George W. Bush Like or dis.

[Asheis]

Originally Posted by Wintermetal

But he has made a few good decisions; outlawing homosexual marriage was a good decision in my books. I don't say this because of my stance against homos but because Marriage was intended for both man and women and it spits on the sanctity of it. Another thing is though their has been a lot of problems with illegal immigration at least he is trying to do something to prevent it.

Both of these are more complex issues than that.

Do you also believe Civil unions are wrong practices? You believe that two women or two men that love eachother very much, enough to go against conventionality, enough to show it to the world, you believe these people are spitting on the sanctity of marriage? When a heterosexual couple who could possibly not even give a damn about eachother, are abusive to eachother, and can turn out to hate eachothers guts.. you're saying this isn't spitting on the sanctity of marriage? I really don't want to turn this into a homosexuality discussion, but you say your reason has nothing to do with your opinion on homosexuality... doesn't really seem that way to me.

As for illegal immigration.. I guess it's hard to understand and have compassion for these people unless you've known some yourself. I went to highschool in north las vegas. If you're not exactly familiar with what that means, where I went was basically the "spanish ghetto". I could see how hard these people where trying to just have a normal life. They're not illegally immigrating to spite us americans, they're doing it because they have nowhere else to go. They're doing it for their children. Added to that, They do the jobs that most americans wouldn't want to do. I know it's a tired argument, but there's more to it than just "lets kick these bastards out of our country because they want a free ride". If you saw what I saw, you probably wouldn't feel that way. They're definately not getting a free ride. Then again, who knows.

I don't feel he's handled either one of these issues as he should have.

I wish he would just separate religion from his presidency, and get over people's sexuality. He cares more about same sex marriage, then he does about education, or even the people in our own country.

Honestly, I wish I knew what a good solution to our immigration issues. I don't know that there is one. As long as mexico continues to be in the shape it is, and as long as america is that bright shining beacon of hope for better things, I don't really feel we'll get rid of illegal immigration.

Originally Posted by La Fée Verte

Both of these are more complex issues than that.

Do you also believe Civil unions are wrong practices? You believe that two women or two men that love eachother very much, enough to go against conventionality, enough to show it to the world, you believe these people are spitting on the sanctity of marriage? When a heterosexual couple who could possibly not even give a damn about eachother, are abusive to eachother, and can turn out to hate eachothers guts.. you're saying this isn't spitting on the sanctity of marriage? I really don't want to turn this into a homosexuality discussion, but you say your reason has nothing to do with your opinion on homosexuality... doesn't really seem that way to me.

Yes it is all good an well that homosexuals are willing to come out an say that they are here an they love eachother to the world. Lets face it though. There are a lot of murders that wanted to show the world how great it is to kill people for their sins. Not saying that it is anywhere close to describing a homosexual in love. However, it does point out the fact that pledging to the world your opinions an preferences...does not always mean you are brave or right.

As far as straight couples beating eachother....I have been in a same gender relationship, and there was abuse invlolved. So no matter what gender you pick...a relationship is a relationship. No questions about it. I have known a lot of gay women an men that cheat just as much as staight genders, and ones that abuse their lovers. So being homosexual does not ban life "of being in a relationship" from happening. It does, and quite frequently.

Basicly same sex an opposite sex have only a few qualities that seperate them. Basicly most homosexuals have no choice but to be sexually active with no chance of marrage. therefore not many straight church going people are going to like that. No matter if they themselves are being hypocrits or not. Straight people have a choice wether to have sex before marrage or not.

Also being that homosexuals do not have sex to procreate. Which is why a lot of church going people think that sex was created. Basicly there are very few animals in the world that have sex for pleasure. However people forget that a human being is one of those very few animals. So even though we are programmed to enjoy sex...people will always be mad at the ethnics of sex for pure pleasure an nothing more. Kind like someone who never settles down an just sleeps with man after man because it feels better an is more (its in there hearts). You are gonna think there is something wrong. Not that that is what homosexuals do..just pointing it out.

