Do you like President Bush?

[Alqoshnia]

hey oggie, you said you were 100 feet from the pentagon.........did you actually SEE the crash i meant the actual plane hitting the pentagon or were you there after it hit?

[Alqoshnia]

oops i forgot to mention, if there was a HHHHHHHEEEEEEEEELLLLLLLL NO i would have voted but a simple no will do. ill get into the specifics of why after oggie replies

[Sonthert]

[quote name='Oggie505']But tthe war in IRAQ, should we have gone in?  I say no, but now that we are there should we pull out, hell no.  That country would turn to sh$$ if we just got up and left.  I am speaking from personal experience I have spent 2 years in IRAQ and seen what that country is all about.
The whole thing , that we went there for oil.  That is not true.  The US is not revieveing any profits from that oil.  The ones making profits are the oil industry, which almost 99 percent are not US owned.  Gas prices have been high this past year, and people blame IRAQ and Katrina for it.  But the Oil companies had made their record high in profits that past year.  If anyone is to blame about oil its those guys.[/quote]First, I address your second point: if the Bush family are large stock holders in oil companies and the oil companies are making record profits, how is it that the Bush family are dragging more money in? Nobody ever said the US was making any money, but certain individuals and corporations are among them Bush, what people are saying is that he started the war for his personal profit, not that of the US. How is it that "99%" of the oil companies aren't owned by the US? Who owns them? If we don't nobody does, which is the case. They are Multi national oil companies just like the name implies. Those oil wells in the middle east? Owned by multi national oil companies, they just pay royalties to the locals. Now I wrote this second part first, and it contains alot of acid, and it isn't directed at anyone in particular, Oggie, my friend, its just an indictment of the American people. I don't want to, again, offend anyone, but if you believe the war with Iraq is a bad thing, how did we end up going over there? I believe that war should be a last result and it is a terrible thing. If we go to war, we must be sure of the reasons and they must be as plain as the nose on our collective faces. We shouldn't get dragged into a war because someone markets one.Yes, but were you in favor of the war when Bush was proposing it? What is it the republicans call it? Wishy-Washy, flip-flopping? Don't vore for Kerry, he flip-flops. All these people were lined up beating the drum, we're going to war, yeah! Well, now who wants to admit they were in favor of the war when it began? Who used to think it was a good idea? Who used to think it was justified? Who used to think we should be going there?No volunteers? The polls showed a huge majority of Americans in favor...where are all of you now? As a staunch anti-Iraq war person, when the war began, people made hostile remarks about me...not in favor of the war? You're un-American! We shouldn't dissent we should support our president in the time of war. We're at war, we should suspend civil liberties...what a crock of blarney. Now all of you...where are you? Fess up! Say you are a flip-flopper...come on! The only thing that turns my stomach more than war-mongering republicans and whiny pansy democrats who follow the herd of public opinion like fat people follow ice cream trucks are the people of this country who are willing to say "we are willing to sacrifice our children for this war" and then come back and complain when they actually do get killed. Come on people, if its worth fighting for, its worth dying for. Don't do something half-way, if you commit to it, see it through, no matter how stupid. Now people are opposed to the war...too many people are dying...spending too much money...where were you people before? Anytime somebody tells you a war is going to be easy...be opposed to it...either its not worth fighting for or they are lying to you. You heard there's a war and you got behind it...but when you heard Americans were dying you started to get a weak stomach...what about the thousands of poor Iraqii people that have died? What about children who are missing arms or legs or are dead altogether? What about the hundreds of people who lost their homes and their way of life...what about them? Did we stop to think about them in this or was this a way to get video of bombing missions on TV? Is our way of life better because somebody else's is wrecked? Did we shead a single tear and ask if the human cost was too great? No...we just thought of the American cost. Thats why the rest of the world despises us...we don't think of anybody but our country and when the chips are down we stop thinking about our country and start being selfish. I can say my father fought for this country in WWII where millions of Americans lost their lives and millions of other people lost their lives. If we, as a country, we magically transported back to 1941, the Nazi and Japanese clowns would have won WWII. We would have given up by the spring of 1942. "Things were tough, we should give up and let facism  win." Fight a war with all sincerity and fight it like there is no tomorrow, because if you're are fighting a war it should be just. War should be the last result. Always. It shouldn't be the first thing on our minds when something bad happens, even the terrorist attacks on 9-11. We wanted to go to war, we wanted somebody else to die. Did attacking Afghanistan help? Did attacking Iraq help? The world is still convinced we will bomb and kill with the slightest provocation...our reputation is still intact. In fact, I think the damage we do to these countries will be sent back as more terrorists, more attacks, more hatred. If we find out that the next guy who flies a plane into a skyscraper (or whatever else they have planned ) joined the terrorist network because his family was killed in Iraq, then what? We can't take it back...its too late. Do you think people become terrorist networks because they are members of some strange religious order? Maybe its because they lost someone they loved or they hated to see other countries interfering in their affairs (like the US). We can't just bomb everyone everywhere and make it stop. We have to ask why these things were done, not just blindly commit to letting the government attack a country whose people are dark skinned, don't speak english and aren't good christians. Forget about WMDs or oil for food scandals. They don't mean anything and they shouldn't enter into the equation as to whether we go to war or not. Iraq never attacked the United States, they never threatened the United States, Al Queda did, and they are all over the world...you can't stop them by carpet bombing and miltary intervention. We need to use diplomacy and use our collective brain power to defeat them. We have avenged our anger blindly and we are paying a dear cost for it. We are all responsible for the umpteen thousands that have died. They should be on our conscience. Not the soldiers that have died in Iraq, they chose their profession, we can mourn for them and their families. What should disturb us are those innocent people trying to live their lives without harming us that died or are permanantly injured or lost somebody they loved. Those are whom should weigh heavy on our souls. Somebody is missing them right now, as long as somebody is still left alive. The next time somebody says "war!" think of a mother crying because her baby is dead and ask yourself "Is this necessary?".If you are a flip-flopper...think about a war, before you support it. If you oppose it, then the good robotic democrats of the congress will try to stop it. Some republicans, too. I suspect if we erred on the side of not having a war if we were unsure, we would never regret our decision.

