George Bush-Your opinion

[davidmc]

George bush-your opinion
This poll was placed to counter the mindless poll at the other end of the spectrum.

 

[ryan_velo]

George bush-your opinion
This pole was placed to counter the mindless pole at the other end of the spectrum

he is a simple minded moronic, greedy ***** who was to dumb to be into harvard but his dady's money got him in any way. is dad also got him out of nam. we have lost 3 million jobs. he got us into a **** hole of a mess war so he could get more money and oil. Every thing he stands for is so wrong, and I hope, hope, hope, that we can get some one halfway decent in office when the election is over. what more can I say?

 

[ryan_velo]

he is a simple minded moronic, greedy ***** who was to dumb to be into harvard but his dady's money got him in any way. is dad also got him out of nam. we have lost 3 million jobs. he got us into a **** hole of a mess war so he could get more money and oil. Every thing he stands for is so wrong, and I hope, hope, hope, that we can get some one halfway decent in office when the election is over. what more can I say?

I want to know why you conservatives are not makeing an arguement about how good bush is? Is it because you cant think of any good points to make?

 

[davidmc]

I want to know why you conservatives are not makeing an arguement about how good bush is? Is it because you cant think of any good points to make?

All they can do is attack the messenger so as to change the subject & create a diversion. Check this out-"

if one candidate's trying to scare you, and the other one is trying to get you to think, if one candidate is appealing to your fears and the other one is appealing to your hopes, you better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope. That's the best. My fellow Americans, we can do better. And in eight days we're going to do better, with President John Kerry."

That's from former Pres. Clinton's speech in Phila. Now you watch, someone will attack clinton because they know they cant attack his argument. Bush/Cheney are running on a platform of fear. I do have fear & it's fear of them

 

[limerickman]

Bush is neither a moron or an idiot.
Far from it, in fact.
While Bush isn't particularly bright, he is savvy and he knows how to play the game.
His has bought wholeheartedly in to a political idea which many of us find inexplicable.

However, a very high proportion of the American people chose to believe in
Bush's policies and ideas.
For me this is the most frightening issue : the way in which people allow themselves to buy in to Bush's ideology.
Despite the fact that he has proven to have made incorrect decisions about the US economy and Iraq, that high proportion of the people in the USA may well re-elect Bush even given his abysmal record.

From a European-Irish perspective, Nov 2nd is crucial.
If the people of America endorse Bush's last four years, Europe will have to make a choice and go it's own way.
Europe has not worked with the USA since March 2003 and I think that this policy will continue until 2008 if Bush is re-elected.

I don't not believe that Bush's policies are in the best interest of US citizens but if the people of America endorse him, we have to accept this.
As time goes by though, who occupies the White House impacts more and more abroad and Europe will need to go it's own way.
Naturally, I'd prefer Europe and the USA work together but Europe cannot
work a President hell bent on acting unilaterally.

 

[limerickman]

I forgot to add : it is, of course, in George Bush's interest to have Mullah Omar,
BinLaden and Al Zarqawi at large (not captured).
Bush's "raison d'etre" is the war on terrorism" as outlined in the PNAC.
It is not in Bush's interest to see them captured or killed.

 

[Bikerman2004]

Bush is neither a moron or an idiot.
Far from it, in fact.
While Bush isn't particularly bright, he is savvy and he knows how to play the game.
His has bought wholeheartedly in to a political idea which many of us find inexplicable.

However, a very high proportion of the American people chose to believe in
Bush's policies and ideas.
For me this is the most frightening issue : the way in which people allow themselves to buy in to Bush's ideology.
Despite the fact that he has proven to have made incorrect decisions about the US economy and Iraq, that high proportion of the people in the USA may well re-elect Bush even given his abysmal record.

From a European-Irish perspective, Nov 2nd is crucial.
If the people of America endorse Bush's last four years, Europe will have to make a choice and go it's own way.
Europe has not worked with the USA since March 2003 and I think that this policy will continue until 2008 if Bush is re-elected.

I don't not believe that Bush's policies are in the best interest of US citizens but if the people of America endorse him, we have to accept this.
As time goes by though, who occupies the White House impacts more and more abroad and Europe will need to go it's own way.
Naturally, I'd prefer Europe and the USA work together but Europe cannot
work a President hell bent on acting unilaterally.

This is one of the best thought out posts I've seen in awhile. None of the ideological ****. Just telling it like Lim sees it. The American people will vote for whom they think is best for them, not what the rest of the world thinks is best for it.