An basicaly sex an marrage are the only differences I can see. Being in the gay culture at one time (very long ago). I know that it is not all glammed up as a straight liberal would like you to think. "Oh give them their rights for love". Love isn't all people take into account. Also what are the chances of them actualy creating with the society; instead of in their own little world? Am I saying it is right what they think? No. I am okay with homosexuals...I don't really know how I feel about them getting married. Thinking that same sex is the same as homosexual sex..that's is just not right. We will always be different.

As for illegal immigration.. I guess it's hard to understand and have compassion for these people unless you've known some yourself. I went to highschool in north las vegas. If you're not exactly familiar with what that means, where I went was basically the "spanish ghetto". I could see how hard these people where trying to just have a normal life. They're not illegally immigrating to spite us americans, they're doing it because they have nowhere else to go. They're doing it for their children. Added to that, They do the jobs that most americans wouldn't want to do. I know it's a tired argument, but there's more to it than just "lets kick these bastards out of our country because they want a free ride". If you saw what I saw, you probably wouldn't feel that way. They're definately not getting a free ride. Then again, who knows.

Well I don't we should kick out the immagrants that have bothered to do it the legal way. There are legal ways to get into this country. Do you realise what the illegal immagrants do to the US though? Honestly? They dont pay the taxes that will send my kid to school. Yet I wil be paying for them to go to college out of mine. They can live off the goverment for being illegal an taking the crap jobs. While even with a good job I can't touch government help without climbing over red tape. While they live for free off this land....I am the one busting my ass looking for a place to live within my range of net worth. They get foodstamps, free health insurance, never taxed, and can have as many children as they want...an be given a ton of money for it. When the rest of the immagrants that came here legally have to work for what they have, and the people that already live here. They can become legal ..it is not an impossible feat. You know they get free GED classes while I pay 90.00 a class? They get the upper hand in this country while I get the lower hand because they didn't like living there; an it was easier to come here an take from the government. I am not saying to throw them out, but I do believe in border patrol. Anyone here that is not paying taxes shoud leave. Men an women worked hard to live in this country...they should at least be kind enough to want to work a little to get into it. An word for word...If I could get that "crap" job I would. Americans are not lazy. If they were looking for a job they would take it.(teens at Mc Donalds bring to mind some things). Survivng is hard enough without people leeching off of our hard earned dollars. Do you know how many other things we could have bought for our society if we didn't have to pay for their children? A play ground for my son..computers in the classrooms, better health care for my family,ghettos not being ghettos anymore. Lots. Everyone somewhere has it bad. In my book you work for what you have, and I don't think they did.

[KuroTenshi]

Ugh I cant stand George W. Bush. Its funny I should read this subject today as I have just seen the headlines on the news as the CIA having torture camps in Europe. How lovely, is this what America is all about? War on terrorisim and might I add that the amount of terrorisim we've caused others in the last couple of years and for what reason?
Its stupid, I dont like it and I hate Bush with a passion. I cant wait until 2008 when he can get the hell out of the white house.

[Kratos]

I like Bush.And I don't get why people blame him for people dying in Irag.They joined the army on their own will.So,basically,they know they're in danger.

[Jin]

You sir are absolutely correct. They KNEW what they were getting into when they signed up for the military. It's not the President's fault that anyone's died; they KNEW what they were doing. The President could send a single platoon into the heart of Iran and it would not be his fault that they died; It's the soldiers' fault that they died. They knew that they were going to be led on suicide missions and they also knew that they were going to be participating in pointless wars that are only continuing so the country doesn't look like it "cut and ran". Lastly, they pledged, when they signed up, to follow the executive power's orders to a tee and to never blame their death or the deaths of their friends and comrades on the asinine orders that indirectly led to them. They've learned from history, such as the charge of the light brigade, that when an executive power gives an order that causes many of them to die, they can only blame themselves for signing up.

I salute you, Boris the Blade!

[Ultima]

Originally Posted by Wintermetal

I do and I don't, I think he is kind of like an intelligent monkey or something.