[Oggie505]

this in reply to Alqoshnia, yes i saw the plane that hit it. I wa sworking on the potomac river which is right next to the pentagon, and it is the approach that planes use to fly into DC. I saw th eplane overhead, like i usually do then boom sucker hit

[Lukasa]

[quote name='HookahLion']Yea that would be a big NO!   Im pro-choice,
pso- stem cell research, and pro gay rights.  Need I say more?[/quote]

Theres more to politics than special interest groups.
Just giving you a hard time, but I find it that most people don't care
much about the broader spectrum and focus everything on abortion, gay
rights, and stem cell stuff, which is a shame because these things are
the tip of the iceberg...

I'm going to say no.  And I'm not going to go into an explanation
because the posts above me have probably summed it up pretty
well.  He cares about upper class america, pretends to care about
working class america so he can get elected and further is upper-class
agenda, whats not to hate.

[Ravon and The Doctor]

I posted this somethere else but this deserves to go in here too:Quote: Hookah_Bob I,
personally, cannot understand the blatant disrespect that George Walker
Bush receives. It boggles my mind how any citizen of the United States
can so oppose his or her own nation. Does the United States not provide
you with freedom, protection, and the opportunities for you to take
advantage of?

It is one thing to disagree with a leader's decisions and actions,
it is quite another to so blatantly ridicule one, and not only in
private conversations, but on public medians such as this forum and
even mass media. What does it show other countries? That we are weak
and that we do not support ourselves.

As for the war, no one can say that Saddam Hussein did not need to
be removed from power. He murdered over 182,000 people in his tenure as
dictator of Iraq. He has not changed his personality. He would have
kept murdering innocent his citizens.