 

[Bikerman2004]

I forgot to add : it is, of course, in George Bush's interest to have Mullah Omar,
BinLaden and Al Zarqawi at large (not captured).
Bush's "raison d'etre" is the war on terrorism" as outlined in the PNAC.
It is not in Bush's interest to see them captured or killed.

Then comes the ideology......

 

[limerickman]

This is one of the best thought out posts I've seen in awhile. None of the ideological ****. Just telling it like Lim sees it. The American people will vote for whom they think is best for them, not what the rest of the world thinks is best for it.

I think that you miss my central point.
I am astounded that the majority of Americans support Bush.
Given his record, it is inexplicable in my opinion.
That's what worries me.
That Bush reflects what the majority of the USA in thinking.

Of course the people of the USA are at liberty to chose their President.
But to do so in the full knowledge of 2000-2004, confounds me.

Regardless, the rest of the world will have to chose if he is re-elected.

 

[Bikerman2004]

I think that you miss my central point.
I am astounded that the majority of Americans support Bush.
Given his record, it is inexplicable in my opinion.
That's what worries me.
That Bush reflects what the majority of the USA in thinking.

Of course the people of the USA are at liberty to chose their President.
But to do so in the full knowledge of 2000-2004, confounds me.

Regardless, the rest of the world will have to chose if he is re-elected.

I didn't miss your point. I'm well aware of your position. I was commenting on the he's not an idiot etc.(the ideological stuff that was missing). While it may astound you that Bush has support, it is still our decision to make. I doubt many Americans will base their vote on who Europeans, Asians, Africans want as the US president. Nor should they base their vote on that. Whoever is elected will be president of the US. Their first and foremost priority should be what is best for the US not the world.

 

[limerickman]

I doubt many Americans will base their vote on who Europeans, Asians, Africans want as the US president. Nor should they base their vote on that. Whoever is elected will be president of the US. Their first and foremost priority should be what is best for the US not the world.

I have never suggested otherwise.
I have never suggested that non-Americans ought to have a veto.
Of course, it's up to the American people to make their choice.

But let's be clear - if Bush is re-elected, it is logical to assume that most American people endorse ALL of his policies.
Therefore the choice is clear for the rest of the world, do we align ourselves with the USA/Bush or do we sit back and watch.
Europe has decided since March 2003 to sit back and watch.
I believe that this is the correct decision.

If the USA wishes to act unilaterally - it cannot expect support and thus it receives no support.

 

[davidmc]

Bush is neither a moron or an idiot.
Far from it, in fact.
While Bush isn't particularly bright, he is savvy and he knows how to play the game.
His has bought wholeheartedly in to a political idea which many of us find inexplicable.

However, a very high proportion of the American people chose to believe in
Bush's policies and ideas.
For me this is the most frightening issue : the way in which people allow themselves to buy in to Bush's ideology.
Despite the fact that he has proven to have made incorrect decisions about the US economy and Iraq, that high proportion of the people in the USA may well re-elect Bush even given his abysmal record.

From a European-Irish perspective, Nov 2nd is crucial.
If the people of America endorse Bush's last four years, Europe will have to make a choice and go it's own way.
Europe has not worked with the USA since March 2003 and I think that this policy will continue until 2008 if Bush is re-elected.

I don't not believe that Bush's policies are in the best interest of US citizens but if the people of America endorse him, we have to accept this.
As time goes by though, who occupies the White House impacts more and more abroad and Europe will need to go it's own way.
Naturally, I'd prefer Europe and the USA work together but Europe cannot
work a President hell bent on acting unilaterally.

I heard a figure of 52% of american's claim to be "born again", as bush states he is, which is frightening. Those people will vote for bush no matter what he does/does'nt do. Then there's the dumbass redneck's who don't care for anyone who is'nt white & the repub's have embraced them w/ their gun policy(bush's recent non-action on assault type weapons bill) Then you have the most comfortable constituency, in bed w/ them, who bush/cheney will not mention unless forced- the uber wealthy. What a motley crew. That's where his base is. Any moderates are either duped (ignorant) or pussies

 

[davidmc]

I have never suggested otherwise.
I have never suggested that non-Americans ought to have a veto.
Of course, it's up to the American people to make their choice.

