Bush

College Confidential Community
41

<p>Even though Bush might be dumb (or play dumb, depending on your level of cynicism), at least he has karl rove (genius times eight) to work out all his problems. Rove is completely brilliant; he's the first one who fully manupulated the utter irrelevance of truth. (Not to say other politicians don't lie, but the Bush campaign is simply amazing at doing so.) I mean, who else could take the WMD lie and just make it vanish? Who else could strategically avoid the Rove leak issue with such dexterity? </p>

<p>Rove realises that all bush has to do is pound a simplistic message over and over and over (we good. they bad. we kill them. god bless america). To this end, Bush appeals to people who either have diffuculty with or just like to avoid moral ambiguity. Yep, it sure is scary, all that brainpower that goes into manipulation and supporting an ideology with the moral complexity of... shall we say.. Islamic Terrorists?</p>

42

<p>
[quote]
Yep, it sure is scary, all that brainpower that goes into manipulation and supporting an ideology with the moral complexity of... shall we say.. Islamic Terrorists?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Nice analogy!!! </p>

<p>Bush Nazi. Bush terrorist. Bush evil.</p>

<p>That sounds like the work of extremist liberal propagnda to me. </p>

<p>The extremist leftists realize that all they have to do is pound a simplistic message over and over and over</p>

43

<p>Admittedly, there are left wingers with a similary simple message. And, also admittedly, there are right wingers with well thought out opinions instead of soundbytes. </p>

<p>That said, if you look past the soundbytes of Bush, most people should be able to see his... policies, for lack of a better word... as rather... simplistic and misguided (well, the misguided part only for people with true american values of tolerence and diversity instead of Bush's quizzi-values of, well, fundamentalism with a hint of bigotry and lot of Partiotism [shudders]). </p>

<p>Speaking of soundbytes, here's one for you:
BALANCE THE DAMN BUDGET!</p>

<p>Seriously, balancing the budget should be the <em>one</em> thing conservatives do right... Sigh, America just can't win.</p>

44

<p>For. </p>

<p>Honestly Democrats don't have issues. Example: Kerry lost. With perhaps one of the lowest approval ratings for a sitting president come election time, Bush still won. Why? Kerry and the Democrats were all attack. No issues. I have yet to see a good alternative to many issues put forth by the Democrats. Democrats have yet to learn from that election. To this day I still see Kerry/2004 stickers. Those people must be living in a fantasy land or something. He lost, k? </p>

<p>As for Bush being dumb, I give you this. A few weeks ago, there was a little played up story about Kerry's and Bush's transcript. I do recall Bush getting better grades and having a higher overall GPA. Not by much, but enough to prove a point. If Bush is dumb, so is Kerry. Just because you are not the most articulate does not mean you are dumb. While I don't argue he is the most intellectual of presidents, I feel many sore Democrats out there are deliberately exagerating the situation.</p>

<p>Second, economy. If you people don't notice yet, maybe take a look at some economic data. The economy is improving, budget deficit projections are decreasing, more jobs are being created, and inflation is low. All in the face of RECORD oil prices. Maybe some of you have noticed the fact that interest rates are increasing. Why? The economy is improving. It is a fact. Those of you that can't see it, like perhaps the New York Times, are just in denial. I'd like to add, that job growth is never equal across all sectors of the economy. There is a constant shift of jobs between sectors. Some sectors are in the midst of a decline, while others are booming. Using the fact that some people out there are losing their jobs to try and detract from the good economic news is totally ignoring reality.</p>

