Do you approve of George W. Bush?

Iceman

New Member
Messages
308
Reaction score
0
Points
0
This doesn't just apply if you're American. Let's make it global.

I myself, do not. Having gone to Europe recently, and being asked on multiple occasions and in countries things like 'Do you like Bush?'...'No'...'Good!', I can see that a good majority of the rest of the world doesn't like him, either.

I feel he's been far too deceiving on issues such as Iraq, where we were carried in under the pretense of Weapons of Mass Destruction. The public would have never gone in if they would have known what we did and are doing now, taking down a tyrant, yes, a tyrant, but also a tyrant that had done nothing to the U.S. in a very long time, and spawning insurgents that are nearly impossible to defeat. How are you supposed to scare or defeat a man willing to strap a bomb to his chest and die for his beliefs?

Also, I feel that the economy has suffered greatly under his rule, most notably but not only, Oil. Prices on nearly all products have gone up at least somewhat, and you can't blame it on inflation--my wages haven't gone up in response.

Are there any other arguments for or against anyone would like to share?
 

komodolinux

New Member
Messages
358
Reaction score
0
Points
0
i have to agree with you on most things.

i think hes in the pockets of the oil-men.
 

DotCom

New Member
Messages
80
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I think The man Is On the side of becoming insane. I never liked him......and never will.
 

Iceman

New Member
Messages
308
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Well, this debate is becoming one-sided....we need some people to come and defend his choices. I know there's gotta be quite a few defenders.
 

limelight

New Member
Messages
798
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I'm not sure. As much as I hate what he's doing in Iraq, I kinda starting to think that the U.S. is safer with him. He knows how to protect his country, for sure. But I don't like the way he does it.
 

MicrotechXP

New Member
Messages
7,644
Reaction score
0
Points
0
No I do not aprove of Bush he is doing nothing for us and he is still president.... It was a wrong choice to go to Iraq he new he would creat a lot of havok! People dieing people sad becasue there familyes ae not safe... very bad choice...
 
Last edited:

Mikek

New Member
Messages
246
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I dont approve of George Bush.
This is mainly because in his war, I though he claims to be defending democratic ideals such as freedom of speech, assoiciation, religion, and other rights such as the right to a trial by jury.

However he detains people in cages probably designed for animals. (Guantanomo Bay) and subjects them to a 'kangaroo court'.

Also his goverment's patriot act that apparently allows the goverment to invade your privacy and supposely other acts
 

dsfreak

New Member
Messages
1,338
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I do not approve of George Bush. I have been to South East Asia, Europe, Canada, Mexico. etc,. I have heard many GOOD reasons why George Bush shouldn't be president, and some god reasons why he should be. However, I do not approve that George should be president.
 

Kurther Reich

New Member
Messages
188
Reaction score
0
Points
0
wow... well, I'm gonna sound like a drop of water in the ocean, but at the risk of that... I agree with him... Yes I know he has his flaws, as do all men. However, everypoint many a point you guys have made have not been true... This war "he" started. Was it not the terrorists, and if he hadn't re-acted, we would of had another 9/11 down the road, and we've fought back... Would you rather have us just sit back and let them do it again? I didn't think so. Next, America's economy was going to fall nomatter who was in charge, you see, George Bush was left with the America Clinton let us, he got America to the point where we had a lot of problems, and handed them over to the next president, aka, Bush. Now, as a man, George Bush is very respectable, for one, he's not sexually harrasing women (*cough*Clinton *cough*), to, he keeps his promises, and does what is best for the country.
Now even if you don't agree with what he is doing, he is still the President of the United States of America, and you should respect his authority, I couldn't stand Clinton, but I still aknowledged he was our president...
And All I have to say, is Clinton gave China our nuclear war head info... they gave us panda's.
-Reich
 
Last edited:

