Everyone Who Dislikes/Likes George W. Bush, Tell Us Why In Your Own Words (1 Viewer)

[nolazach]

Regarding a presidential candidate not winning the popular vote, but winning the electorial college and the election, sorry but that's the law and it has occurred many times in our nation's history.

First that is very wrong. In history a few elections were close but only two times before has this happened when the President won the college but not the Popular vote. It has not happened many times, it has not happened a few times it happened twice.

http://www.presidentelect.org/art_evpvdisagree.html

If you look into it, only one the 1888 election was just like 2000, you could argue the 1924 election but the house did that not the College. So to say it happens is wrong, your party won and in the end we all lost. Thanks



But that okay Bush's brother stole the election with help from a certain Woman who was later rewarded for this. It was a sham. But it happened no more sour grapes. Look I read everysingle post and you are pro-bush. You have countered every single Liberal claim with something de-meaning to great leaders. First you try to lump Lincoln in and now Kennedy. Well that is just crazy. Kennedy was a great leader in his short time, Nixon was a crook.

 

[nolazach]

we are supposed to be witnessing and sharing the Gospel with others. .

Isn't hat a nice way to describe the forced conversions that happened for the first 1700 years of the church. The idea that others must belive as you. Our ancestors were made Christian many by force, many had no choice. I cringe when I hear the "share" thing. It reminds me of the "Jehovah's witness' " that come by all the time or the guys on bikes dressed in white with cheap ties asking me to let them in my house to talk about Jesus in America. Worse yet Tom Cruise want to teach his truth to you too. I am Christian, but I don't force my ideas on others. It seems many on the right do.

 

[AR Saint]

Isn't hat a nice way to describe the forced conversions that happened for the first 1700 yars of the church. The idea that others must belive as you. Our ancestors were made Christian many by force, many had no choice. I cringe when I hear the "share" thing. It reminds me of the "Jehovah's witness' " that come by all the time or the guys on bikes. Worse yet Tom Cruise want to teach his truth to you too. I am Christian, but I don't force my ideas on others. It seems many on the right do.

I think you have the wrong religion, my friend.

I personally - nor anyone I know - have not forced anyone to accept Jesus as their Savior at the point of a gun, sword, or other weapon.

By "share" I mean telling others that Jesus died for all of our sins - mine, yours, Bush's, Obama's, and even Hillary's. Salvation is a gift from God and is yours (and everyone else's) freely by accepting that Jesus died for your sins. You don't have to believe it and I can't make you - nor would I try. That decision is (and has always been) between you and God.

I am glad to hear that you are a Christian. That decision that you made is more important than any political disagreement that we could have.

 

[DadsDream]

But that okay Bush's brother stole the election with help from a certain Woman who was later rewarded for this. It was a sham. But it happened no more sour grapes. Look I read everysingle post and you are pro-bush. You have countered every single Liberal claim with something de-meaning to great leaders. First you try to lump Lincoln in and now Kennedy. Well that is just crazy. Kennedy was a great leader in his short time, Nixon was a crook.

I've read every single one of your posts and you are anti-Bush.

Demeaning great leaders?

An assertion was made that Bush suspended habeas corpus. To my knowledge, the only president who ever did that on a national basis was Lincoln. I made no comparison between the two men.

How is it demeaning to quote a fact?

An assertion was made that Bush's actions indicate that our civil rights will be so eroded that citizens can be hauled off the streets of America and held in detention centers without probable cause and due process. I made no comparison between the two men.

To my knowledge, the only president who did that on a national basis was FDR with the internment of Japanese Americans.

How is it demeaning to quote a fact?

Sure, using the Kennedy/Monroe liason as an example of facts which we may not know for 30 years could be construed as Kennedy bashing by someone who reveres the man.

But, again, it's a fact. It happened and it was hidden and glossed over for the American public for 30 years, just like Johnson consulting with Jean Dixon, Betty Ford's addictions and Nancy Reagan's astrologers.

Again, how is it demeaning to quote a fact?

The 2000 election was brought up. It was a close election. The closest election in modern times was in 1960 between Kennedy and Nixon. The margin was razor thin. The parallel was between disputed elections, not between men. It's a proven fact that dead people voted for Kennedy in Chicago in large numbers.

No mention was made of Kennedy as a leader.

Bush's brother? Well, would you like to talk about Kennedy's brother and the dead secretary, or Joeseph Kennedy making his fortune in bootlegging, or the liason between Joseph Kennedy and Richard Dailey?

