|
Post by beefburger on May 7, 2002 19:40:55 GMT -5
First, I'm not a Bush fan, but,
I hardly think you can blame Bush for the war nor the unrest in the middle east.
The war was thrust upon him when a group of sociopaths hijacked some planes filled with innocent people and drove them into 2 skyscrapers populated with thousands of other innocent people with the aim to kill as many thousands upon thousands of people as possible.
Those crazed people have absolutely no value for human life, and believe that they are going to paradise after blowing themselves up with innocent people.
There is nothing America could do to make these people any happier apart from disappear from the face of the earth, there was no alternative but to do what he did.
What Bush (correction the Bush Administration) has done in Afghanistan, I fully praise, aside from going some way to dismantling the infrastructure of the Al Qaeida they have helped to free a tortured country.
For a while I was worried that things might only get worse, (how could it really get worse)? but it has been a genuine success, a lot still needs to be done in Afghanistan, to both continue to destroy all remnants of the Al Qeada and Taliban and of course to prevent the war lords from creating havoc from within Afghanisstan as they did before the Taliban took power (for a while the Taliban were actually a relief from these war lords), it seems the war lords, little reported on, are actually back making trouble!
What the Bush Administration has done so far, - so good!
|
|
|
Post by da_silva on May 7, 2002 22:30:28 GMT -5
Beef,
I didn't blame him, but it is happeneing on his shift. But more guns is not a solution for anything.
|
|
|
Post by greg99 on May 8, 2002 5:11:19 GMT -5
I believe that anyone in Bush's position would have done the same thing, even handle it with more professionalism.... so I can give Bush absolutely no credit whatsoever. None.
I still remember seeing his father on CNN APOLOGIZING for some of his son's comments.... wuff! How pathetic is that?
|
|
|
Post by Wycco on May 8, 2002 7:29:25 GMT -5
I believe that anyone in Bush's position would have done the same thing, even handle it with more professionalism Aye- the same can be said for that weasel Mayor Guiliani (sp?). He just did his job- the same as almost anyone would in his shoes and got all sorts of honours and praise... But there again maybe I'm biased- that cheating creep always bugged me with his- censorship of this- that and everything else.
|
|
|
Post by Srrh on May 8, 2002 8:08:02 GMT -5
Will you guys stop adding to this thread now? I mean "Praise for Bush" is getting bigger and bigger....you might give people the wrong impression :bounce:
Srrh The Bushwacker
|
|
|
Post by Topcontender on May 9, 2002 0:05:55 GMT -5
I always praise bush hell i voted for him.
As for Guiliani, I might not agree with his policies always but he turned the Rotten Apple into a nice party. It is almost strange walking from times square to central park without an attempted mugging of a hooker soliciting you sex.
|
|
|
Post by Srrh on May 9, 2002 8:09:03 GMT -5
I always praise bush hell i voted for him. Always is like never.... Always ? The man never did and never will do anything wrong? You praised him him for renegating his agreement to cut down the carbon dioxide and eventually give my kids astma? Or did you praise him more when he violated the ABM treaty? Maybe you really praised him when the US was removed from the Human right commission at the UN? Or maybe you praised him when when he announced military increases of 1.6 TRILLION, when it would take 112 billion to renovate and upgrade every scholl in north america. You should praise him even more: you are number one!!! You are now number one in millionaires. You are now number one in Billionaires. You are now number one in military spending. You are now number one in Firearms death You are now number one in per capita energy use. You are now number one in carbon dioxide emissions. You are now number one in production of municipal waste. You are now number one in oil consumption. You are now number one in least amount of tax revenue generated (%of GDP) You are now number one in budget deficit. You are now number one in lowest voter turnout. You are now number one in recorded rapes. You are now number one in death from road accidents. You are now number one in number of execution of child offenders. You are now number in lowest eighth grade math test. And finally, you are now number one in in the number of international treaties not signed. All this, per capita, of course. Praise Bush, the only man who makes Sharon look like a peace loving democrat.(Actually, I thought about that for a sec. and it is obviously a joke - no one can make Sharon look like that...maybe Saddam...) Srrh
|
|
|
Post by Wycco on May 9, 2002 9:01:19 GMT -5
You should praise him even more: you are number one!!! You are now number one in millionaires. You are now number one in Billionaires. You are now number one in least amount of tax revenue generated (%of GDP) Correct me if I'm wrong- but arn't those good things? And I don't think much from your list can be attributed directly to Bush but rather decades of US policy. (although a couple of items could be)...
|
|
|
Post by Srrh on May 9, 2002 9:59:28 GMT -5
Not sure about the last one to be honest. Redistribution of wealth is a good thing. But here, it doesn't happen; that's why, and I didn't mention it, the US is also number one in becoming the first society in history in which the poorest group of the population are children.
I know it not Bush, but decades policies by Republican hardliners (the worst of which was Hill-Billy-Clinton -I hate this guy sooooo much....) I was only being an ass to TC. All in good fun I might add.
But to be serious it was Bush personally who nullified a proposal to increase public access to information about chemical palnt accidents. It was Bush who rejected an intenational accord to enforce the 1972 treaty banning germ warfare. It was Bush who cut 700 millions in funds for public housing repairs. It was Bush who cut 200 million from the childcare and development grant. It was Bush who overturned workplace ergonomic rules designed to protect worker's health and safety. It was Bush...ahhh, forget it....but you know I could go on like that for quiet a while ;D
But at least he is honest. He said he would: he does!!! Unlike the f**** bastard who was squating the white house before him, just to get sexual favors. The worst hypocrite in modern western politics...Bill was right, he didn't inhale: he sucked!!!