Iceman

New Member
Messages
308
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Kurther Reich said:
wow... well, I'm gonna sound like a drop of water in the ocean, but at the risk of that... I agree with him... Yes I know he has his flaws, as do all men. However, everypoint many a point you guys have made have not been true... This war "he" started. Was it not the terrorists, and if he hadn't re-acted, we would of had another 9/11 down the road, and we've fought back... Would you rather have us just sit back and let them do it again? I didn't think so. Next, America's economy was going to fall nomatter who was in charge, you see, George Bush was left with the America Clinton let us, he got America to the point where we had a lot of problems, and handed them over to the next president, aka, Bush. Now, as a man, George Bush is very respectable, for one, he's not sexually harrasing women (*cough*Clinton *cough*), to, he keeps his promises, and does what is best for the country.
Now even if you don't agree with what he is doing, he is still the President of the United States of America, and you should respect his authority, I couldn't stand Clinton, but I still aknowledged he was our president...
And All I have to say, is Clinton gave China our nuclear war head info... they gave us panda's.
-Reich

1) I should start by saying I respect that you at least stood by your candidate even in a topic with a bunch of people who disagree with your views.

2) I frankly couldn't care if Clinton had sex while in office. I could care, however, that Bushes choices, killed thousands.

3) I don't think I've ever met somebody who refused to call him our president, and I am aware that he has authority for winning the election.

4) He didn't start the War on Terror - - He did, however, start the War on Iraq. The war on Iraq was a completely seperate war and had no links to 9/11.

5) Clinton didn't kill the economy-- as I remember, it was up from him. If anyone 'killed' the economy, and we were to play that blame game, we could look back to Reagan. Living in the midwest, a great many people, my dad included, were laid off during his presidency. When the office was changed in 2000, the economy was going fairly strong, with no signs of an imminent collapse.

6) I should add onto my point about George W. Bush having as many flaws as Clinton by mentioning his past, as well. He has admitted to being a partier, smoked pot, and there are a few videos that have been over the internet of him at weddings and the like completely drunk.
 
Last edited:

Kurther Reich

New Member
Messages
188
Reaction score
0
Points
0
1) I should start by saying I respect that you at least stood by your candidate even in a topic with a bunch of people who disagree with your views.

2) I frankly couldn't care if Clinton had sex while in office. I could care, however, that Bushes choices, killed thousands.

3) I don't think I've ever met somebody who refused to call him our president, and I am aware that he has authority for winning the election.

4) He didn't start the War on Terror - - He did, however, start the War on Iraq. The war on Iraq was a completely seperate war and had no links to 9/11.

5) Clinton didn't kill the economy-- as I remember, it was up from him. If anyone 'killed' the economy, and we were to play that blame game, we could look back to Reagan. Living in the midwest, a great many people, my dad included, were laid off during his presidency. When the office was changed in 2000, the economy was going fairly strong, with no signs of an imminent collapse.

6) I should add onto my point about George W. Bush having as many flaws as Clinton by mentioning his past, as well. He has admitted to being a partier, smoked pot, and there are a few videos that have been over the internet of him at weddings and the like completely drunk.[/QUOTE]

Okay, Bush has fought back against terrorists, and we have had some casualties, still, the least amount of casualties in basically all the wars we've actually fought in, and there would be a lot more if we didn't fight back. Take a killer, if he kills 10 people, and the police does not stand up to him, and try to stop him, more are going to die. Bush has fought back, lost some, but to save many more. The only way to stop terrorism is to snuff it out, and destroy it, thats what he is doing.
Next, if he hadn't gone into Iraq, we wouldn't have caught Sadam, and there might of been even more attacks, also we went in to help Israel. Like I said earlier, we have to destroy terrorism, and to do that, we had to go into Iraq.
Also, when you brought up Bush's past, he'd be the first to admit to his bad behavior in the past, but he has changed, and repented, tot he best of our knowlede. And if you wanna say Clinton's scandles are ok, but Bush did pot, was it not Clinton who smoked weed, and don't even think about telling me, he never inhaled, or whatever. The difference between Bush, and Clinton, is that they both had very checkered pasts, but Bush has changed. He nolonger does that anymore.