But let's be clear - if Bush is re-elected, it is logical to assume that most American people endorse ALL of his policies.
Therefore the choice is clear for the rest of the world, do we align ourselves with the USA/Bush or do we sit back and watch.
Europe has decided since March 2003 to sit back and watch.
I believe that this is the correct decision.

If the USA wishes to act unilaterally - it cannot expect support and thus it receives no support.

I agree, i would sit back & watch to see what the corporate/ theocracy is going to do next, besides the "old standby"-punishing the poor. The repub's are good at that

 

[Carrera]

It's strange but Vladimir Putin also holds Bush in high esteem. This is mainly due to the terrorist bombings in Moscow, the Nordost theatre siege and then the massacre of children in a Russian school. As far as I can gather, the Russians are actually hoping Bush gets back in for another "four more years."
It's strange to think that Russia would identify with such a Right-Wing government but I guess there's a lot of anger and fear over all the bombings in Moscow.

I think that you miss my central point.
I am astounded that the majority of Americans support Bush.
Given his record, it is inexplicable in my opinion.
That's what worries me.
That Bush reflects what the majority of the USA in thinking.

Of course the people of the USA are at liberty to chose their President.
But to do so in the full knowledge of 2000-2004, confounds me.

Regardless, the rest of the world will have to chose if he is re-elected.

 

[Bikerman2004]

I heard a figure of 52% of american's claim to be "born again", as bush states he is, which is frightening. Those people will vote for bush no matter what he does/does'nt do. Then there's the dumbass redneck's who don't care for anyone who is'nt white & the repub's have embraced them w/ their gun policy(bush's recent non-action on assault type weapons bill) Then you have the most comfortable constituency, in bed w/ them, who bush/cheney will not mention unless forced- the uber wealthy. What a motley crew. That's where his base is. Any moderates are either duped (ignorant) or pussies

Your statement that born again Christians are all Republicans is wrong. Are we to assume all atheists are Democrats? Uber wealthy - George Soros must be a poor poor man. Peter Lewis in the poor house. Michael Moore - poverty stricken.
Barbra Streisand - poor. It is safe to say both parties have their fair share of rich people(sorry uber wealthy) and freaks. I guess anyone who doesn't believe the same as you is a redneck, ignorant, or a *****.

 

[Carrera]

One thing that kind of incenses me about Bush is the way he keeps coining the term "freedom and democracy".
The literal meaning of the Greek word "democracy refers to the sovereign reign of a sovereign people. Moreover, the difference between Greek democracy and modern politics is they (the Greeks) had various checks and balances to control personality cults or excesses of power.
Ostracism was one of these levers. Any free citizen could put forward a vote of no confidence where a politician was concerned - which would mean a national referendum would have to be held as to his suitability for office. Technically, even a politician of Bush's standing could be ostracised and then banished from politics altogether. So, the people had the real power, not so much politicians.
Of course, this isn't only an American problem. In the majority of countries, decisions are being taken by an elite group of leaders who feather their own nests and then ride roughshod over the people they claim to represent.
Take the U.K. We Brits are always to be found moaning over the idea of losing sovereignty to the European Union, yet fundamental political decisions such as going to war are endorsed by Poodle Blair on behalf of George Bush. No discussion, no debate, no referendum. Had there been an actual referendum, the Iraq policy wouldn't have gotten off the ground as I doubt that the majority population ever supported any link between 9/11 and Iraq.
They should substitute the correct term "Oligarchy" for "Democracy." How about "Freedom and Oligarchy" as a slogan? After all, the Greeks viewed Oligarchy as the sovereign rule of a political elite (who further their own interests) while "Democracy" is the sovereign rule of the people.
What I want to know is what ever happened to the idea of people taking part in politics, holding political leaders to account and having some direct say in issues that effect them. Why the obsession with leaders and personality cults?

 

[jhuskey]

Bush is neither a moron or an idiot.
Far from it, in fact.
While Bush isn't particularly bright, he is savvy and he knows how to play the game.
His has bought wholeheartedly in to a political idea which many of us find inexplicable.

However, a very high proportion of the American people chose to believe in
Bush's policies and ideas.
For me this is the most frightening issue : the way in which people allow themselves to buy in to Bush's ideology.
Despite the fact that he has proven to have made incorrect decisions about the US economy and Iraq, that high proportion of the people in the USA may well re-elect Bush even given his abysmal record.

From a European-Irish perspective, Nov 2nd is crucial.
If the people of America endorse Bush's last four years, Europe will have to make a choice and go it's own way.
Europe has not worked with the USA since March 2003 and I think that this policy will continue until 2008 if Bush is re-elected.

