Oh come on at least take off 3 zeros and add a couple onto 'civil liberties'... The way you carry on sometimes... ......anybody would think you live on a 6X6 room with nothing to eat but cockroaches..and get thrashed to a inch of your life- while you watch your momma having to kiss all the prison gaurds.. http://www.aclu.org/natsec/spying/14454res20030510.html ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? YOU CAN'T PLEASE ALL THE PEOPLE ALL THE TIME...
I wouldn't say I'm devoted to Bush. I disagree with some things he has done, most certainly. I really wish he could maintain a better dialog with America, since so many misunderstand him and what his mission is. I dont even generally like to talk about politics. But after seeing all the anti-Bush threads on this board, I thought I'd balance out the universe a bit. I stick up for Bush all the time because I have carefully considered the arguments both for and against him, and I have concluded that the arguments for him outweigh all else when you take our modern times into account. I have decided that though he is flawed, Bush IS the right person to have in power at this particular moment in history. And if you carefully consider history, the importance of Bush's mission should become all the more profound. I stand by what I've said about him. All presidents are temporary, and they have to accomplish many things in the short time they have to do it. People should keep that in mind when they think of him as a dictator. Therefore, I believe Bush understands that he has little time to do what must be done in the forever-altered post 9/11 world. That is why his actions seem so drastic imo.
Sorry, just so i can know, what are the arguaments for him. and i do not mean just the arguaments that he has stated, like he is defending freedom and liberty. real arguaments. You are entitled to your opinion, but in my opinion George Bush was the worst person to have in office during 9/11, his mission has tranformed international politics for the worst. the international situation of war altered, for a series of keeping the peace, to all out old fashioned state v state warfare, however using terrorism to allow it. he is the president who defends the oil companies, who he has sunstancial links to, even thought the environment is the biggest threat we face today. i can never fogive him for the Iraq war and the environment. I do not live in the US so i don't think i can comment on his home land policies, but i can on his international status. Bush is not defending freedom as you would say, in my opinion he is a threat to world freedom as a whole. and personally with so much acceptance for the wrong Bush is doing, i do not see your basis of arguament, apart from maybe being rebellious in a forum, because everybody else is against Bush.
Consider how has prevented more attacks in the US! And look at how responsibly he has used the Patriot Act! You dont hear of Bush trying to use it to destroy lives of those on the opposition, an act a real tyrant would commit having such power. And look at how he has kept the economy afloat under such circumstances! They say he uses fear of terror to manipulate people, yet he tells them time and again NOT to be afraid. He tells them to live their lives the way they want to. This doesn't sound like oppression to me. I agree that Bush has ties to big oil and various corporations. They are but a part of the country Bush has to govern. Look at how well off people are in this country as a whole. Plus, dont forget that anyone has opportunity and the right to become whatever they want to be, something he makes no effort to change. (Yes education needs to be improved big time, something Bush has been trying to do, but has been hampered trying.) Is he so evil to deal with these people, who have made something of themselves as everyone can???? They say the war is about the benefit of corporations, but how can this be true when they are being watched by the entire world, and especially by the American voter? They would never get away with it, and Bush knows it. It'd be wrong, too. Even if the war was for oil, then why fight it in Iraq? Why not in a country more stable? The terror connection? In that case, why not make a case to drill Alaska and spin it towards the terror issue???? And they're well aware of how much wars cost! It makes no sense. The only explanation is that he is right when he says the war is about curtailing terror and establishing peace in the Middle East. This makes even more sense when you think about how high the stakes are after 9/11. And dont forget a Democrat president would have to deal with the wealthy as well. It's only because the Bush family has had a history in business that people freak out.
BUSH has not prevented more attacks. How fucking long do you think it takes to plan such activities?? It's been, what? less than five years since the Patriot Act has been passed? It has been said that it took over 10 to plan the Twin Towers attacks. Please... Secondly, how many terrorist attacks happened in Soviet Russia? Of course when you lessen civil liberties the chances are slimmer. But, what do we want? Civil Liberties with the possible threat (although much less), or more and more laws to restrict them and a slimmer chance of another massive terrorist attack? (which is astronomically low, by the way) Thirdly, the chances aren't quite gone, however, as we still have a guy named Osama out there. No thanks to BUSH! Bush has NOT used the law responsibly! The Patriot Act violates many civil liberties and unconstitutional spying, the breaking of the U.N. Charter, Geneva laws, Nuremberg laws, F.I.S.A., and the Constitution is NOT responsible leadership!! Listen pal, I suppose you weren't one of the many millions who've lost their jobs under this "responsible" President! I suppose $2.50 for a gallon of gas, while the oil industry has made record gains, is fiscal responsibility to you, huh? I suppose the Republican-backed increase of the national debt limit to $8.9 billion is fiscal responsibility?? If you are an oil exec, sure! Please tell you're not DEFENDING "No Child Left Behind"...please... How? 1) Fear, 2) Ignorance, 3) Apathy. That's how he gets away with it! This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. No, their ties to OSAMA BIN LADEN is what freaks me out!