And then you said that Clinton didn't destroy the economy, that it was more reagan. You can't think Clinton helped Americas economy, giving away military secrets to other countries, that aren't allies. And if you bring up the man in office who leaked CIA info, he got fired by Bush.

And to end it, which most prolly won't even read this far, but, I do not want to sit and argue all day. If nothing else, we can agree to disagree, but this is where I stand. At least I know, Bush is doing his best to protect the country we live in.
-Reich
 

Iceman

New Member
Messages
308
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Okay, Bush has fought back against terrorists, and we have had some casualties, still, the least amount of casualties in basically all the wars we've actually fought in, and there would be a lot more if we didn't fight back. Take a killer, if he kills 10 people, and the police does not stand up to him, and try to stop him, more are going to die. Bush has fought back, lost some, but to save many more. The only way to stop terrorism is to snuff it out, and destroy it, thats what he is doing.

Next, if he hadn't gone into Iraq, we wouldn't have caught Sadam, and there might of been even more attacks, also we went in to help Israel. Like I said earlier, we have to destroy terrorism, and to do that, we had to go into Iraq.
Also, when you brought up Bush's past, he'd be the first to admit to his bad behavior in the past, but he has changed, and repented, tot he best of our knowlede. And if you wanna say Clinton's scandles are ok, but Bush did pot, was it not Clinton who smoked weed, and don't even think about telling me, he never inhaled, or whatever. The difference between Bush, and Clinton, is that they both had very checkered pasts, but Bush has changed. He nolonger does that anymore.

And then you said that Clinton didn't destroy the economy, that it was more reagan. You can't think Clinton helped Americas economy, giving away military secrets to other countries, that aren't allies. And if you bring up the man in office who leaked CIA info, he got fired by Bush.

And to end it, which most prolly won't even read this far, but, I do not want to sit and argue all day. If nothing else, we can agree to disagree, but this is where I stand. At least I know, Bush is doing his best to protect the country we live in.
-Reich

1) There is a line between tyranny and terrorism, and it's not exactly fine--Tyranny has its borders, and tyrants fear the people the oppress. We went into Iraq under the assumption the current governent were terrorists. That was wrong. They were tyrants. Was it good to get rid of them? Sure, it certainly wasn't bad. But did it cause more problems than it solved? Certainly. By using Iraq as a figurehead for terrorism before dealing with the actual causes of 9/11 (Al Qaeda), we attracted those terrorists into the country. There have been quotes from White House Spokespersons even admitting that there was no presence of Al Qaeda, and a minimal presence of terrorism, before we had invaded.

2) Your argument about the killer is wrong--In the real argument, the 'killer' killed noone, but taking action and laying the blame on the 'killer', a war would start that would cost thousands of lives.

3) Do you really think that terrorism can be stopped? Terrorism is not a government, organization, race, or group--You cannot simply kill all of the current terrorists and think that it will be gone. The people the U.S. government has affected negatively while in Iraq will grow up hating the United States, giving them a much higher chance of retaliating as they grow up. And if they have kids, their kids will hate the United States, and so on...

4) Once again, Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. That was Al-Qaeda. There were no links between the two.

5) Is Bush doing his best? I think so, and I don't think there' s any reason he wouldn't do his best. But don't you think there are others whose best efforts would do more good than his?
 

dum_spiro_spero

New Member
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Kurther Reich said:
If nothing else, we can agree to disagree, but this is where I stand. At least I know, Bush is doing his best to protect the country we live in.
-Reich

As I am not American, I can't claim to know anything about how well Bush may be leading his country, but I do know that a president's main purpose is not to protect it, but to lead and guide the people towards their own development and happiness. I think that it is this mindset that causes the problems - if America continually focuses upon it's own security and defense, then it will continue to find threats and danger wherever it goes. Not only does this lack of trust towards other nations cause resentment and coldness, but it is an incredibly selfish way to behave. If the American government diverted its military budget (worth billions every year) towards helping other countries instead of fearing them, can you imagine how quickly things would improve? Not only would the US lift their profile immensely, but aid to other countries would lead to a boost in the world economy, which should be good for everyone, right? And terrorists would be less motivated to attack due to decreased resentment towards the US.