I don't not believe that Bush's policies are in the best interest of US citizens but if the people of America endorse him, we have to accept this.
As time goes by though, who occupies the White House impacts more and more abroad and Europe will need to go it's own way.
Naturally, I'd prefer Europe and the USA work together but Europe cannot
work a President hell bent on acting unilaterally.

I also liked the analytical nature of your post in that it does not resort to name calling or an extremist view point.
Just stating your opinion without resorting to generalized labeling as in, (all Demos are rightwing idiots) or(all Rep. are coservative war moungers)
Once one reaches the point of extremism one appears frustrated backed into a corner as wounded animal and loses much of ones credibility.
At least that is my take.

As far as any possibility of economic isolationsim in the near future I don't think it is possible without a complete shifting and shakeup of the present circumstancesand world economic alliances.
PS: I never said a wounded animal wasn't dangerous, just not predictable.

 

[davidmc]

Your statement that born again Christians are all Republicans is wrong. Are we to assume all atheists are Democrats? Uber wealthy - George Soros must be a poor poor man. Peter Lewis in the poor house. Michael Moore - poverty stricken.
Barbra Streisand - poor. It is safe to say both parties have their fair share of rich people(sorry uber wealthy) and freaks. I guess anyone who doesn't believe the same as you is a redneck, ignorant, or a *****.

You are correct sir. There's a few, bill gates might be among them. I have also stated in the past, that these people are willing to pay a marginally higher tax rate as a token of their success. Most repub's are of the "mine, mine, mine" variety, like the kid in the neighborhood who was'nt willing to share their toy's or the one's who always took their ball & went home. Bush, has recently, amended his war "bill of lading" to be @ $225 billion. Who do you think is going to pay for that? Since Bush rushed to war, we are "footing" 90% of the bill & supplying 90% of the troops (that figure should increase due to the fact that, i beleive, poland is pulling out of the "coalition of the coerced" or more appropiately- "coalition of the bullied"-would you dispute those figures?. If you're on the "younger side" , & Bush is reelected, i'd be checking my mailbox for a draft notice from time to time. Bush's actions have alienated us from the rest of the world. We (he) is either hated or feared, throughout the world, because of him & his admin.'s wreckless endangerment of all parties concerned. Add that to the 400 tons of high explosives, that have dissappeared from a facility in iraq, & we have a recipe for disaster. These compounds are of the types used on the USS Cole & the lockerbie scotland terrorist act's. "Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry (news - web sites) accused President Bush (news - web sites) of "incredible incompetence" and his campaign said the administration "must answer for what may be the most grave and catastrophic mistake in a tragic series of blunders in Iraq." http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041026/ap_on_re_mi_ea/nuclear_agency_iraq_25

 

[davidmc]

It's strange but Vladimir Putin also holds Bush in high esteem. This is mainly due to the terrorist bombings in Moscow, the Nordost theatre siege and then the massacre of children in a Russian school. As far as I can gather, the Russians are actually hoping Bush gets back in for another "four more years."
It's strange to think that Russia would identify with such a Right-Wing government but I guess there's a lot of anger and fear over all the bombings in Moscow.

You're wondering why Putin, who is returning russia to an authoritarian model by shutting down tv stations; among other dubious actions, would be for bush Come on , its obvious

 

[davidmc]

I also liked the analytical nature of your post in that it does not resort to name calling or an extremist view point.
Just stating your opinion without resorting to generalized labeling as in, (all Demos are rightwing idiots) or(all Rep. are coservative war moungers)
Once one reaches the point of extremism one appears frustrated backed into a corner as wounded animal and loses much of ones credibility.
At least that is my take.

As far as any possibility of economic isolationsim in the near future I don't think it is possible without a complete shifting and shakeup of the present circumstancesand world economic alliances.
PS: I never said a wounded animal wasn't dangerous, just not predictable.

On that note, it does appear that a large proportion, of Bush supporters, are of the mindset-"F*** the rest of the world, we don't need 'em." This mindset is incompatible w/ modern trade practices/alliances & shows a lack of understanding. For instance, France, out of a handful of countries posessing the capability, accepts our nuclear (a word bush can't pronounce, by the way) throwaways for reprocessing. How would bush like it if we sent it to texas or somewhere else, in the bible belt, after he destroys our relations w/ them & others