Conquer Club

Guiscard wrote:

Knight of Orient wrote:

supercram wrote:you're right. it's the MEDIA's fault that bush is an idiot.

silly giraffe.

Its all popular opinion, obviosly, some people dont like him. obviously, due to the past 2 elections some do. i never belly-ached about clinton when he was in office, and dont see why people gotta bash bush all the time. i mean, really, is your life so horrible, that you gotta rip on him? please, explain what he has done to get (you) all upset.

Increased the risk of me getting blown up on a bus or tube by a fairly significant degree.

No, actually the opposite

I'm afraid the wait of both scholarly and public opinion is against you there....

how has Bush made terrorists attacks more likely?

Can someone explain why Clinton was a bad president and Bush is a good one? I can't fathom the logic by abstraction.

approval rating means almost literally nothing, if he was really that bad he'd be impeached

sfhbballnut wrote:approval rating means almost literally nothing, if he was really that bad he'd be impeached

That would embolden our enemies! The correct application of the democratic process would only prove to the terrorists that we have surrendered.

We must continue to stomp all over this country's legacy and make our founding fathers spin in their graves at a speed high enough to power the nation so we can end our reliance on foreign oil.

We cannot afford to be America anymore, the world isn't safe. We were attacked! The Terrorists are Coming! World War 3 is upon us! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!



Or maybe I'm just overreacting...

DIRESTRAITS wrote:how has Bush made terrorists attacks more likely?

Through a disasterous foreign policy regime which has not only failed to meet its original aims of 'catching' Bin Laden and ending global terror, but has increased the threat of global terror, widened the gulf between America and the Arab world typified by Samuel Huntingdon's 'Clash of Civilzations' (from an article in the journal Foreign Affairs). Not only have post-9/11 terrisorist attacks stated the continuing occupation of iraq as an excuse/motivation, but the constnt rhetoric of the Bush administration (and, to an extent, the Blari government), has led to a prevailng 'us-and-them' attitude which can only endanger and fragment our society. If you want citations from journals, books and lectures on this subject I'd be happy to comply.

Put simply: George Bush hasn't done a hell of a lot for international relations.

Guiscard wrote:

DIRESTRAITS wrote:how has Bush made terrorists attacks more likely?

Through a disasterous foreign policy regime which has not only failed to meet its original aims of 'catching' Bin Laden and ending global terror, but has increased the threat of global terror, widened the gulf between America and the Arab world typified by Samuel Huntingdon's 'Clash of Civilzations' (from an article in the journal Foreign Affairs). Not only have post-9/11 terrisorist attacks stated the continuing occupation of iraq as an excuse/motivation, but the constnt rhetoric of the Bush administration (and, to an extent, the Blari government), has led to a prevailng 'us-and-them' attitude which can only endanger and fragment our society. If you want citations from journals, books and lectures on this subject I'd be happy to comply.

Put simply: George Bush hasn't done a hell of a lot for international relations.

You havent answered my question. The Bush administration is making terrorist attacks less likely, because now the terrorists are over in Iraq getting killed by our troops. And most countries at war throughout history have taken an "us-and-them" attitude toward their enemy

sfhbballnut wrote:approval rating means almost literally nothing, if he was really that bad he'd be impeached

Wait, wut?

Approval rating means alot. It gives those in Congress and the Senate an idea of how they should work. If a congressman is going to poll next year and they want to run as an incumbent, it would better if they had a record that showed them as not having favor with the Presidents policies.

All terrorists live in Iraq. You're right! I forgot about that...

Including the ones from Britain who blew themselves up in July last year... If you'd be so kind as to invade and get your troops to kill them too?

Did you understand anything I wrote? If not I'll give up I think.

vtmarik wrote:Can someone explain why Clinton was a bad president and Bush is a good one? I can't fathom the logic by abstraction.

Clinton's Presidency was riddled with sex scandal's and little foreign policy (outside of selling nuclear technology to China). He cut our military to dangerously low levels. Sold secrets to China. Domestically he did very little outside of having sex and raising taxes.

Bush, although not the best President we have ever had, has cut taxes... getting us out of a post 911 economic recession. Had the kahunas to take on terrorism. Does what he thinks is right and is not swayed by popular opinion. Keeping the US safe since 9-11-01.

Most of the terrorists in Iraq r not Iraqi. They are from other countries and they are in Iraq trying to kill Americans. Now pull your head out of your ass and think!!!!!! Im done with this thread. yall are just Bush bashing morons who need the media to tell you what is and isnt true.

jay_a2j wrote:

vtmarik wrote:popular opinion

= democracy surely?