Of course, America is not the only country guilty of being selfish, rich and developed. But if Bush claims to lead the most poweful and influential nation on earth, then he should take responsibility and set a proper example for other nations.

Sorry if I've said anything out of line. It's just my opinion, and not a terribly educated one at that.
 
Last edited:

Burak

New Member
Messages
258
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Iceman said:
1) I should start by saying I respect that you at least stood by your candidate even in a topic with a bunch of people who disagree with your views.

2) I frankly couldn't care if Clinton had sex while in office. I could care, however, that Bushes choices, killed thousands.

3) I don't think I've ever met somebody who refused to call him our president, and I am aware that he has authority for winning the election.

4) He didn't start the War on Terror - - He did, however, start the War on Iraq. The war on Iraq was a completely seperate war and had no links to 9/11.

5) Clinton didn't kill the economy-- as I remember, it was up from him. If anyone 'killed' the economy, and we were to play that blame game, we could look back to Reagan. Living in the midwest, a great many people, my dad included, were laid off during his presidency. When the office was changed in 2000, the economy was going fairly strong, with no signs of an imminent collapse.

6) I should add onto my point about George W. Bush having as many flaws as Clinton by mentioning his past, as well. He has admitted to being a partier, smoked pot, and there are a few videos that have been over the internet of him at weddings and the like completely drunk.
Iceman, i completely agree with you. Especially, the war..... no invasion of Iraq. This was a lack of strategy, cuz it was the last thing people could stand. Now most of europe and especially turkey hates bush. Why?

Easy, a terrorist group named PKK was trying to establish a Kurdish country on mesopotamia, and a major part of this "country" on eastern par of turkey, and these terrorist tried to turn the kurts agains turkey. When they resisted they started to kill em. Think about it, their name was meaning Army fo Indepency for Kurdish, but they killed kurdish people. After a war of 20 years against this group, we (turks) defeated them and PKK became only a small, local gang. This was a good wictory, but just take a lok at results: 35.000 civil turks and 5.000 soldiers died in that war, also kurts in turkey lost 13.000 people. There was peace since 2000, but after invasion, PKK became powerful once again, and restarted attacks. Because of this, turkey hates bush.
 

Album

New Member
Messages
348
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I'm not a Bush fan either... I always prefered Kerry and Gore over him, but in the long run i think all 3 were bad candidates..
 

acousticism

New Member
Messages
40
Reaction score
0
Points
0
not really, I don't really like him, but, I'll support him. Cause im proud to be an american BOOYA!:shaun:
 

Spartan Erik

Retired
Messages
6,764
Reaction score
0
Points
0
before the election, i was pro bush because of his beliefs in gay marriage and rights
however now that hes gone several years into his presidency, im finding that hes becoming more religiously centered, and against scientific research that can be beneficial, such as stem cells. war isnt a great thing but hey we took down a dictator and we're going to get some oil from it hopefully. i still wish we'd get an alternative source such as liquified natural gas.. its plentiful, natural, and renewable. a good temporary solution would be hybrid cars such as the honda insight, honda hybrid civic & accord, and the toyota prius. hydrogen's water byproduct will damage roads and result in car accidents, fuel cells require platinum catalysts so its not cost effective yet

okay im starting to rant.. back to the point

however, john kerry was the exact opposite of bush, but i disagree in his gay marriage and rights policies..

if you ask me, this election was a choice between the lesser of two evils
now i perceive it as equal evils

we havent had a good presidential candidate to elect for the past decade almost

i just wish both parties would stop electing people from rich families who dont know whats good for the country.. we need someone educated that is from the middle or low class who knows what the people need, and will progress the country for better
 
Last edited:
Top