Yay or Nay??

nay

Quoted from harihead

I can't answer this. I'll get all wound up.  

The idea of this forum is to join in with discussions.

nay- I hate the man. ( I will happily join in a discussion when someone says something controversial to start it off )

wheres wayne?

when you need him

OK Here goes .
Mr Bush
As i`m from the U.K. i can only go off on what i see on the news over here , is there anyone who is in power not corrupt ?
and what i see is a very corrupt goverment running the most powerfull country in the world .
The only reason for the U.S to invade IRAQ is for the oil , even an uneducated person like myself can see that , and the main man behind that is our friend Mr Bush
This is just a tip of the iceberg i guess .
This is my opinion .

Nay... and I live here

Nay. I don't trust him at all, I almost never agree with his views and I think he has too much innocent blood on his hands.

I think he's turned out to be one of the biggest mistakes in American history. It'll be interesting to see how far the next President goes to start repairing the damage.

It's comforting to hear you speak of him in the past tense, but he's still in office doing damage. Now he wants to move into Iran, and anyone who opposes this idiotic move (in the military) is reassigned. He's eroding our civil rights and the conservative stacking of our supreme court (who interprets the law) will continue to undermine people's rights in favor of corporations for decades. You might not be able to hear much from us Americans after a while, because if his people succeed in gaining control of our internet (something they've been steadily working on for years), we won't even be able to let you know how bad it is over here.

The trouble is, you can't blame Bush by himself. Our Congress, instead of holding him accountable for violating the Constitution (of which he has several impeachable offenses) continually gives him a pass. We kicked out the Republican-led Congress and put in a Democratic one to show our displeasure with this administration, and what do we get? More of the same. It's an incredibly disturbing situation. Anyone who is familiar with the delicate balance that our Founding Fathers set up for this nation is horrified at how that balance has shifted to put power in the hands of a few people, which was never their intention, and something they actively planned to prevent. But to stop it, you have to have Congress exercise its function-- and it hasn't been, for years.

Upset as most American people are about our current leadership, they simply don't have the time or education to be protesting these changes as they should. They know that something is wrong, but just how wrong hasn't hit home to most people yet. Our political leaders have become very clever at spin. They keep things out of the papers (they honestly do pass legislation at 11:30 on a Friday night, to keep people from knowing about it until it's a done deal-- like the so-called Patriot Act) and feed people a series of distractions to keep them from inquiring too closely. For a populace who is working increasingly long hours just to keep food on the table or afford any kind of medical care, independent inquiry is too much of a burden. And so it goes...

Thank God elections are next year... but that's still a whole year to go. Who knows what will be done by then.

I agree with most of what's bin said. Thank god elections are next year indeed, but what damage will be done in the meanwhile? And shuld they pull troops out of Iraq and Afghanastan? Ie, can they survive on their own? I think mister GB is going to do something about his troops soon anyway..  Here's a link of some guy heckling Barbara Bush a while ago when she votes for DUBYA..pretty funny.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dO_g1pryGP0

Btw, any-one seen/heard bout Michael Moore's new movie, sicko??

my father is a retired officer from the national guard, and he's also a huge military and history buff. he figures that if need be, we can pull out of iraq completely in 3 months. whether that helps or hurts iraq is anyone's guess.

its dick cheney who is really in charge of this whole fiasco we call Bush. he's the brains behind the whole thing, bush just looks prettier and has the downhomey like style that the voters liked.

Hmm... will I be the first person to say "yay"?....

well the first one to have the balls too.

for that, i salute you

Quoted from Kaleidoscope_Eyes

Hmm... will I be the first person to say "yay"?....

Well, good on you for admitting it. Would you like to tell us why?

Quoted from Kaleidoscope_Eyes

Hmm... will I be the first person to say "yay"?....

whoa

Yeah, everyone's entitled to their opinion and if she/he thinks that then good on them. But you have to say why.

Someone who's pro-Bush and not even from America... That must be rare.

Quoted from Joost

Someone who's pro-Bush and not even from America... That must be rare.

Thats a reason why Im pro Bush. Frankly I dont see nothing wrong with the man... I mean at least he is helping out instead of just talking (like other country leaders do *ahem ahem NZ*). Also, perhaps me bing from Israel adds to my opinion...