<p>Democrats have seized upon any issue that they think can be used to hurt the president. The difficult situation in Iraq is just one example. Over and over again, we are beaten over the head with the statement that Bush deliberately lied about WMD intelligence. There has been NO proof of this. To take an INTERNATIONAL intelligence failure and blame it solely on the president is to miss several facts. We were not the only ones who believed Saddam had intelligence. If you recall, other countries such as Britain and Russia also had intelligence indicating the presence of WMD. Does anyone remember many UN resolutions being passed asking Saddam to disarm? Why do you think that resolution was passed right before war, asking to identify his weapons and disarm. Passing a resolution like that involves the votes of other countries. I guess they believed it too. Saddam also had a nasty habit of blatantly violating the established no-fly zones. He isn't really the character you would like to trust. The fact that WMD were not found after the fact has been exploited by liberals to no end. If it were clear he didn't have these weapons, there would have been NO international support at all. Using what we know now, and couldn't have known then against the presence is entirely unfair. The fact that winning the peace and establishing the first democracy ever in Iraq has been difficult has also been exploited. Nobody likes casualties, not even Republicans. The slaughtering of innocent women and children in addition to our soldiers gives you the idea of just who we were dealing with. Did we want to risk such people having WMD in a post 9/11 world? President Bush didn't, so he acted.</p>

<p>President Bush doesn't always do what is popular. This is why his approval rating is low, and why threads like these seem to have a field day. Let me just make this point. President Bush had a whole term of office on which to be evaluated. He campaigned on his performance so far and ran on some issues and won. He is pursuing the issues he ran on. I credit his leadership in the face of some of the nastiest opposition in recent political history.</p>

<p>Also, if you think that Bush is not working while he is at Crawford, you are wrong, plain and simple. He is never out of contact with Washington, and is constantly making statements. He has had many dignitaries visit him at his ranch. When you are president, you are president, no matter where you go. He has daily briefings. He will never be able to completely separate himself from it as long as he is president. Attacking his 'vacation' is typical Democratic strategy. Do you people realize the whole United States congress is on vacation?? But we are at war!!! 5 week vacation!! GASP?!! I guess you are desperate if you really need to start attacking a summer vacation. If there was anything he needed to do but couldn't accomplish at his ranch, he would return, as would any president on vacation.</p>

<p>I know some of you may be shocked by an opposing viewpoint, but I couldn't resist. Also, pardon the length, but I had to attack the many misconceptions given in this thread.</p>

<p>And by the way, </p>

<p>"against, Bush is a retarded crack smoking alcoholic draft-dodger who started 2 unjustified wars and is going for more"</p>

<p>How about an intelligent argument with actual facts?</p>

<p>Good day.</p>

45

<p>.</p>

<p>~GreenDayFan:
"I don't like Bush for the following reasons.
1. I disagree with the war in Iraq. I think he mislead us and shouldn't have initiated the war until he had solid proof that Saddam has WMD.
2. I disagree with having a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
3. I do not think abortion should be outlawed.
4. I don't support No Child Left Behind
5. I don't support tax cuts. I think we should have the rich pay more. The dribble down theory has proven ineffective.
6. I think stem cell research should be fully legal.
7. I think Bush should spend more time at the White House and less time friggin' vacationing at his Crawford ranch.
And several other reasons, but I'd like for this post not to take up a while page lol. Ok flipchick, these are some of the reasons I am against Bush."</p>

<p>This is a great way of presenting an individuals opinion with sufficient evidence to support the opinion. But some people have presented their dislike for the US President without quoting any reasons which is exactly like the <code>hero' of this discussion taking US to war in Iraq/Afghanistan without much valid reasons or evidence of the publicised propaganda and thereafter failing to discover any of the weapons of mass</code>deception'.</p>

<p>Though the fact is highly appreciated that the future generation of the USA are having a clear grasp of the acute realities of the standings of their current political establishment of their country, it is expected of them to act more diligently and wisely while making claims in favour or against of anything in the democracy.</p>

<p>I being from from India, the same India in search of which Columbus set sail and the same India where the American jobs are moving, thought that Americans youth did not care about politics as much as they do about Baseball or Basketball. But a few encounters with American future generation made me realise the case to be much different.</p>