/rant start
And the terrorist attacks in Spain, too. Oh yes, the world is so much safer from terror, and then there were the attempts to attack airplanes going from Heathrow, foiled by British intelligence if I remember correctly.

Oh yes, Bush is a great president who has done such a lot of good for the world, uniting so many people behind a common goal, namely doing harm to the western society in general and the US and A in particular. Before the latest Iraq war Sunni and Shia extremists were almost as likely to kill each other as an american civilian, no more, I remember a report saying that Bin Laden had praised his "Shia brothers" or something along those lines. A few years ago they were almost as bad as Americans to him.

The best foreign policy action he undertook was attacking the Taliban in Afghanistan, that was legitimate and also legal, too, they were harbouring and supporting a terrorist organization that had attacked the USA. THEN the world was united behind him. Sadly things went downhill from there on and when they couldn't get worse he started digging a hole for them.
/rant end

sfhbballnut wrote:approval rating means almost literally nothing, if he was really that bad he'd be impeached

Breaking the law doesn't get you impeached. The constitution has been shreaded so much I'm not sure if it can be brought back.

jay_a2j wrote:Lets see... the economy is still chugging along. Lets not forget the Republican takeover of the House and Senate in 1994 (wonder if that had anything to to with "Clinton's economy"). Now that the Dem's are in control of the House and Senate, look for the economy to collapse under the weight of higher taxes.

Right it's a bad thing to try to force coal companies to dig two shafts for safety or to propose environmental policies. Of course the midwest won't favor this but that might be for a different reason.

DIRESTRAITS wrote:Most of the terrorists in Iraq r not Iraqi. They are from other countries and they are in Iraq trying to kill Americans. Now pull your head out of your ass and think!!!!!! Im done with this thread. yall are just Bush bashing morons who need the media to tell you what is and isnt true.

Why are you ignoring the majority of the killers in Iraq? The death squads aren't made up of foreign nationals, they're Sunni and Shiite going after each other.

Since a few new posts appeared... the terrorists in Iraq that are not Iraqis don't stay there, there are strong indications that Iraq is being used as a "training ground" and then they apply the knowledge and experience from there in other countries. The bombs in Afghanistan are a hell of a lot more efficient now than when the war in Iraq had just begun. Just to name an example.

DIRESTRAITS wrote:Most of the terrorists in Iraq r not Iraqi. They are from other countries and they are in Iraq trying to kill Americans. Now pull your head out of your ass and think!!!!!! Im done with this thread. yall are just Bush bashing morons who need the media to tell you what is and isnt true.

No I need (and have) internationally acclaimed and published scholars of International Relations.

Or just fact: The bombers on July 7th in London were from Bradford. Thats in Britain, not Iraq.

jay_a2j wrote:

vtmarik wrote:Can someone explain why Clinton was a bad president and Bush is a good one? I can't fathom the logic by abstraction.

Clinton's Presidency was riddled with sex scandal's and little foreign policy (outside of selling nuclear technology to China). He cut our military to dangerously low levels. Sold secrets to China. Domestically he did very little outside of having sex and raising taxes.

Bush, although not the best President we have ever had, has cut taxes... getting us out of a post 911 economic recession. Had the kahunas to take on terrorism. Does what he thinks is right and is not swayed by popular opinion. Keeping the US safe since 9-11-01.

LOL.

I am by no means a Democrat, but that is probably the second biggest amount of tripe I have seen on this board since Scotty321 ranted about homosexuality.

In defense of Clinton, I suppose you forgot about NAFTA, Telecomm Reform Act, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation act of 1993, and never mind the talks he tried to get going with Barak and Arafat.

Second, Bush has only cut taxes for the wealthiest people in the nation. While I agree that tax cuts should be made, not cutting taxes across the board is counter-intuitive to a minimal government. You also seem to forget the money that Clinton sent Israel in effort to weed out terrorists, or his initiatives in the AEDPA.

Bush has done nothing but spend us into deficit, and it'll be up to a damned socialist to get us out of it.

jay_a2j wrote:Clinton's Presidency was riddled with sex scandal's and little foreign policy (outside of selling nuclear technology to China). He cut our military to dangerously low levels. Sold secrets to China. Domestically he did very little outside of having sex and raising taxes.

Reminds me of a protest sign I saw on the news during one of the many anti-Bush rallies: "Can someone please blow Dubya so we can impeach him already?"

A focus upon the country rather than other nations who we had no business policing. Yep, you're right, real terrible work.