I agree that our reasoning for going to Iraq were flawed and that
Saddam may not have had WMDs, but every other leader and governments of
our allies had access to the very same information that Bush had access
to, and they all agreed that there were WMDs in Iraq. It was not just
Bush's opinion on that matter.Now I am not a US
citizen but the American people's right to free speech is important to
me, consequently I would look down upon the grand old USA if its people
adamantly believed that they were incapable of making mistakes, unable
to admit any mistake or unable to take a look at their situation and
find the humour in it.  The USA, like the UK, has a person in power who
does not perform actions that represent the views of the majority.  As
point of fact Blair got his 3rd term with backing from only 22% of the
electorate.George Bush Jr doesn't appear to have been gifted
with intelligence, a good grasp of basic English, or an ability to
stand up to his father.  To date George Bush Jr has merely followed in
his fathers' footsteps; has spent his days in power under the watchful
supervision of what is essentially the same staff line-up that his
father chose; claimed a book published whilst he was in college was his
favourite childhood book; has been filmed appearing to read a book
whilst it was upside down; makes really stupid statements 'I think we
can all agree the past is over', 'it's clearly a budget- it's got lots
of numbers in it' etc...;  and regularly makes gross grammatical
mistakes despite having a speech writer.  This site might be of
interest to any patriotic American:
[url="http://www.drivingvotes.org/bushfacts.shtmlWhen"]http://www.drivingvotes.org/bushfacts.shtmlWhen[/url] a nation's leader is being ridiculed it does not automatically imply the nation is being ridiculed.I
do not condone the war on Iraq and whilst in Suddam Hussein instigated
the deaths of 182,000 (citation?) extrapolated data indicates the
removal of Saddam Hussein will cost Iraq citizens 285,888 of its people
if the current situation persists for the same length of time as Saddam
Hssein spent in power.[From
[url="http://icasualties.org/oif/IraqiDeaths.aspx"]http://icasualties.org/oif/IraqiDeaths.aspx[/url] it is found that in the
year 2005 11,912 civilians and Iraqi Security Force members were
killed.  Saddam Hussein was in power for 24 years
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein) thus using the death toll
in 2005 the cost of the removal of Hussein will likely cause 42% more
Iraqi deaths overall.]

[Sonthert]

Doesn;t it bother anybody that the "US" "Decides" to get rid of Saddam Hussein and does it? How are we "better" than everybody else?

[coolaskimdeal]

do I like our current President?  I don't know, I've never met him. 

do I think he's made some lousy decisions while in office?  most certainly.

however, my strongest distaste is for the way our country is set up to
accomodate to political beliefs based on $.  i flipped my sh*t
when i found out HALIBURTON was rebuilding what we destroyed. 
power inequalities bother me much more than george w. ever could. 
however, i think that after his term is up, we'll get someone in that
can help clean up the mess, and that's what i'm looking forward
to.  we need a progressive thinker in the white house, not someone
who wants to overturn policies that we aren't having any problems with,
roe v. wade, for example.  if you aren't pro-choice, volunteer to
help out at a planned parenthood for a week or two.  meet the
amazing women who come in there who cannot have a child in their life
for one reason or another, and then see if you really think it's fair
to force them to continue on without terminating their
pregnancies.  is spending 18 years in overcrowded foster care, or
forcing someone to go on welfare really any better?  and the whole
immigration thing really blows my mind, especially the idea of spending
all of that money to build a physical barrier between us and mexico,
when everyone here (except those we forced onto reservations) is the
product of immigration.  we have much bigger fish to fry,
especially when the majority of the people on welfare (per capita, not
in general even!) are Americans.  the only reason why immigration
is such a huge deal, as far as i can tell, is perpetuating
racism.  but what the hell do i know, right?

[Sonthert]

Yeah, but the conservative viewpoint, that George W. espouses is that women shouldn't be allowed to have abortions, because people believe it is wrong. I spoke with a young republican who said, on a related topic, "Gay marriage should be illegal because its wrong and against the bible." People who decide that their viewpoint is correct and force everybody else to abide by it by making a law. Kinda the same reason a whole lot of people got up and came over to found America. I think alot of people feel the same way, that George W. is a crooked, corrupt president who is giving out perqs to Cheney/Halliburton and other corporate friends, including attacking Afghanistan and Iraq.