<p><< I stand up and bow in respect before you >></p>

<p>SHABIN
Aug 12, 2oo5.</p>

<p>.</p>

46

<p>.</p>

<p>~mit2007mit : "I do recall Bush getting better grades and having a higher overall GPA."</p>

<p>Seeing your name having two MIT tags, I will like to point your attention to a statement given by the MIT itself :
"An application to MIT is more than a set of numbers or grades."
"It's about who you are and what you care about."</p>

<p>The same may apply to the Mr. Bush vs Mr. Kerry debate as well :
Being a president is more than `getting better grades and having a higher overall GPA.'
It's about who he/she is and what he/she cares about. And if his/her cares reflect the people's concerns.

Hence, Mr. Bush's grades or GPA hasn't got much edge in the Oval Office, if going by MIT's official statements and also by the principles of democracy.

~mit2007mit : "The economy is improving, budget deficit projections are decreasing, more jobs are being created, and inflation is low."

You are very right here. The economy is improving in China, budget deficit projections are decreasing in Russia, more jobs are being created in India, and inflation is low in France.

But what about education? This link may be helpful : http://blogs.mit.edu/barkowitz/posts/7662.aspx

~mit2007mit : "I'd like to add, that job growth is never equal across all sectors of the economy. There is a constant shift of jobs between sectors. Some sectors are in the midst of a decline, while others are booming. Using the fact that some people out there are losing their jobs to try and detract from the good economic news is totally ignoring reality."

You are right here as well, that job growth is never equal across all `countries' of the world. There is a constant shift of jobs between countries. Some countries (like US, UK, Japan etc.) are in the midst of a decline, while others like (China, India, Thailand, Malasia, South Korea etc.) are booming. Using the fact that some people out there (in US) are losing their jobs to try and detract from the good economic (and worldly) news (and reality) is totally ignoring reality.</p>

<p>~mit2007mit : "Over and over again, we are beaten over the head with the statement that Bush deliberately lied about WMD intelligence. There has been NO proof of this."</p>

<p>Yes, that's really true. There has been NO proof of the WMDs. And still there is no proof.</p>

<p>~mit2007mit : "Does anyone remember many UN resolutions being passed asking Saddam to disarm? Passing a resolution like that involves the votes of other countries."</p>

<p>When was the resolution passed authorising war against Iraq ?<br>
France, on March 10 of 2003, and later Russia said they would veto any such a resolution in the UN Security Council based on hallucinations of individuals and this prevented authorisation from UN to wage war in Iraq based on Security Council Resolution 1441. This left many alternatives but the British PM Mr. Tony Blair, US President GW Bush and Spanish prime minister Jos</p>

47

<p>mit2007mit pretty much summed up my views. I think the big reason everyone doesn't like Bush is because of farenheight 911 (which was the worst movie I have ever seen, it had so little facts), and punk rock bands. It seems to be the "cool" thing to do to bash the president. I almost laugh when I hear some people in my school call the president "dumb" for mispronouncing a word that I guarentee these people didn't know in the first place. </p>

<p>Do you realize how often Bush is on TV? He has spent more time on the air than most presidents (I heard most ever somewhere). He isn't an amazing speaker like Clinton, but Bush is still not bad. Of course when you are on air hundreds and hundreds of hours you are going to make some mistakes. Calling him "dumb" for this doesn't make any sense. I know plenty of people who aren't "dumb" because they aren't great speakers. By that logic, Albert Einstein would be "dumb."</p>

<p>As both mit2007mit and I said before, the president WORKS while he is on vacation. We live in the 21st century, we have cell phones, laptops, blackberries, etc. </p>

<p>People like to go on and on bashing Bush with no solid foundation for it. The newest thing I hear from some of my liberal friends is how we are going into North Korea and Iran and I've heard these people say for the last 3 years that Bush will implement a draft. All won't happen. </p>