The reason I don't like him obviously is because of the war, first of all the Oil Crisis is because they can't handle the fact that another country may just get a chance to be better than America at something. I hate how Americans constantly brag how they are best at everything when truthfully they are not. The 2nd reason being it also seems like a war for Israel which I think is absolutely stupid. Sending over American citizens to die for a cause that has nothing to do with them one bit what so ever absolutely makes me sick. I am not saying Israel deserves a chance but killing innocent Iraqi’s is not the answers. Lastly I don't like how he uses the fact that he is a Christian to everything he is doing, I have nothing against him being a Christian but expecting to use it as an excuse is a disgrace.

But he has made a few good decisions; outlawing homosexual marriage was a good decision in my books. I don't say this because of my stance against homos but because Marriage was intended for both man and women and it spits on the sanctity of it. Another thing is though their has been a lot of problems with illegal immigration at least he is trying to do something to prevent it.

I must apologize if I have made any errors, I stopped following American politics when I realized the country is full of "monkey see, monkey do" kind of people.

I honestly think that marriage is for everyone striaght or gay. Who says love and sex is only for herterosexuals? One of my friends is gay and he got married not to long ago. I know alot of gay people and they are very nice and comsatrate to other people just as any man or woman can be. Back on topic, I truely hate this man from the bottom of my heart. Reason being because he's led alot of man and woman down a bloodie path of death for the last 5 years, that's why he never called them back. A Good President would use more tactical plans to fight a war, without sacrificing brave courageous people and making their families suffer. He's no leader, he's just a man that only cares about winning this war, even if that means throwing away innocent lives, which in my book is horrible. Sorry for being so blunt.

[Emerald620]

ok i'm not going to say like or dislike because i don't want to get into any political argument here but i have to say there are plusses and minusses(sorry for incorrect spelling) any ways, he has handeled the war very well, yes it was a bit off on the prediction he originally set but one thing led to another and bam...Osama to Sadam, nothing wrong with that but keep focused on one then move to the other... and also i think that something was wrong with the US economy before the war and thats why we declaed war, ever realize that wartime is what always got us out of a depression, so i think he did a good job seeing the way through that.
Now there were some bad thing he did do, i believe he handles his speeches all wrong and he loses respect out of the american population that way, i was surprised that Kerry didn't beat him... and some say that his IQ isn't where it should be, but look at Nixon, he wasn't the smartest ever and declared good relations to china... i can go on about more economy troubles and also more how we should have more control over large corporations and the nationla debt but lets save that for another time

[Dead & Grateful]

Originally Posted by Emerald620

ok i'm not going to say like or dislike because i don't want to get into any political argument here but i have to say there are plusses and minusses(sorry for incorrect spelling) any ways, he has handeled the war very well, yes it was a bit off on the prediction he originally set but one thing led to another and bam...Osama to Sadam, nothing wrong with that but keep focused on one then move to the other... and also i think that something was wrong with the US economy before the war and thats why we declaed war, ever realize that wartime is what always got us out of a depression, so i think he did a good job seeing the way through that.
Now there were some bad thing he did do, i believe he handles his speeches all wrong and he loses respect out of the american population that way, i was surprised that Kerry didn't beat him... and some say that his IQ isn't where it should be, but look at Nixon, he wasn't the smartest ever and declared good relations to china... i can go on about more economy troubles and also more how we should have more control over large corporations and the nationla debt but lets save that for another time

Do you honestly know what you're talking about?

Firstly, pick a side. Don't claim that you don't want to step on any toes, be commited. We'll respect your opinion as long as it is intelligible. Also, wars put us in depressions, please explain your logic when saying that they help out economy. Thirdly, why do you think we went to war? If you're right about war pulling us out of economic crises, is it still right that we went to war in the first place? And last of all, how much do you actually know about the Watergate Scandal and Nixon in general?

[She]

I do not like George Bush. He has really made no good decisions since his time in office, and things only get worse with this war he keeps going. Gas prices being so high, are his fault but unfortunately there is nothing we can do about it at the moment. The only thing we can do, is to at least try and make sure people like him no longer make it to office.