[zombiedepot]

I don't. I believe he's more of a businessman than a leader.

[Sonthert]

Well, the economy fluorished under Clinton and has tanked under W. Bush. Deficit spending has gone through the roof, a complete lack of responsibility, yet he signs every budget. I agree with you, on the point, though, George W./The Bush Family has made alot of money from this war with Iraq.

[kilgore trout]

While I agree that Bush's economic policies are quite short-sighted and
often the wrong thing for the country (namely record defecit spending),
I'm not sure that you can say the economy has "tanked" under Bush, as
the Dow is only 145 points shy of its all time high.  Now is this
because of or in spite of Bush's policies?  I'm not sure anyone
really knows.  I think most people often overestimate the effect
that the president has upon the economy.

[Sonthert]

I could have sworn that, under Clinton, the DIA was in the mid 11s, now its near the 10s. I don't think that the DIA is necessarily a viable indicator of economic strength. If it is, the DIA has dropped slightly since Bush took office. If you follow the logic that war is good for the economy, then without the war with Iraq, the economy would be devastated. Even then, it has dropped slightly. Bush was on-track to be the first president in over 80 years that presided over an econonmy that had less jobs when he webt out as when he went in. More to the point, when Clinton took office, the DIA was in the mid 2000s! In his presidency, the economy did very well, then, the DIA went from lets say conservatively 3000 to 10,500...tripled! Bush's performance has been abysmal using your yard stick, which I said is not a very good economic indicator.

[kilgore trout]

Well, you can check the Dow yourself, it is in the mid 11s right
now.  Also, the recession at the beginning of the Bush presidency
began under the Clinton administration, which we have almost completely
recovered from now.  The theory that war is good for the economy
hasn't always held true, as Vietnam and the 1st Gulf War did nothing
for the economy and actually created problems for it.  War affects
the economy by discouraging investment because of market insecurity
along with several other factors.  Also, the operative term in
your statement is that "Bush was on
track to be the first president in over 80 years...that had less
jobs."  When was the DIA ever in the mid 2000s?  The Dow
record close is 11,722.98.  I would argue that, while Clinton's
balanced budget did help the economy, there was also a little thing
called the "technology revolution" at the time.  Productivity shot
up while keeping inflation low, leading to huge economic gains. 
Unemployment claims have also been falling lately, signaling
growth.  The Fed just announced that they were raising the
interest rates, something they do when they fear inflationary pressures
upon the economy.  So I would say that the economic indicators are
pointing towards a period of growth.

[hothead2]

I'm undecided at this point. He has done some stuff that I like, but also some stuff that I do not like at all. I still think he would of been better then any democrate, but perhaps that is why I didn't like Clinton.  

[kilgore trout]

Ignore that sentence in my last post when I asked about the DIA ever
being in the 2000s.  I completely misread what you wrote. 
Sorry.

[Sonthert]