<p>To be quite honest, Kerry has many of the same views as Bush. He tried to avoid the issues and just bash Bush for things he probably would have done himself. He suggested no alternatives to any of Bush's policies. What I find funny is people who say Bush rigged the last 2 elections. People we live in America, not Iraq, the elections can't be rigged. If they were, don't you think you'd hear Kerry and Gore complaining to no end? Both accepted the outcome and said to move on and stand behind our new president. Why don't liberals listen to their own leaders.</p>

<p>I'm not the biggest Bush fan. I'd really like to see McCain elected in 08. I give Bush credit though where credit is due. I like his get tough stance. We are sending the world the wrong message if we let other countries ignore our sanctions and let them walk all over us. Bush is doing what he believes is right, not what will get him the highest approval rating, and for that, I applaud him. He has taken a firm clear stance on all his issues, agree or disagree with them, that is much better than waivering, and sending mixed messages, especially to the mideast.</p>

48

<p>Bush's destiny..
B-beat
U-Up
S-Saddam
H-Hussein
My fav. motto "(B)uck (F)ush)</p>

<p>also CLINTON...Call Lewinksy I Need The Oral Now</p>

49

<p>SHABIN, do you enjoy posting mindless drivel?</p>

<p>Your posts citing MIT are simply ludicrous. Since when does admissions for MIT have anything to do with the President? It has absolutely nothing to do with the President. If it did, the admissions officers would be running the country instead of George W. Bush.</p>

<p>The economy IS at a great point whether you choose to believe it or not. Nice of you to try and shift the light to other countries, but you never address the U.S. Why is that? The unemployment rate is at an all-time low, inflation is nearly non-existent, and hundreds of thousands of jobs are being created every month. It is tough to argue with the facts; however you seem to balk at the sight of any facts.</p>

<p>I would address many of your other points, but it is simply a waste of my time. No, none of us know Bush or Hussein personally. We can't all measure up to your pseudo-intellectualism SHABIN ("bifurcating" really got a laugh out of me). Do us all a favor and stick to arguing the facts instead of trying to come up with witty comebacks. I'll go even further to say that I pray to God that you are not considering a career in comedy; you'd make Roseanne look funny.</p>

50

<p>I applaud mit2007mit, devils67, and uc_benz!!!!</p>

<p>You folks are the type of people this country needs more of! People with brains! Yay!!!!! Finally!!!!</p>

51

<p>I am a liberal and I have brains.</p>

52

<p>Really? I couldn't tell. J/K :)</p>

53

<p>"You folks are the type of people this country needs more of! People with brains! Yay!!!!! Finally!!!!</p>

<p>flipchick1127, your comments truly give me a laugh. As if this country needs any more blind Bush cheerleaders.</p>

<p>Devils67, DO give us a little more credit. It is extremely immature of you to claim that the reason so many people hate Bush is because of Fahrenheit 911 or a a punk song by Green Day. There are many, many reasons to hate a man like Bush, some of which have been stated here.</p>

<p>Perhaps we hate Bush because he wants to take away some of people's most basic, fundemental rights. If I remember correctly, he promised his Evangelical christians that he would make an amendment against gay marriage, and also reverse Roe V. Wade, taking away a woman's right to choose, on the basis, of course, of preserving life. If the man really cared about protecting life, he would allow stem cell research, which can save thousands.
Or maybe it's because he entered office with a budget surplus, and managed to get us into a 400 billion dollar deficit. It does take quite a bit of stupidity to manage that. </p>

<p>Or maybe we hate Bush because he twisted the facts and used fear tactics to get the country to support the war in Iraq, killing thousands of soldiers and civilians in the process, for a reason which we have yet to understand. And don't tell me the war was justified because Iraq supported the terrorists responsible for 9/11, as we all know that that is a crock of bull. Considering almost all of the 9/11 suicide bombers were from Saudi Arabia, NOT Iraq, dare I say, We Are Bombing The Wrong Country! </p>