[Nin`]

Originally Posted by Angry Moogle

Did Bush really need to go to war?

I am going to try and give you a new persprective on this question over multipule fields of interest.

Firstly, there''s no evidence Saddam Hussein had ties with al-Qaida, according to a Senate report on prewar intelligence that Democrats say undercuts President Bush''s justification for invading Iraq, AP reported.

If this is correct, and I see no reason to imagine that it has been made up, then there is only possible conclusion to be drawn. We did indeed start a highly illegal as well as unethical war of unprovoked war of aggression against Iraq which has destroyed Iraq already and the cost of which may yet destroy the United States - which in case you hadn't heard, now has over 145,000 troops engaged there - possibly in anticipation of an equally illegal strike on Iran timed for the current elections.

This action was brought to us by two branches of the American Government. The President and Congress. We should see impeachments and a general booting following or will have to conclude that the people of the United States don't care. I'm betting on the latter. This would have strong implications about the American character.

Of course this tends to echo on the fact, and evidence that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction which was yet another (convenient) "reason" used for the wars justification.

Yet rather surprisingly half of the U.S population still believes Iraq had weapons of mass destruction...talk about self denial.
Yet now (becuase the U.S have run out of "reasons") the war is based on "the war on terror".

But does this justify the actions of the U.S after so many holes in their "reasoning"? How does one actually stop "terrorism"?

Contra Bush, "terrorism" cannot be defeated. As I have previously observed, "terrorism" is a tactic, not an entity. While it is possible to reduce the likelihood of "terrorism" in one place or another by guarding those places, or through one mechanism or another by restricting access to the means, this is always expensive, sometimes extremely so, and generally futile. This is because the target of "terrorism" is "defending from the inside", in other words the target has to defend every possible thing of value from every imaginable attack. The "terrorist" only has to find one weakness in this defense, or an alternative means of attack, and a target is history. The South Africans (ANC, PAC) and British (IRA, Provo) both learned this expensive, unpleasant lesson.

So long as the "terrorist" is motivated by the perception of inequity the "terrorists" will keep attacking, and for every terrorist eliminated, more will be inspired to the same path. The number inspired, and the viciousness with which they will act will depend largely on the brutality of reprisals and the number of previously uninvolved who become enmeshed in actions attempting to suppress "terrorism". The South Africans had good statistics proving these escalations in number and technique which, no matter how nasty the "Apartheid Regime" sometimes may have seemed, eventually tended to temper their responses to "terrorism".

Unfortunately, both countries and their inhabitants had to sustain massive injuries at the hands of "terrorists", unfortunate decreases in personal freedom (in the attempt to sacrifice a little freedom for a little security) as well as significant economic losses (most self-inflicted), before they recognized that their responses were more harmful to themselves than to their opponents. However, the politicians of both of these countries also learned (eventually) what their military had told them from the beginning. There is only one successful way of preventing terrorism*. That is to find a diplomatic solution which removes the motivation to terrorism. The way you do that is to sit down with the "terrorists" and negotiate, honestly, in such a way as to remove the motivation to terror.

In the case of the US (and UK, Australia and now Canada), the unmentionable fact is that the terrorism against them was initially triggered by support for Israel (interestingly, of all the listed complaints against us by bin Laden, this is the one which was omitted in the contemporaneous reports), but our brutal activities in Afghanistan and Iraq are now acting as inciters and motivators for an extension of the "terrorist" population, both in the target areas and now (apparently in sympathy) within the populations of the inciting countries. As far as Israel goes, they seem to be doing their level best to make the pre-1942 Nazi treatment of Jews seem acceptable and the nasty reactions they inspire seems largely predicated on the fact that with the possible exception of racists who think that the Palestinians deserve such treatment, and the religiously insane who apparently believe Israel can do no wrong, most people find this unacceptable. Particularly their victims. And who can blame them. The recently repeated tragedy in the Lebanon will simply increase the number of people who hate us because of what we do. The fact, known to every Arab, that the majority of the destruction of the water reticulation network of the Lebanon is due to Israeli use of American supplied "bunker buster" bombs flown in via Britain simply connects us irrevocably (and no doubt, in the victim's eyes, deservedly) to the anticipated retribution for this horrible saga**.

