dude]

Forcing people to repopulate elsewhere has been done before. Maybe not on such a huge scale but it's not proven to be a very good thing that I can tell.

[FATAL]

Yes, of course it would prove to be the biggest challenge in the operation (once it is started, that is. Currently USA is the biggest challenge).

[Aliotroph?]

Even Europe generally agrees that Israel has a right to exist there. The UN wanted it there too. I suspect it will stay there for the foreseeable future. If it were removed the stupid governments and sectarian violence in all the surrounding countries and even in Palestine. It would still be a mess, but with different guys blowing up civilians and then there'd be a group of Jews doing the same damn thing. It would also be a mess moving them.

Net difference in problems/quality of life for people over there ~= 0.

[Doom_Dude]

I agree with what Aliotroph? said. Theres too many factions over there that absolutely can't get along.

[FATAL]

Very well, tomorrow (or soon, at least) I shall fully explain my thoughts on my solution, stay tuned.

[Yagisan]

Very well, tomorrow (or soon, at least) I shall fully explain my thoughts on my solution, stay tuned.That would be interesting. I am curious, would you want the jews to be resettled in your country ? if not, why not ? You advocated moving them, so you should be the first to welcome them.

An interesting piece of history, there was a plan for them to be relocated to Australia in the 1930's ( http://www.abc.net.au/rn/ark/stories/2006/1534158.htm ) , but evidently that never eventuated.

[FATAL]

First to the ground up. Ever since Israel was found in 1948, there has been constant hatred between the Jews and Arabs. Without foreign help Israel would've been conquered immediatly, but due to some nations, mostly USA supporting the nation, they managed to survive, and begin their own offensive. The next 50 years have gone so that Israel has invaded surrounding countries, Palestina and Lebanon mainly. Both countries are poor, don't have any equipment to counter Israel's actions, and so the only nuisance Israel has been getting are random bombs here and there, while they are maiming thousands of civilians and bulldozing entire villages down. All with USA's support.

Clearly the troublemaker in the area is Israel constatly harassing the neighbor nations, and as long as USA is giving israel economical, military, and diplomatic support, they too must be held responsible for the turmoil in middle east. Also, as the last 50 years have shown us, things aren't going to get any better if no significant action is taken.

My solution, which I've already explained to some people, has been inspired by Finland's independence, because they would have certain resemblances. I shall explain it in a nutshell:

Before 1917, Finland was under Russian occupation. Once in a while some Russian high officers were killed due to the people's unrest. When in 1917 Lenin came to power and formed the Soviet Union, he granted Finland independence. Not surprisingly, while there were no-one to rebel against, no Russians got killed any more. However, immediatly when Finland gained independence, a civil war broke loose due to the poor people (called the reds in the civil war) got tired of living in shitty conditions, while the rich (called the whites) feasted. Because there was no foreign country sticking hand into Finland's own business, the people could concentrate on the country's own problems, and thus the confilct began.

Naturally the whites won in a few months due to them getting aid from war hardened Germany while the reds' only help came from Soviet union, which was in turmoil due to the recent revolution. Even with the result being like it was, the poor people were granted some improvements, and slowly the country began stabilizing and growing wealthier, although there was diminishing hatred until the WWII, which then finally united the people.


How this connects to the situation in middle east is quite simple. Israel is keeping Lebanon and Palestina in line, not giving a chance for them to sort out their own problems due to the constant flow of problems coming from the outside. If all support for Israel were to cut off, their economy would collapse and soon their military strenght would fall too. This then would give the arab nations a chance to invade and conquer Israel.

When the foreign threat is eliminated, the countries would have good chance to sort out their own problems, now, instead of ideological differences there would be religious ones, shias versus sunnis. Most likely it would spark in a civil war, but after the war had been fought, the countries would start to cool down and eventually totally stabilize. It may take some decades, but at least there would be improvement unlike in the current situation.

As you've noted, the biggest problem aside from Israel's foreign help stopping is the relocating of the people, because it is quite likely that after half a century of destroying villages and killing civilians, the Palestinians would want to have some sort of revenge, possibly occuring as violence, only against the Jews this time. To prevent this, the people would need to be relocated around the globe. However, this isn't as big problem as it first may seem, as the people is very well educated there (literacy is over 95%) and thus will likely prove to be much more welcome immigrants/refugess than the usual ones escaping some shitpoor dictatorship. Once the new language would be learned, I see no barriers in them integrating to the populace.



This is just a theory I've made. At least no-one has introduced a better solution to me so far and thus I consider this to be the only way to go. I'm more than eager to hear comments about this solution, or even a completely new one.

[Aliotroph?]

So blowing up Israel, letting five or six Muslim countries blow each other up for 50 years (and remember, lots of those guys LOVE to kill civilians), relocation millions of Jews, collapsing a high-tech economy full of education and research, and forcing a whole culture to integrate into other cultures is a solution?

Jews don't want to integrate that closely into another culture in most cases; they want their own country. They also seem happy to build a country where like you said, there is 95% literacy. Tearing a part a whole country so muslims can kill muslims instead seems like a broken plan. Lots of the different muslims in the surrounding countries have the same idea. They just don't know what they can do about all their fanatical neighbours.

Israel would gain nothing by intentionally squashing other countries (well, the defence contractors get stuff...). I'm sure they'd rather the Palestinians had a working country of their own that could trade with them. Same goes for Lebanon. They had next to nothing to do with Lebanon for just about six years until this month. Why? They don't want to. They want to do their own thing and let silly factions fight it out. Again, this still sucks for everyone in the middle, whether or not there is an Israel around.