<p>Lest you claim that we are in Iraq to flower it with American democracy and glory, perhaps we should take a look at other Middle Eastern countries, like the previously mentioned Saudi Arabia, which has its female citizens living in deplorable conditions far worse than that of Iraq. Perhaps we should bring freedom to the unfortuante women who are not allowed to vote and who can be publicly executed for laughing out loud in public, in the name of democracy, of course. However, we can't do that, as it would be inconvenient for Bush, who is practically in bed with the Saudi Prince.
Suicide bombers in Iraq are Saudis, and the country gives millions to terrorist organizations like Al-Qaeda, yet Bush turns a blind eye. </p>

<p>Perhaps when the man really starts to fight terrorism, I will take him seriously.</p>

<p>The war in Iraq is one of Bush's nasty jokes, and the American people, who so willingly turn a blind eye to the man's faults, are paying the price.</p>

<p>In case it wasn't apparent from my post, I loathe Bush.</p>

54

<p>I think you were lead to believe by the Democratic party that we are in Iraq because it is linked to 9/11. I know for a fact that Bush never said the reason we are going to Iraq is because they played a part in 9/11. The reason we went to Iraq is to PREVENT another occurence such as 9/11. </p>

<p>The weapons inspectors did not find any smoking gun in Iraq, but they unanimously agreed that Iraq could restart its nuclear and biological/chemical weapons on a seconds notice. They had all of the necessary equipment and personnel to have weapons of mass destruction, what more do you need? It is my belief that they would wait for the world to become complacent once again, and then start up their program. However, Bush did not allow this to happen by taking quick action where it was due. </p>

<p>Look, no one likes the realities of war, but complaining about it isn't going to change it. We ARE at war whether you like it or not, and we should be concentrating on our efforts there instead of contemplating about whoulda coulda shouldas. Democrats complain all of the time about our soldiers getting killed, yet they don't seem to be doing anything about it. Do us all a favor and quit complaining for once and concentrate on improving the conditions for our troops and bringing them home. There are a lot of bright minds in the Democratic party that would best be served concentrating on the issues that matter and not what should have been done 3 years ago.</p>

55

<p>So you are saying we should be attacking Saudi Arabia? If you read the world news, the Saudi government is constantly fighting terrorists. There have been raids where dozens of Saudi Soldiers have died in fights with terrorists. The Saudi government is making a conscious effort to help in the war on terror. I have never heard of them funding Al Quaeda. It is quite the opposite, they are spending a lot of money, and risking soldiers lives to fight Al Quaeda.</p>

<p>I can't even imagine how anyone could argue that Saddam was not an oppressive dicator. He killed hundreds of thousands who opposed him. He didn't follow the UN sanctions that were put on him after the Gulf War. Why isn't that a good enough reason for the war? Should we just let Iraq attack any country it pleases, and kill innocent people? I think not.</p>

<p>I agree with reversing the Roe vs. Wade decision, I feel that abortion is murder. How does it make sense that Scott Peterson is tried for a double murder for the unborn fetus, but you can get an abortion without thinking twice? Adoption is a beautiful thing. I know plenty of adopted kids living in great families. Tell them that their parents should have had abortions, I'm sure they would disagree.</p>

<p>I do disagree with Bush on gay marriage however. It has always been my belief that not allowing gay marriage is unconstitutional by incorporating church and state. I really can't believe that everyone can't see that.</p>

56

<p>Well it's impossible to declare it involves church & state. The PEOPLE voted on these issues, and sure, most of them are probably Christian, but it is not the governments job to decide that. People vote in every election based on their religious convictions so should those issues be declared unconstitutional? Because who is to say that some of the voters were atheist? Or Muslim? These people are not voting for a law against gay marriage because of their religions, but because they have other convictions to believe it is wrong. Now, if the President tried to push the bill then it probably would be unconstitutional because he has to answer to Congress and the public as to where the bill came from (which is obviously his Christian beliefs). But the people do not have to answer to anyone so the laws will stand.</p>