Unfortunately, our leaders, and seeing as we assert that we are democracies and so voted them into these positions, our populations, are too stupid to learn from the mistakes (and successes) of others or their own past, and so we are doomed to repeat failed behavior until we eventually learn, are eradicated, or eradicate ourselves. The American misleader is stupid enough to be whining that the "Arabs" don't appreciate what we are doing to/for them. Rather sad, isn't it.

Conclusion: Bush is probably the biggest mistake, while at the same time being the biggest convenience in American presidential history.

Lucifer

*I suggest that if the horror was not deliberate, it is at the very least convenient, as it has completely overshadowed the ongoing atrocities and illegalities currently occurring on the West Bank and in Gaza.

**At least if you reject Stalin, Israel and now Putin's method of preventing terrorism by enacting genocide of the population hosting the supposed terrorists. Which I would argue is, like the US and its codependent's activities in the Middle East, state terrorism of an even nastier nature than the individual terrorism supposedly being responded to - clearly outside of the laws governing modern warfare and utterly removing validity from any claim to ethical superiority on the part of the genocidalist.

[Sasquatch]

Originally Posted by Lucifer`

Firstly, there''s no evidence Saddam Hussein had ties with al-Qaida, according to a Senate report on prewar intelligence that Democrats say undercuts President Bush''s justification for invading Iraq, AP reported.

There was no evidence (found at that time) that Saddam was linked with the attacks of September 11, 2001. There has been plenty of evidence that has linked Saddam and Al-Qaida.

We did indeed start a highly illegal as well as unethical war of unprovoked war of aggression against Iraq which has destroyed Iraq already and the cost of which may yet destroy the United States - which in case you hadn't heard, now has over 145,000 troops engaged there - possibly in anticipation of an equally illegal strike on Iran timed for the current elections.

The actions in Iraq are not only perfectly legal, ethical, and highly provoked (or do you forget the past decade?), they are long overdue. Saddam was given chance after chance, and he refused to cooperate -- and since the UN is incompetent, somebody had to step up. The United States is not going to sit back and let the UN fail miserably while a stated enemy of everything we stand for acquires weapons of mass destruction.

This action was brought to us by two branches of the American Government. The President and Congress. We should see impeachments and a general booting following or will have to conclude that the people of the United States don't care.

Impeachment for what? Nothing illegal was done.

Of course this tends to echo on the fact, and evidence that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction which was yet another (convenient) "reason" used for the wars justification.

Yet rather surprisingly half of the U.S population still believes Iraq had weapons of mass destruction...talk about self denial.

Yes, talk about denial indeed. You must be ignoring the vials of Sarin that were found, or the paperwork documenting Saddam's search for Uranium, or the entire squadron of warplanes modified and fully equipped to deliver chemical weapons to long-range targets. You must not have heard of the scores of Iraqi scientists, captured or defected, that have told multiple intelligence agencies of the weapons that Saddam already had and the weapons he was looking for. And you definitely must have forgotten how much Saddam jerked around the UN while Clinton gave him free reign for nearly a decade. So please, do some research, and maybe you'll realize that half of the U.S. population is still ignoring the facts, bent on the idea that we found nothing in Iraq and that Saddam was a nice guy.

Yet now (becuase the U.S have run out of "reasons") the war is based on "the war on terror".

That was an original reason anyway. An extension of the War on Terror. How quickly you forget.

But does this justify the actions of the U.S after so many holes in their "reasoning"? How does one actually stop "terrorism"?

How does one stop Terrorism? By killing terrorists, for one thing. More effectively, by taking out those who supply the terrorists. Those like Saddam.

...There is only one successful way of preventing terrorism*. That is to find a diplomatic solution which removes the motivation to terrorism. The way you do that is to sit down with the "terrorists" and negotiate, honestly, in such a way as to remove the motivation to terror.