I mean 6 million jobs, a balanced budget, $40 dollar budget surplus... yeah. He raised taxes, therefore he was a bad president.

Bush, although not the best President we have ever had, has cut taxes... getting us out of a post 911 economic recession.

His economic strategy is based on 1980s era Reganomics, which coincidentally don't work since trickle-down economics has been shown to be immensely ineffective at bringing down the poverty level.

Had the kahunas to take on terrorism.

Don't you mean cojones? "Kahuna" is used as in Big Kahuna.... Ya know, Big Cheese, the guy in charge, the Big Kahuna.

Don't use the slang if you can't spell it man.

Does what he thinks is right and is not swayed by popular opinion. Keeping the US safe since 9-11-01.

He does what he thinks is right and is not swayed by popular opinion. I hate to break it to you Jay, but that's a bad thing. He works for the American people, and the popular opinion is the majority opinion. A majority voted for Bush in 2004, and now a majority wants him to do what they want him too. The President works for us, the taxpaying public.

If you hired a guy to manage your home security and instead of installing alarms and setting up new locks he went out and started preemptively attacking places where people who could rob you may or may not have lived, you'd fire that moron and get someone who could do the job you hired him to do.

http://news.uk.msn.com/top_twenty_bushisms.aspx?imageindex=1#2600973
I'm sure everyone here knows all of these, but I think its worth reminding everyone. This is one of the most, important men in the world.
I think the fact there is the Bush dyslexicon says a lot.

jay_a2j wrote:

vtmarik wrote:Can someone explain why Clinton was a bad president and Bush is a good one? I can't fathom the logic by abstraction.

Domestically he did very little outside of having sex and raising taxes.

Didn't you say the republican congress was the reason for "clinton's economy". Last I checked it'd take some trampling on the constitution for clinton to do tax raises without getting through that republican congress.


And we all know only bush stomps on the constitution these days.

Koba wrote:http://news.uk.msn.com/top_twenty_bushisms.aspx?imageindex=1#2600973
I'm sure everyone here knows all of these, but I think its worth reminding everyone. This is one of the most, important men in the world.
I think the fact there is the Bush dyslexicon says a lot.

And, let's not forget the most recent gem:

"One of the things I use on The Google is to pull up maps." - George W. Bush on CNBC "One on One"

I wonder if he listens to "The U2" or drinks "The Starbucks" while using "The Google".
That ranks right up there with his "Rumors on the Internets".

Sorry....he is either an idiot or seriously out of touch with you & I. Take your pick.

Jesse, Bad Boy wrote:
In defense of Clinton, I suppose you forgot about NAFTA, Telecomm Reform Act, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation act of 1993, and never mind the talks he tried to get going with Barak and Arafat.

Second, Bush has only cut taxes for the wealthiest people in the nation. While I agree that tax cuts should be made, not cutting taxes across the board is counter-intuitive to a minimal government. You also seem to forget the money that Clinton sent Israel in effort to weed out terrorists, or his initiatives in the AEDPA.

Bush has done nothing but spend us into deficit, and it'll be up to a damned socialist to get us out of it.

1. NAFTA is a bad idea.

2. Yeah talks with Arafat and Barak he tried to get while allowing Osama to go free in 1998 when he was offered to us on a silver platter.

3. The tax cuts were not for the wealthiest people. You might be to young to hold a job, but my middle class derriere got a nice check in the mail thanks to Bush's tax cut. (Which btw got us out of a looming recession) If you do work.... did you send your check back to Washington?

4. The Bush spending, I agree with you. Unfortunately war costs money.

vtmarik wrote:I mean 6 million jobs, a balanced budget, $40 dollar budget surplus... yeah. He raised taxes, therefore he was a bad president.

<cough>1994 Republican sweep elections <cough>



"Kahuna".... don't blame me, blame spell check.



And cojones I have never heard of. Oh wait its underlined...it must be spelled wrong. One sec. while I go to spell check........................... well that apparently ISN'T a word. Hmmm My post was accurate. I'll be awaiting your public apology.

He does what he thinks is right and is not swayed by popular opinion. I hate to break it to you Jay, but that's a bad thing. He works for the American people, and the popular opinion is the majority opinion. A majority voted for Bush in 2004, and now a majority wants him to do what they want him too. The President works for us, the taxpaying public.

He was re-elected!!!!!!! So apparently he didn't go too against popular opinion! The media just spins stuff to make it seem like what he does is unpopular....... otherwise he'd of been a one term-er like his dad!

Cojones came from a foreign word you dumbass.

this thread has gone way off-topic.

we were supposed to be talking about pussy.