OK, you are right, I haven't looked at the DIA in some time. So what...the DIA more than tripled under Clinton, but only gone up 10-15% under Bush. Its real easy to skirt around and say well this is attributable to Clinton, but not Bush. Or this is what Bush has done for us, but not Reagan, etc. Some would say that the balnced budgets of the last part of Clinton's presidency caused the recession that George W. dealt with in the beginning of his. What is true is that the first Gulf War in Iraq led to substantial increases in the price of crude oil...hence the price of gasoline went up only slightly (since Mexico wasn't part of OPEC and giving us the good neighbor discount). Now that Mexico joined OPEC, our effective oil price is about the price OPEC dictates it will be. Knowing this, George W. Bush chose to go to war with Iraq, which is causing these absurd gas prices which IS tanking the economy. Now for speculation: oil companies are making record profits, profits turn into dividend for stock holders, Bush, at least his father, probably the whole family are heavy stock holders. The continuation of the war is political suicide, hence the republican support in Congress is faltering...they will, some of them, be ousted from office because of Bush's shenanigans. It used to be believed that recession and inflation were opposites...if you had one, you didn;t have the other. In the mid-70s, both occurred simultaneously. Economists were stunned and devastated. If we only have ONE lever, the Prime Interest Rate, how can we control TWO different variables? What does that say for the long term success of our economy? Can we predict it? Can we control it? The main problem attributable to this phenomenon is the oil crisis of the early 70s. The price of oil goes up, the price of goods and services go up (as they charge you for the higher price of gas). Simultaneously, people, having to spend more money on gasoline, have to spend less in the economy, if the amount of money they spend is a fixed amount. Hence, inflation and recession. Stagflation. It will occur, soon, and in a bad way...the economy is showing signs of slowing down in the first quarter of 2006 and inflation is starting to peak. The real threat of stagflation is this...how do you stop it? If you raise interest rates to slow inflation, more jobs are lost as money tightens and businesses fail...hence people spend less money, newly unemployed, and more businesses fail...etc. On the other hand, you decide...that doesn't sound good...lets see whats behind door number two?! You lower interest rates, to keep Americans working...inflation continues at a high pace and  you threaten to get into a runaway inflationary period, like Mexico in the 80s, Germany in the 30s or parts of South America in the 90s. Theres an old story my grandmother told me, about 30s Germany. A man took a wheelbarrow full of German Marks to the store to find out if he could buy a loaf of bread...inflation was real bad...sometimes the price would be too high, sometimes they wouldn't have any bread because they couldn't afford to pay the workers or the suppliers. He went into the store to inquire...he came out to find somebody had dumped his money all over the ground and stoen the wheelbarrow!Geroge W. already faced deflation, the opposite of inflation, a grim and rare event, but incredibly destructive to an economy. Now we are looking at stagflation, or at least the early warning signs of it. Money is flooding out of the economy...to the oil companies and to the coffers of the stockholders of the oil companies. If Bush is not an idiot, he knows that his course of action threatens to bring stagflation down on us, the only credible threat to our economy besides national debt. HE still doesn't care about losing support of the republicans OR playing Russian Roulette with a credible threat to our economy and our way of life. As I said in the middle of 2001....he is the most dangerous president of the 20th century...he is completely self-motivated and cares nothing for the American people, he just wants to add more zeros to his bank account. I should also point out Cheney is no better...how is it that Halliburton who got comparitively few govenment awards before he was elected...magically gets all these contracts going to Halliburton now that its risen to the size that it is? How is it that, reportedly, Halliburton, was awarded a contract to help rebuild Iraq before the war with Iraq ever began? Doesn't seem to be much question that there is going to be a war and no, we don;t seem to have done much about checking to see who the most qualified company to award the contract to. The phrase is "conflict of interest".

[kilgore trout]

Just a side note: It really pains me to have to defend
Bush.

Yes, rising oil prices are causing increases in the prices of other goods
because of rising production and transportation costs.  However, it may be
a little bit too early to hit the stagflation panic button.  Right now we
are not seeing increases in oil prices such that they are choking
business.  True, they are imposing greater costs on businesses and
consumers alike, but the 1973 oil shock was a much larger percentage increase
in the price of oil because of an extreme lack of supply.  The CPI
(consumer price index) is increasing, showing about a 3-4% inflation rate,
indicating inflationary pressures on the economy.  However, it also must
be noted that unemployment is falling.  Stagflation is characterized by
high prices and high unemployment, the perfect storm that we have not reached
yet.  If massive hurricanes, conflict with Iran, or some other catastrophe
were to drive oil prices past $100 a barrel, then I would agree that we would
be looking at some serious trouble, but right now, it seems that the economy
may be able to absorb these price hikes.  However, this does not excuse
the complete lack of vision that the Bush administration has shown on environmental
policy.  Until Americans began to really complain about oil prices, Bush
was totally content to allow special interest groups (oil included) to dictate
enviro policy to his administration and Congress.  Only when the opinion
polls hit rock bottom did Bush claim that America was "addicted to
oil" in recent months.  It seems his opinions about energy policy
coming into office in 2000 were sorely misguided.