The only "negotiations" most terrorists will abide by are those which include the extermination of certain groups of people and the complete destruction of Israel. Those aren't negotiations. If things could be solved through diplomacy, they would.

In the case of the US (and UK, Australia and now Canada), the unmentionable fact is that the terrorism against them was initially triggered by support for Israel (interestingly, of all the listed complaints against us by bin Laden, this is the one which was omitted in the contemporaneous reports), but our brutal activities in Afghanistan and Iraq are now acting as inciters and motivators for an extension of the "terrorist" population, both in the target areas and now (apparently in sympathy) within the populations of the inciting countries.

Actually, our support for our ally has almost always been mentioned as a leading motivator for terrorism. Nearly as important are the facts that we're not Muslim, we're not Arab, and we're not living in poverty. While there are a few specific instances of "brutality", and those few do fuel support for insurgency and terrorism, most have been overblown or fabricated. Unless you're ignorantly referring to the conflict itself, in which case I'd have to point out that most of the insurgency is coming not from Iraq, but the surrounding Arab Muslim countries -- Afghanistan is slightly different because of loyalty to an old regime, and Iraq still has shreds of the ERG and others of Saddam's special military that are loyal still, most terrorists come into the country for their attacks.

As far as Israel goes, they seem to be doing their level best to make the pre-1942 Nazi treatment of Jews seem acceptable and the nasty reactions they inspire seems largely predicated on the fact that with the possible exception of racists who think that the Palestinians deserve such treatment, and the religiously insane who apparently believe Israel can do no wrong, most people find this unacceptable.

Israel has been fighting for its own survival since, literally, the day of its re-creation. When was the last time Israel deliberately targeted a highly-populated civilian area to send a suicide bomber, to slaughter the most women and children? When was the last time Israel had cameras set up to maximize the media effects of their suicide bombers? When was the last time an Israeli put an explosive vest on a pregnant woman, or a mentally handicapped child, or filled an ambulance with explosives, and sent them into areas that would cause the most death and destruction to innocent civilians? If you have a problem with Israel's tactic of precision strikes on military targets, you're going to hate every war anyway.

By the way, along the lines of the "Palestinians": They want an Arab Palestinian state, correct? Look through history a bit -- they have one. It's called Jordan. And they had the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and even Golan Heights, but instead of being satisfied with it, they decided to use those places as platforms to launch more attacks on Israel, so Israel regained and still maintains control of them.

And where the hell does racism come into this, anyway? You just got in here and you're already shouting accusations of prejudice. You're on your way to making the Democratic Party proud.

The recently repeated tragedy in the Lebanon will simply increase the number of people who hate us because of what we do. The fact, known to every Arab, that the majority of the destruction of the water reticulation network of the Lebanon is due to Israeli use of American supplied "bunker buster" bombs flown in via Britain simply connects us irrevocably (and no doubt, in the victim's eyes, deservedly) to the anticipated retribution for this horrible saga**.

Yes, and it's a good thing the Bunker Busters screwed up their infrastructure, too. Maybe next time they'll think twice about kidnapping, torturing, and murdering Israelis. Lebanon has long been overdue for an ass-whupping anyway, and there's no need to beat a dead horse by trying the "diplomacy" angle. If the people of Lebanon weren't ready for a war, they should have made sure that Hezbollah, which prettymuch runs Lebanon, didn't commit acts of war. Too late now.

Unfortunately, our leaders, and seeing as we assert that we are democracies and so voted them into these positions, our populations, are too stupid to learn from the mistakes (and successes) of others or their own past, and so we are doomed to repeat failed behavior until we eventually learn, are eradicated, or eradicate ourselves.

Actually, we are learning from the past. We learned that if we ignore terrorism like Clinton did, it will only get worse, and many more deaths will occur than if we confront it now. Which is why we're doing something about terrorism now. On the same note, our enemies are failing to learn from the mistakes others have made in the past, the most important lesson being: Don't F*** With America.