Quoted from Kaleidoscope_Eyes

I mean at least he is helping out instead of just talking

Well, he's more about actions than words, I'll give you that, but I'm not sure if I can see whatever he's doing as 'helping'.

mm, somehow dictatorship...or as close to one that we have in america, is not really a helpful thing.

ok, so that i dont sound like a left-wing nutjob (as wayne put so gracefully many moons ago) heres some of what hes done to totally fark up.

tax cuts (alone, not a real problem, not great and it doesnt make him a republican since republicans are supposed to be fiscally conservative) while spending craploads of money

iraq

patriot act (basically giving the government the right to imprison us for dissent in the name of homeland security)

katrina relief, or lack there of

the current military buildup with Iran

and now its come to light that he doesnt actually plan on ever getting troops out of iraq but instead keep them in iraq and force the next president to also keep them into the next decade despite his telling the american public and soldiers over in iraq that they may be coming home by the end of the summer.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/.....iraq-sir/#more-21009

Nice summary, Somedude.

Speaking of Katrina "relief"-- there was a summary of the last 8 presidencies, how each leader responded to a similar crisis. Every one of them, Republican or Democrat, acted decisively and proactively to minimize loss of life and suffering. Bush's response was appalling. Troops actually prevented trapped people from leaving the area and stopped relief efforts from going in. Denied food, water, and shelter, the situation turned into a bloodbath. Numerous survivor reports bear this out first hand.

Forget about all the tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis this adminstration has killed if you like. Bush has American blood on his hands-- and we STILL keep this evil man in office. Sorry, I can't find any other word for it. Someone who prevents willing Americans (like Mayor Richard Daley who had the entire city of Chicago's trained relief force ready to roll, and was DENIED) from saving lives of people literally drowning over a period of days is an evil person. He deserves to be incarcerated for his crimes. There is absolutely no excuse for allowing this menace to run free.

You can read all about the screw-up (another word for mass murder) here: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/katrina-timeline.php
Poor Bushie had to cut short his vacation to view the devastation-- and all relief efforts were suspended for HOURS while he did so, because we wouldn't want poor little Bushie baby to have a sniper turned on him just because all these people were drowning and he did jack all to fix it.

Me, angry? What thinking person would not be?

Ooo, very nice harihead

harihead, do you happen to watch keith obermann? i imagine youd love him. watch that special comment

Any other opinions of old georgie??

he can rot in hell? ive got nothing more

Nay, nay, nay, nay, nay, nay... (etc; ad nauseum). You can't fight a war and cut taxes at the same time without running up a huge deficit. As for the war itself, it was a gargantuan strategic blunder: the subject of debate is now us instead of the Islamic terrorists.

Bush was just a stupid (meaning not a whole lot upstairs) man who was a puppet figurehead of the Republican machine - whose only goal is to maximize the wealth of the wealthy, at the expense of ... everything and anything.

The real tragedy will be if McCain is elected. Not because he is any worse than anyone else, but because the same Republican machine will keep on chewing up and spitting out the middle class and the poor until there is nothing left.

It seems to me that in their unfettered greed for having it all NOW, the drivers of the Republicans party (i.e., the very very very very wealthy) have only ensured their own demise along with that the "lower" classes they need to support them.  They will always need a middle class and poor class to "feed them", but their policies of the last 8 years or so are so severe that they have sucked all the wealth out of the system. I used to think that if they were immoral they were at least rational ... now I think they were just so greedy that they have screwed the USA for decades, if not forever.  

*But really sir, how do you feel about them?*

*buys an Alexis for President tee-shirt*

Seconded.

but you have to remember, that regardless of who's president, the problems with the country is the fact that the lobbyists control congress, not democrats or republicans, freaking lobbyists!

they're the ones that wanted the oil in iraq, they're the ones that got the building contracts (those close to mr cheney, that is) and the military contracts. We sold our souls and our countries to corporations. There needs to be a cleaning of those corrupt individuals within our government.

This may be the only time i suggest this, but we need someone with good intentions to be a dictator (not the modern sense of the word, but the origianl latin term) where the person in charge would have power for 6 months and then they would have to go back to their normal status.

the problem with that, is that we need someone who isn't tied down to political ties. so basically we'd need someone who isnt in politics.

George is simply the most blatant form of our corrupt system. it can only get better, but only if politicans stay out of it.


....threadjacking over. I hope you enjoyed your trip  

Quoted from somedude210

This may be the only time i suggest this, but we need someone with good intentions to be a dictator (not the modern sense of the word, but the origianl latin term) where the person in charge would have power for 6 months and then they would have to go back to their normal status.

Who do you have in mind for this?


... okay, I'll do it. But is that six month limit set in stone?  

thats the problem, is that we dont have someone reliable for it.