Kennedy became revered because he was killed in office, but he was no angel and his family was and is notorious for their excesses.

 

[nolazach]

I think you have the wrong religion, my friend.

I personally - nor anyone I know - have not forced anyone to accept Jesus as their Savior at the point of a gun, sword, or other weapon.

Thats why I said first 1700 years. In the 18th century it seems things tuned down. If you go tothe Inquisition and the Spanish conquests. Many were converted at the edge of a sword. Many were killed for refusing. When I say ancestors I mean Waaaaaaaay back.

I also believe Islam is behind Christianity but following in its foot steps. If you figure that Islam was started 600 years later. If we go back 600 years, Cristian were similar. If you said an idea that was against the church you were punished. If you were an infidel you were forced to convert or killed. Christianiy was a religion of fear until it was reformed in th 18th century. New ideas taught the love of god and not the fear of god.

Everything we see with the Muslims, we can look into our own history and see the same things. What was a womans role back then? Could a woman show skin even a hundred years ago in the US? That is my point, we had to achive things first, Some of our ideals followed those of the Jews even further back. I hate to say it but Islam needs to adapt and catch up. But to say it is bloodthirsty is wrong, because we have been there done that.

I belive that is why we can not win in the Middle East, our ideals are just too different.



And Dad, yes I am anti-Bush.

But what you brought up about FDR and Lincoln were deamed nessacary for the times. I think the internment of the Japanese was wrong,but I know many and myself amoun them thought the same thing after 9/11 with the Muslms.

To quote a fat is not to demean, but we are talking about a leader now, and you go back and bring up things that great leaders have done instead of focusing on Bush.

This thread you started was on Bush, yet you keep going back and bringing up dead presidents to say he did this he did that. But they had great legacies, Bush will be remebered for hurting this country and many will agree on that.

So you can keep bringing up old ideals, and trying to bring past presidents into the argment, but hy not stick to the thread? Like I said before it is my belief you started this thread just so you can TRY to counter every liberal who replies.

2008 can't come fast enough I fear we will have a few wars on our hands by then.

 

[DadsDream]

If somebody focuses on Bush and posts something which is erroneous, incorrect and at odds with history, I'm wrong to point that out?

Is that what you're saying Zach?

"...deemed necessary for the time..."

Hmmm...9/11, the Madrid train bombings, London subway attacks, the twarted plan to hijack multiple airliners over the Atlantic...now what would be "deemed necessary" in these times?

 

[TheTippingPoint]

Hmmm...9/11, the Madrid train bombings, London subway attacks, the twarted plan to hijack multiple airliners over the Atlantic...now what would be "deemed necessary" in these times?

And that is why we are in Iraq?

That is why George Bush decides to waste all of this manpower/money in Iraq?

Afghanistan was correct. Iraq was not.

And yes, that does make him a bad president.

 

[DadsDream]

And that is why we are in Iraq?

That is why George Bush decides to waste all of this manpower/money in Iraq?

Afghanistan was correct. Iraq was not.

And yes, that does make him a bad president.

I agreed with most of that six pages ago.

I disagree about labeling the current presidency as "bad" until it is out of office, all the classified info is declassified and we can see what effect Bush's decisions or lack of decision have had. Say about 20 to 30 years from now.

I said that six pages ago, too.

 

[nolazach]

If somebody focuses on Bush and posts something which is erroneous, incorrect and at odds with history, I'm wrong to point that out?

Is that what you're saying Zach?

"...deemed necessary for the time..."

Hmmm...9/11, the Madrid train bombings, London subway attacks, the twarted plan to hijack multiple airliners over the Atlantic...now what would be "deemed necessary" in these times?

You are taking little tidbits here and there and that is it. Look why are we in Iraq? In your own words, I am curious.

I know the terrorists, but I assure you the Iraq war has made many more terroriss. Remember they began starting with us for occupying "Holy Land" in Saudi, and now the same thing in Iraq. ( I know everything is holy to them) Let them have teir dust and dirt, and just buy their oil, because this war is not worth it.

Their will be a power struggle, I doubt we can do anything about that.

 

[DadsDream]

You are taking little tidbits here and there and that is it. Look why are we in Iraq? In your own words, I am curious.

I've repeatedly stated on this forum that I think we should have been out of Iraq two years ago.