I suspect they may have found out what kind of a pile of arms Hezbollah was amassing and planted their guys along the border so they'd have a reason to get in a fight. It really looks like Iran/Syria are using Hezbollah as a proxy so they don't have to fight a conventional war.

In the end, I say throw a massive coalition in there and keep the other guys from shooting at Israel. Then spend the next 200 years trying to stabilize all the silly factions. It'll never happen. The rest of the world can't make that kind of commitment. Sadly, Israel is throwing bombs and shell at Lebanon like mad because they're scared shitless of an army of guys with AK's and shitty rockets they can't find. We'd be scared of those too.

Middle East == no solution :/

[FATAL]

All taken into consideration, but there are few things I don't agree with you.

If Lebanon was practically crushed some time ago, would they agree on just "forgetting it" when Israel drew back the offensive? I say that no matter what country, the hatred would be enormous. It wasn't a big surprise that the moment they get their hands on something they wish to revenge. Looking at the few year scale doesn't give the whole picture. Those people have more than enough reason to fight Israel by whatever means necessary, because Israel is practically the only reason why their country was so crappy at the moment.

If Israel wanted things to settle down more, they wouldn't hold ridicilous demands for a peace with Palestina. Right now their demand is that they would gain shitloads of land and Palestina wouldn't have to fear of Israel demolishing their villages to the ground anymore. Not only that, but there are uncountable times when Israel has killed civilians for nothing (or to rescue one captured soldier). Such acts are not likely to cause the other side to like you.

I believe that this all bases on Israel being USA's lapdog. Why else would USA support the country so heavily?

The arabs love killing civilians just as much as Israel does, and that's basically all it does. Only difference is that Israel likes to make civilians homeless too.

Also the countries' inner conflicts wouldn't of course take more than a few years, due to the people getting little to no support from the surroudning countries. The battles would be fought and then the new BEGINNING would take the fifty years mentioned. As in Finland at the times, both sides loathed each other, but after the civil war, there was no violence.

One more thing. There is ALWAYS a solution. It's just a matter of what is the most cost effective or likely solution. Mine is the best I've heard/made up, and over time it would ease things. Of course, it's very unlikely to ever occur due to the current powers that be, so that makes it bit pointless.


And one more:
Israel's culture isn't totally different from the basic western culture. Many jews live in USA, and I don't see them in the news as troublemakers. I actually believe they would fit right in with no problems.

[Sigma]

Your proposal is certainly based on reasonable logic, but a mass exportation of the Judaics would never be realized unfortunately. America is dependant on Israel as a beach-head for its privatization of the region's resources; convincing America of such a plan would be impossible. Furthermore, Israel was formed from the Judaic's desire for a land of their own-- a place where the (another) "Holocaust" would be impossible. In the event the exportation was proposed, Israel would, without doubt, scream "Holocaust," generating sympathy for the people-- despite the atrocities the Jewish have orchestrated, and the entire plan would then be ignored.

Regardless, I agree that something has to happen with Israel.

and remember, lots of those guys LOVE to kill civilians

Lebanese casualties
Civilian: Over 380
Combatant: 27 Hezballah (IDF reports >100; Hezballah reports 27); 22 Lebanese regulars

Israeli casualities
Civilian : 24
Combatant : 19

Foreign non-combatants
8 Canadians killed in an Israeli attack
2 Kuwaitis killed in Isreali attack
5 Brazilians (2 children) killed in Israeli attack
4 Germans killed in Israeli attack
3 Indians killed in Israeli attack
1 Sri Lankan killed in Israeli attack
1 Jordanian killed in Israeli attack
1 Iraqi killed in Israeli attack
4 UN workers killed in Israeli attack
1 Palestinian killed when an Israeli bomb hit a refugee camp in Lebanon
2 Nigerians killed in Israeli attack
1 Argentinian killed in Hezballah missile attack

The Israeli's have killed more foreigners than Hezbollah! Worthless.

Israel would gain nothing by intentionally squashing other countries (well, the defence contractors get stuff...). I'm sure they'd rather the Palestinians had a working country of their own that could trade with them. Same goes for Lebanon. They had next to nothing to do with Lebanon for just about six years until this month. Why? They don't want to. They want to do their own thing and let silly factions fight it out. Again, this still sucks for everyone in the middle, whether or not there is an Israel around.

That isn't true. Israel has already proclaimed what it wants; several dozen miles of Lebanese land (more land than they previously stole from Lebanon even; the same occupied land that spawned the Hezbollah). The UN was unwilling to give it to Israel, so the nation turned down the cease-fire proposal. Israel has manufactured at least three-fourths of the huge conflicts in that area, so proclaiming the "factions" would continue to wage war, to half of the extent they have been, is negated.

I suspect they may have found out what kind of a pile of arms Hezbollah was amassing and planted their guys along the border so they'd have a reason to get in a fight. It really looks like Iran/Syria are using Hezbollah as a proxy so they don't have to fight a conventional war.

What makes you think this? Assuming this is true, how does this (even remotely) justify Israel's actions?

We have another Iraq/America situation. Eradicate the nation under the fictional pretense the nation has titanic cache's of weapons, buried in the sand, where they serve no purpose at all, despite the nation (and Hezbollah) contemporarily being involved in a large-scale conflict where these same weapons could (possibly) mean the difference between victory and defeat.

You make it sound as though it is reasonable for Israel to have conventional weapons for massive assaults against other nations, but unreasonable for a surrounding nation with differing ideologies to have weapons to fight back.