  I think the only reason he doesn’t care about losing the
support of the republicans as much as he used to is because he only has less
than two years to go.  I'm not sure I agree with your assessment that the
only reason Bush came to power was to pad his wallet.  While I think most
of his policies are quite moronic, I think that in his mind that's what he
believes is best for America,
most of the time.  We are talking about a man who claims to talk to God
and that God told him to run for president and invade Iraq.  I
find his unquestioning faith and belief that he is speaking with God to be very
troubling.  I do agree that many of the no-bid contracts in Iraq and in the
Katrina disaster were just more examples of corporate involvement in
government.  Halliburton seems to get nearly all of these contracts but
also seems to be inept at completing the job.  I'm sure that Bush and
Cheney are always mindful of the money that put them in office, namely large
corporations in the oil and energy industry, but I'm not quite convinced that
making money is the main reason that Bush wanted to get into the oval office.

[The Pope]

I am pro-gun, pro-abortion, pro-marijuana, pro-free trade,
anti-welfare, anti-socialized healtcare, anti-patriot act, and while
I'm pro-environment, I think the environmental movement has gone in a
rather wayward direction.

Because I have such a unconventional set of beliefs, I find that both
the Democratic and Republican parties are terminally flawed. I have no
kind words for Clinton, but the fact is, he isn't President any more.
It has been my observation that Bush II has done a very poor job
managing the country and it's interactions with the rest of the world,
largely because he tends to be both short-sighted in his goals and
guided by a mix of moral and ideological concepts that aren't
compatable with the ideas and structure the country is based on.

I like many people I strongly disagree with, even people I consider to
be "bad" people. I would suggest that the question isn't whether or not
you like Bush but what you think of his performance as President.

To answer the question though, no, I don't like him as a person either.

[gunsboy]

I love Bush he is the man ..
Check this out, the last one is the best one:
"Fool me once ... shame on ... shame on you .... HAHAHAHAHAHA"
[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKDINB2sCBM"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKDINB2sCBM[/url]
 

[Sonthert]

George Bush's recent stand on oil and energy is a flagrant attempt to curry favor with anyone who will listen. What happened to that strong, determined guy in 2004 who during his campaign said "Stay the Course"? The republicans are always accusing the democrats of being "flip-floppers", who's flip-flopping now? Stay the course doesn't mean "Come up with a new energy policy". The republicans used to refer to the democrats as the "Tax and spend party" and call them fiscally irresponsible. Now who's fiscally irresponsible AND flip flopping? Moreover, Bush's energy policy is a sham. It only serves to promote him and his interests that he has been pushing all throughout his presidency. He wanted to open up Alaskan preserve to oil drilling...magically it comes back to the table as a "solution" to our current problem, although it wouldn't produce a drop of oil for at least five years, helping us, when and how? A large number of oil wells are capped in this country, it would be far faster and cheaper to open them up and produce oil in that manner. This all reminds me of Enron, which George W. Bush was alegedly linked to, although not conclusively, by any means...don't let them produce anything until the price of oil gets above a certain level. We are technologically to the point where we could use largely 70-80% ethanol for fuel. What would we make ethanol with? All the corn and other grains left over from purchasing by the US government from farm subsudies that don't work. All the government would have to do is put a couple of huge distillieries together...it woul be just as fast as the Alaska plan, we would be deriving fuel from crops the taxpayer is paying for anyways and we would highly reduce our need to be enslaved to the price OPEC demands and the market floats on, largely speculatively. In short, we could nearly eliminate foreign dependence for oil. Of course that would annoy alot of big business and lobbyists.

[gunsboy]

"I know that human being and Fish can co-exist peacefully .."
"FOOL ME ONCE ... SHAME ON .. SHAME ON YOU ... The fool can't get fooled again" ....
George W. Bush
Hahahaha