Srrh
|
|
|
Post by RacerX on May 9, 2002 15:12:04 GMT -5
Srrh,
I tried reading your list of complaints, but couldn't get past the second complaint. LOL, you, and many other democrats bought into the "arsenic" in drinking water? F*ck, can you tell me WHEN it was lowered? If this is such a concern?
Seriously, if this is such a freaking problem, then when was the "acceptable level" lowered?
Here's the answer: Months (just a few) before Bush took office, Brother Bill (snake) Clinton signed for the lower level of arsenic in drinking water.
Why?
To do exactly what it's done....make "W" look bad when he recends/delays it. It was a publicity trap set by Bill. It worked. The difference between "W" and Bill is that "W" doesn't play these f*cking games. To Bill, it was ALL a f*cking game.
Can you tell me a few things: What was the level before Clinton Lowered it, right before he left office? What IS the level of arsenic in the tail of your average Lobster dinner?
Seriosuly, check into it....you'll be laughing your arse off when you see what this is really all about. It was just another game....
hook, line & sinker...
RacerX
|
|
|
Post by da_silva on May 9, 2002 15:22:00 GMT -5
Bill Vs Dubya, Last time I looked Rx it was still called Politics. Granted Billy was a snake but at least he was smart, other than when he was thinking with little willy. LOL. But Dubya is even dumber than I am........what a moron.
|
|
|
Post by RacerX on May 9, 2002 15:36:54 GMT -5
Yep, politics...shame on us for accepting it!
I give you the "...he's dumber than I am..."....LOL, you got me there. He'll in no way, be confused with the sharpest tool in the shed. LOL. God, when you think seriously about it, it's embarrassing.
LOL, Rx
P.S. You're going to get me started on this "gun" sh*t! I'm off to start a new thread as we speak!
|
|
|
Post by Wycco on May 9, 2002 16:19:11 GMT -5
Not sure about the last one to be honest. Redistribution of wealth is a good thing. To a degree... BUT... # Of Millionaires/Billionaires- is not always directly proportionate to # of people below the poverty line. The idea is to raise the wealth of the poor in a country- not lower the wealth of the rich in a country... these two things are not completely determined by each other. The less rich people you have in a country- the less new businesses are founded (yes there are some rags to riches stories- but companys have a higher success rate when people have capital to invest)!!! Thus- rich people (as much as we all despise them for being rich) create jobs- thus less unemployed people thus the money the poor people have goes up.
|
|
|
Post by Srrh on May 10, 2002 7:57:06 GMT -5
Rx; Actually the Clintoons have delayed rules that would reduce "acceptable" levels of arsenic in drinking water. Bushwaked actually NULLIFIED the proposal to incease public access to information about the potential ramification of chemical plant accidents. I'll be honest with you, I work in the environment for a BIG multintational corporation: as a manager the Bush election was gold for me. Our american envrionmental budgets have been cut in FOUR: I use to be in charge of North America, now I also have the south because we're just not investing at all in the US: no need. We are now more worried about Brazilian laws than american...Trust me beef, I know what we (don't) do...you were MUCH better of 2 years ago...BTW, do you know that "DoubleYou" also cut funding for research into renweable energy sources by 50%? Cut funding for research into cleaner, more efficient trucks by 28%? And my personal favorite, the one that is changing my proffessional life: He revoked the rules strenghthening the power of the governmnent to deny contracts to company that violate federal laws, environmnental laws and work place safety standard.
Wycco, right. That's why from 1979 until now, the richest one percent in the country have seen their wages increase by 157%; those in the bottom 20% are actually making 100$ less (adjusted for inflation) then under Reagan. Well, but that has nothing to do with redistribution says you? Well, in 1995, 1279 corporations with assets of 250 million or more paid NO taxes and reported NO INCOME. Forbes Magazine estimated that corporate tax shelter costs the american public over 10 billion a year. Of course you have to make up for that as an individual by 1)paying more taxes or 2)getting less services. So I suggest the next time you can't affard to renovate the house or replace your computer, that you thank all those nice people who got you to repeat the line "The economy isn't doing too well right now". Yea. Right.
Srrh
|
|
|
Post by Wycco on May 10, 2002 9:03:07 GMT -5
Wycco, right. That's why from 1979 until now, the richest one percent in the country have seen their wages increase by 157%; those in the bottom 20% are actually making 100$ less (adjusted for inflation) then under Reagan. Well, but that has nothing to do with redistribution says you? The rich have got a LOT richer- and the poor has got poorer by less than 1%. (using $15,000 per year to define poor- which I assume is reasonable since avg household income in the US is over $40,000) Doesn't look like the two are directly correlated to me!!!! Naturally- the poor being poorer even if by such an insignificant ammount is not good- but you can't blame that on the rich being richer: the two are not directly correlated- the economy is MUCH more complex than that- too much redistribution would only cause to weaken the economy making everyone poorer in the long run. Classic extreme example- Soviet Union (and puppet states)- they COMPLETELY redistributed wealth- with the government proportioning off the money- most of the rich there were poorer than the poor in the west.
|
|