Film, Media & TV0 min ago
I support president Bush
I am American but wuld like for the average brit to convince me,to give me a new mind set,explain to why I should not support bush
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by daleroy. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Well lets see:
a) He started a war in Iraq with the justification that an Al Qaeda member was seen there once.
b) He's two faced - (OK a lot of politicians are)
- mouthing off about free trade whilst errecting trade barriers. He even imposed an illeagal steel embago.
c) He's an environmental disaster area - we won't even start on climate change, there's cuts to the EPA budget, relaxation of mining regulations on public lands even if the mine would cause irreperable harm. etc. etc.
d) This is the US federal defecit:
http://www.sierrafoot.org/soapbox/deficit.jpg
e) Whilst he seems to love the "ordinary Joe" image he had a very privileged education, and there has been no increase in minimum wage since his presidency began.
This man is not a heavyweight, you could dislike his father whilst still respecting him.
The question you should ask yourself is "Would George W have made it to the Whitehouse without his father"?
I think the Republican party could have and should have found a much much better candidate
He's a lightweight
a) He started a war in Iraq with the justification that an Al Qaeda member was seen there once.
b) He's two faced - (OK a lot of politicians are)
- mouthing off about free trade whilst errecting trade barriers. He even imposed an illeagal steel embago.
c) He's an environmental disaster area - we won't even start on climate change, there's cuts to the EPA budget, relaxation of mining regulations on public lands even if the mine would cause irreperable harm. etc. etc.
d) This is the US federal defecit:
http://www.sierrafoot.org/soapbox/deficit.jpg
e) Whilst he seems to love the "ordinary Joe" image he had a very privileged education, and there has been no increase in minimum wage since his presidency began.
This man is not a heavyweight, you could dislike his father whilst still respecting him.
The question you should ask yourself is "Would George W have made it to the Whitehouse without his father"?
I think the Republican party could have and should have found a much much better candidate
He's a lightweight
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_ste el_tariff_2002
My error technically they were tarrifs rather than an embargo but the effect was the same
The WTO declared them illeagal
My error technically they were tarrifs rather than an embargo but the effect was the same
The WTO declared them illeagal
As you can see Daleroy, GWB is not well liked by the the yoghort knitters, they've never forgiven him for seeing through the Kyoto cobblers. They also hate the fact he saw off their man Gore. They hate the fact that he didn't capitulate to islamic extremists and just generally dispise him.
Anyone who can upset so many Liberals must be doing something right!
Anyone who can upset so many Liberals must be doing something right!
Whickerman is right - Bush's accademic record is superior to Gore's, but he has a dreadful personal image, a cross between a good 'ole boy who's not very bright, and a far-right zealot who is determined to force his ideas of 'freedom' on other nations who may just want to have a say in how they operate their society.
I find him genuinely scary - he seems to have no concept of pursuasion and dailogue, just force, badly exectuted and under-planned which is leaving this generation with their very own Viet Nam - a war in a foreign country which America cannot 'win' in any meaningful sense of the word.
I find him genuinely scary - he seems to have no concept of pursuasion and dailogue, just force, badly exectuted and under-planned which is leaving this generation with their very own Viet Nam - a war in a foreign country which America cannot 'win' in any meaningful sense of the word.
Because he entered an illegal war and dargged the rest of us in with him against the wishes of the majority of the British people, because his govt are so slack and incompetant ( or maybe not) that they left huge amounts of their own people to suffer and die after the New Orleans disaster (not that them being mostly poor and black would have anything to do with why help was so slow coming from central Govt), because when state governor he took less than 5 minutes to read and turn down an appeal against the death sentence by a man with the mental age of a child ( the appeal was 150 pages or so long), because he actively backs and has interests in nutrasweet who are responsible for producing aspartame and surpressing information about the damage it does, because his brother who is Gov of Florida put huge legal and financial pressure on Disney who were at the time the parent co of the production company that was producing Michael Moore's films once upon a time to bury their release because they didn't like their content, because the man is morally reprehensible and actually I think now believes his own propaganda which whilst patantly untrue makes him uber dangerous to the rest of the world, shall I go on?
i don't like to discriminate against stupid people, but Bush has got to be the first president I have seen live on TV who cannot read his own speech, has trouble expressing himself in English (not a foreign language is it?) and does not know much about world politics or the world politicians or even much about the world in fact.
If you support him because you feel sorry for him, then I guess that's a different issue (I feel sorry for stupid people too sometimes but i dont support them).
If you support him because you feel sorry for him, then I guess that's a different issue (I feel sorry for stupid people too sometimes but i dont support them).