As far as the rest, I thought you said you read every one of my posts in this thread. Guess you didn't. Repost from Page 2.

So, what about Iraq?

In the wake of 9/11, the American public demanded a response on our part. Everybody went along with striking the al Qaeda training bases in Afghanistan and eliminating the Taliban which supported them. I had no probem with that.

I'll give George a GO on Afghanistan, although was offset somewhat when we tried to use proxies to take out Bin Laden. Instead Osama and his people were able to bribe our proxies into letting him slip away to Pakistan. George gets a NO GO in my book for that bonehead play.

Regarding Iraq, I really think Bush wanted to send a stronger message, establish a bigger regional presence and make an example of Saddam Hussain and Iraq. For the invasion and military conquest, I'd give him a GO.

For totally disbanding the Iraqi Army and excluding the Baathists, I give him a NO GO. Big mistake. He threw thousands of men into unemployment and they took up arms against us.

I saw a news piece yesterday about a town on the Syrian border where the Baathists fought us at every turn for three years. Finally, the CIA and the Pentagon cut a deal with the local Baath Party leader. Guess who's running the town now, with our blessing and with arms and ammo we're giving them? Yep.

George gets a huge NO GO for the entire occupation.

I'm reluctant to assign a GO or NO GO to George for the entire Iraq strategy. We simply don't know all the facts and we won't know them for 20 to 30 years when most everything gets declassified.

I've often cited the example of LBJ's Tonkin Gulf ploy as an example of a president keeping something classified for 30 years. The vote for the Tonkin Gulf Resolution in the Senate was 98 - 2.

Wayne Morse (D. Oregon) and Ernest Gruening (D. Alaska) voted no. They knew the real deal, but couldn't reveal it. J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI would have thrown them in jail for violating national security classifications.

 

[nolazach]

Yeah I got that. But in more recent posts you seem to sway towards pro-war. Maybe I am mistaken. You brought up terrorists attacks aroun the world. What is bush doing to stop attacks? We basiclly have had a period of calm, but eeryone is still on edge. Is today a Alert level : blue day then?

I think in the long run we may have more problems based upon his decisions. I can understand why you are conservative, I can't understand how one can back this guy.

 

[DadsDream]

I'm pro-America and pro-military. I'm an old-timey Hawk. I'm not pro-Bush or anti-Bush at this stage. I'm pro-US.

What's Bush doing to stop attacks?

Basically, everything that the civil libertarians are objecting about, from snooping on our international communications to renditions, secret prisons and questionable interrogation techniques.

 

[RebSaint]

I'm pro-America and pro-military. I'm an old-timey Hawk. I'm not pro-Bush or anti-Bush at this stage. I'm pro-US.

What's Bush doing to stop attacks?

Basically, everything that the civil libertarians are objecting about, from snooping on our international communications to renditions, secret prisons and questionable interrogation techniques.

Which of course can be used to just gain political power for the sake of keeping it. You assume, quite wrongly that these measures will only be used to fight terrorism, and not acquire political power.

Kind of like completely ignoring the Constitution and the 1978 law which requires the executive branch to get a court order to conduct domestic surveillence. Of course, you may counter by claiming that the president would never do such a thing...but the 1978 Law was put in place because another President abused this power.

And Republicans agree.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/07/eavesdropping/

 

[Maxp]

The thing about Bush that really gets me is that he talks down to the American people during his press conferences. He speaks to us as though we are children. "I'm the decider"

 

[philipkw]

I agreed with most of that six pages ago.

I disagree about labeling the current presidency as "bad" until it is out of office, all the classified info is declassified and we can see what effect Bush's decisions or lack of decision have had. Say about 20 to 30 years from now.

I said that six pages ago, too.

This administration has made it very clear that they believe the Executive holds the power to declassify information. They've even gone so far as to release fabricated and distorted intelligence in order to justify the invasion. Why should we not think they would release authentic intelligence?? Especially now when not only the world but <b>finally</b> the American people have grown tired of the Bumbler in Chief and his failed experiment in Iraq, there is no doubt they would release information to justify the invasion. This administration has proven over and over again that they’re not above politicizing anything in order to score political points so it stretches credulity to think they’re holding back info that would secure his legacy.

I agree that it sometimes takes time to give a final grade on administration, but not always. There is zero chance this president will be revered as much as the presidents you have drawn comparisons to, Lincoln, FDR, or even JFK.