<p>And as far as abortion is concerned...it is a sticky subject that I constantly waiver on, but I will say this: I don't want my tax money going to federally-funded abortion programs. That is the bottom line. If someone wants to get an abortion on their own time then that is fine with me, but they better not be using my hard earned money to have it done.</p>

57

<p>"People don't realize that Bush plays dumb as part of his image as the average american guy."</p>

<p>LMAO!! Wow, this is golden :D</p>

58

<p>Eggo Rofl!!11111</p>

59

<p>uc_benz, </p>

<p>Perhaps the notion of this thread has escaped you. Last I checked, we were talking about how we felt about Bush, and I gave my reasons for being against him, just as several others before me have done. I am not complaining, but thank you for so brilliantly pointing out that we are at war. I think everyone here knows we are at war, but that should in no way stop me from expressing my views about the current political situation. As for your suggestions to help soldiers, I really don't see how I could do more that I have already done. These men and women are constantly in my thoughts, and I've been a part of many fundraisers to send them packages overseas. I'm sorry to say, however, but I don't think packages of toothpaste and soap will help them much when they are being blown to pieces every day for a reason many of them don't believe in. </p>

<p>As for making efforts to bring our troops home, it would be mighty nice of Bush if he had a solid plan in mind for bringing our troops home, instead of making them do double and triple tours of duty and keeping them there indefinitely. </p>

<p>Last I heard, the weapons inspectors weren't allowed to finish the job they were sent to do. not only did they not find anything, but they also believe that Saddam had no capabilities for making weapons of mass destruction. Bush, on the other hand, declared that Saddam had rockets that could reach as far as the U.S.</p>

<p>Devils67,</p>

<p>Nowhere in my post do I say we attack Saudi Arabia, but you were quick to suggest it. If the Saudi government is so committed to fighting terrorism, why were almost all of the 9/11 suicide bombers from Saudi Arabia, and why do Saudi terrorists continue to blow themselves up in Iraq?</p>

<p>I also did not argue that Saddam was not an oppresive dictator, but then again, Bush's reason to go to war was not that Saddam was a mean guy and we needed to save Iraq. His foremost reason, and the reason so many supported him, is because of his false claims that Iraq had WMD's. He caused mass panic and hysteria by telling the nation that any day now, we were probably going to be attacked by Saddam and his elusive WMD's. </p>

<p>As I said before, if we are going to go invade countries because they have mean dictators, then why don't we just bomb the whole Middle East, since many other countries are under the same regimes. This is what you suggested, no? My point is that we have taken it upon ourselves to police the wrold, but only where it is beneficial to us. The Saudi government is just as dictatorial and oppressive to its people, yet we dare not lay a hand on it for fear of ruining our healthy oil connection.</p>

<p>As for abortion, I don't think it will do anyone good to have this debate again. I know adoption is a beautiful thing, as does any reasonable human being, and I encourage it to the fullest extent. The principle at stake, however, is a woman's choice, which Bush wants to take away. </p>

<p>Glad you're not for the constitutional amendment against gay marriage.</p>

60

<p>You said we are bombing the wrong country, so it looked as if you implied that we should be fighting Saudi Arabia. Just because the suicide bombers came from Saudi Arabia has nothing to do with the Saudi government helping terrorists. There were several British fighting with the Taliban, under that logic, the British would be helping terrorism too.</p>

<p>No other mid-east country is going against UN sanctions put on them. If they were, I'm all for threatening/using force to do what is necessary. Iraq blatantly ignored UN sanctions, and for that they paid the price. </p>

<p>Again, the Saudi government does have lots of problems as far as women's rights, as does the rest of the mid-east. In this day and age, if we were to try to do something about it, all hell would break loose. The Saudis may not treat everyone fairly, but they aren't executing people by the thousands, and they aren't attacking other countries either. Iraq was a threat to the entire world. Saddam had no reguard for life, and he wasn't afraid to use force as we saw in the Persian Gulf War.</p>