The fact there's a comment about "yogurt knitters" if he upsets this many liberals he must be doing something right, well you want a good reason to convince you that support of bush is wrong? i think that's the most obvious reason, you get lumped into the crowd that think might over right is how to conduct international and domestic politics...
i love the fact liberalism is deemed to be a bad thing... i mean it's not like right wing politics have dragged us into an unwinnable war based on lies and propaganda, ohh actually...
how long did the bush administration say America would be in Iraq at the start of the war? WMD would be found? how many times has the phrase, we're nearly there, the troops will be out soon, been used?...how many times will people be told rubbish before they wake up? you didn't liberate a people in the sense of they are free now., They are living in hell at the moment, its worse than saddam's reign (in dead bodies at the morgue stakes) , ohh you can vote now, that is if you dare leave your house! is America seen as a liberator by the people?
the hell of living under Saddam hussein, meant you would be in fear of expressing your political beliefs, a lack of freedom and civil liberties, the danger of death or torture...
anyone think those same day to day worries exist in Iraq today? if yes, does it look like that will change any time soon? so was the policy wrong? if of course you are only motivated by money and tax you pay regardless of the moral or human cost, in a recent interview with Cheney the figure �8 billion a month as a cost to America for keeping troops in Iraq was quoted, you think your tax money is being spent well?
i love the fact liberalism is deemed to be a bad thing... i mean it's not like right wing politics have dragged us into an unwinnable war based on lies and propaganda, ohh actually...
how long did the bush administration say America would be in Iraq at the start of the war? WMD would be found? how many times has the phrase, we're nearly there, the troops will be out soon, been used?...how many times will people be told rubbish before they wake up? you didn't liberate a people in the sense of they are free now., They are living in hell at the moment, its worse than saddam's reign (in dead bodies at the morgue stakes) , ohh you can vote now, that is if you dare leave your house! is America seen as a liberator by the people?
the hell of living under Saddam hussein, meant you would be in fear of expressing your political beliefs, a lack of freedom and civil liberties, the danger of death or torture...
anyone think those same day to day worries exist in Iraq today? if yes, does it look like that will change any time soon? so was the policy wrong? if of course you are only motivated by money and tax you pay regardless of the moral or human cost, in a recent interview with Cheney the figure �8 billion a month as a cost to America for keeping troops in Iraq was quoted, you think your tax money is being spent well?
I'm sorry cardiacbleed they recently reveeled that they did indeed find WMDs but had to keep rhis fact classifide and I think he's administration always said they would be there for a long time but i could be wrong if you could point me to an artical that says some thing other than that I would aprishiate it
noxlumos it may be true that Bush dropped the ball in New Orleans but maybe becaus he's not very smart and was counting on the first responers to do theyer jobs you know like the govener and the mayor who is black and had axces to many busses witch he could have use but didn't .the piont is frome the mayor all the way up to Bush, All of those who should have been there for the people in new orleans dropped the ball
perhaps I support this point of view becaus I am a coward and afraid of hords of insergents killing me and my family,not in iraq but right here in america perhaps becaus I was raised in a family thats rufly 40% muslim and I know what younger disenfranchised muslims talk about when discriminating ears are not listening and perhaps I listen to what the democrats say and I am afraid its not anof I don't realy whant to support bush I'm just to much of a coward not to
So you don't think that Bush is in fact making it harder for non radical muslims to be heard ? I mean, from experience of other matters I know that disenfranchised groups will only take serious heed of their own communities and leaders, they don't give a rats arse about anyone or anything else, so would it not be wiser to have elected a leader who didn't alienate the mainstream muslim community and wage an illegal war ( which most people see is to do with controlling oil rather than anything whatsoever to do with al-Quadea)? Would it not make more sense to encourage inter faith tolerance by not wading into someone else's country and killing huge quantities of it's civilians? I know you're going to jump back at me with the whole twin towers arguments and I know that it thoroughly shocked America to be attacked on it's own soil but this hysteria has got to stop. You are in no more danger now than you've ever been, but if you don't quit the world police act you soon will be because your seriously frightening the rest of the world and I'm sure the US muslim poulation much be really hurt and angry at what's occuring in this war on terror. Why are we all going backwards in terms of tolerance? Can you not see that the only way that you will bring down terrorist cells is by their own people deciding that enough is enough and whilst Bush is waving big sticks at all and sundry that's hardly likely to happen is it?
the people in my familly that I chose to alienate had radical views far befor 9/11 and it was some but not all just some of theyr leaders I fill put these thoughts in theyr heads. the mogority of muslims are good people but its not them I fear and I have not heard any thing frome any one on how we can bring good muslim into the fold and at the same time isolate the bad ones.every one wants to live in harmony and that sounds good but I have not heard a plan on how we do this and protect ourselves at the same time