How could that not make sense? It makes perfect sense to me, and to many others. Bush would not blow all that money on a fake war! Especially when he could have chosen alternatives that would have yielded just as much benefit to big oil! And those lost jobs were a result of a recession that was born of Clinton's last days. And the Bin-Laden's that dealt with the Bush family were not associated with Osama.
no offense because you are entitled to your opinion, but show me MANY others who agree with your stance in the world, apart from really fundie Republicans? if you cannot see that the Iraq war wasn't quite right, and had huge implication on the international spectrum, then you must be rather naive, and if you truely believe that then why are you not pressuring Bush to go and 'help' Africa in all its problems with war and dictators, say for instance Zimbambwe, or the issues in the DR of Congo. Look wider then what Bush says on tv, look at the international system as a whole not from your nations view. Bush and his allies have caused sooo mch more terrorism. what were the reason given behind the London bombing? oh yeah, the Iraq war, i think you have rose tinted glasses on with Bush. BUt if i am honest, i personally think you are a troll, who doesn' really believe this and are trying to wond people up, which actually is quite a relief, rather then your beliefs you state here, but hey freedom
Oh no, this war is definitely not "fake". Thousands are dead, millions of dollars wasted and no W.M.D's found--plus Osama is still at large. As far as big oil, America produces about 8 million barrels of oil a day, but consumes about 20 million barrels a day. The Chairman of British Petroleum (BP) recently in public bemoaned the fact that in a post-invasion Iraq, the spoils would go to America, and BP and other corporations would be disadvantaged. War will be profitable to some rich people in your neighbourhood, as in mine. Oil is at the heart of it, as we in the West are addicted to it! In March 2001, the U.S. economy went into recession for the first time in ten years, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER.) NBER -- the private, nonpartisan organization whose business cycle announcements have long been considered the definitive word on the topic -- announced its determination on November 26, 2001: The NBER's Business Cycle Dating Committee has determined that a peak in business activity occurred in the U.S. economy in March 2001. A peak marks the end of an expansion and the beginning of a recession. The determination of a peak date in March is thus a determination that the expansion that began in March 1991 ended in March 2001 and a recession began. The expansion lasted exactly 10 years, the longest in the NBER's chronology. Although FoxNews (GOPTV) started this media campaign of "inherited recession" propaganda, the truth is that there was no recession under Clinton. Bush inherited the greatest expansion and economic growth in history and turned a surplus into a negative disaster. Osama's eldest brother, Salem, was one of Bush's first business partners. Not associated? It was his BROTHER, for fuck's sake! You are either deceived or trying to deceive. Which is it?
Economists saw the coming recession at the end of the Clinton administration. Clinton failed to reinflate the economy in 1999 and 2000. It worked out well for me because it was causing the price of gold to fall below $300 an ounce. By the time Clinton left office, gold was trading well below $300 an ounce. I turned some healthy profits dumping the gold after Bush was in office and prices started going up. This is a little investment tip... Gold has always been THE international currency. It always has and always will have value. When gold begins to fall below $320US an ounce, there is potential money to be made in the gold market. Here is a history of gold prices in grams/US dollar over the past 10 years. you do know that Osama has been outcasted from the family don't you. The bin Laden family is very large and many members are involved in international business. There are members of the bin Laden family that have been born in the US. Most of them denounce Osama and curse at what he has done to the family name.
This is correct, though a lot of people give President Clinton full credit for the economic boom in the US throughout the 90's, when there surely are underlying factors. The economy was doing so well during the first Clinton term that the GOP-controlled Congress almost always cooperated with him to ensure economic growth and a stable stock market. Knowing that the rising Dow would help Clinton get re-elected, no Republican would dare say anything to spook the market. This tamper free condition allowed the Dow to flourish. Now on the opposite end of the spectrum, the left-wing politicians were sobotaging market psychology through their class warfare obstructionism during the first Bush 2 term to slow economic recovery to try to sway public opinion towards Bush and destroy his credibility for re-election of a second term. The president is the easiest person to praise or curse for economic issues, but in many cases people do not look beyond the first thin layer and use these economic conditions to further their political adgenda. Whatever that may be. Ah, the beauty of politics. You made an excellent point though, and one that does not limit itself to the economy.
The oil industry is not going to be privatised. They sell the oil, and people buy it, just like they did when Saddam was in charge. Nothing has changed. So what if they're related. You're not guilty for the crimes of your relatives, expecially if they have been cast out of the family. You really seem to have difficulty in getting beyond the most superficial and partisan take on anything. I don't blame Bush for the recession, and I don't blame Clinton either. Are you denying that by the late 1990s and 2000 the economy was in a bubble? Do you think that if we had elected Gore that Priceline.com would still be worth $20 billion? No, the bubble was going to pop. As it turned out, the recession was short lived and relatively painless.
Yep, painless. Gas prices didn't soar, while billionaires made record profits. Three of my friends and my uncle (23 yrs. at his workplace) didn't LOSE THEIR JOBS.
You really love empty populism. Eat the rich! Whoopee, look at me. But why are gas prices soaring? Because the economy bounced back. Because China is booming. There is one oil price, and it went up for everyone. Gas prices are not set in the Oval Office. You might be surprised to hear this, but people lose their jobs during economic booms too. That's life. I couldn't find a permanent job in San Francisco in 1999 at the peak of the boom, so there you go. Maybe you think President Bush is personally responsible for everyone's job, but I don't. But that's just your reflexive empty populism. I never said there was no recession, or that nobody lost their job. What I'm saying is that there was going to be a recession no matter what. And if you looked around you'd see that unemployment during the "Bush" recession is far, far lower than in many countries during their best years, such as France or Germany. You need to take a comparative perspective. Compare the 2001 recession with, say, 1991. It was mild. I'm not belittling the experience of losing a job, as I said I've been unemployed. I hope your uncle gets a great job. But those anecdotes don't really mean much. Looking at the economy as a whole, it was a mild recession.
