|
|
Login or register: |
|
|
 |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
Resources: ImageServer Friends: Jon Sullivan Mark Blair |
|
|
|
||||
| ||
| George W. Bush is the worst president this country has ever had. He has defiled our government, our troops, our economy, and the memory of those 2700 dead. I don't even care about the party lines anymore. Bush is not just Republican, he's an ultra-conservative who will lie, cheat and steal with no regret, or remorse over the damage caused. He has made deep inroads into the destruction of our form of government, and our freedoms. (See PATRIOT act, and same-sex marriage amendment.) He has murdered tens of thousands of Afganistanis and Iraqis, and over 1000 US troops in a war that was more ill-conceived, and less moral than the Vietnam war. George W. Bush is ruining this great country. He is knocking out the underpinnings of our culture, freedom and economy one after another. Please, please, for the love of our country, for the love of the generations to come after us, think hard about how you vote this November. Throw away party affiliations. If you're a republican, and absolutely must vote republican, write-in McCain. Write in or vote for anyone, anyone but a man who has proven himself a liar and a cheat. Help save this country from close-mindedness and corruption. Please. I am making a great effort to collect articles with as little spin as possible, if you need a starting point, here are some: Crawford Iconoclast: 2004 Iconoclast Presidential Endorsement New York Times: How the White House Embraced Disputed Arms Intelligence PC World: GOP Voter Vault Shipped Overseas National Review Online: Creative Accounting Only Goes So Far In These Times: They knew... Guardian Unlimited: PM admits graves claim 'untrue' | ||
|
Comments: KD7PLU / trooper (2003-01-23): Have to mark this as an opinion rather than fact. Most people felt the same way about Clinton, Gun Control, Janet Reno, ect . . . What ever happened to the right to do whatever you wanted as long as it didn't affect the rights of other people? What ever happened to innocent before proven guilty? What ever happened to people expected to have common sense? I forgave Saddam so long ago, we're going to kick his ass again. Who is the enemy? Chevron and the other oil companies that sent us over there. We're little men on the chess board, and they don't care about terrorists or soldiers. This is the same as always - Most wars are about money, not principle. BUzdead (2003-03-09): hell yeah dude this george bush is an idiot. so thats what u get when idiots get to vote it was pretty obvious since he didnt want gun control right then rednecks were "like hey cletus we can keep our guns lets vote" so if ur an idiot running for pres persaude idiots to vote for u Ed Nielsen (2003-03-20): Because 90% of the american public are complete morons, that's why. It's the same reason people can't drive, it's the same reason for almost every problem faced by humantity. We are all simply too stupid to have survived this long. Something must be wrong with evolution. I would guess that you place yourself in the 10% that are not morons and therefore you should tell the rest of us poor idiots how to live, vote, drive, ect. When will you elitist liberal get the message, live your own life not mine. Erik (2003-03-20): I am an elitist liberal. This is my web site. I'm not telling you how to live your life, I'm just amazed you haven't killed yourself yet. Bad Mr. Frosty (2003-05-20): I'm glad you realize you're an elitist liberal. The danger comes when people like you take yourselves seriously. XVet (2003-07-03): George W. Bush , is the freaking anti-christ. All jokes aside......it amazes me that someone so intellectual inferior , can make it so how in the American social structure. God help us all if this guy gets re-elected.....God help the world. An outside of the country opinion (2003-11-04): Ok im in a bitching mood, but ill try to be as diplomatic and un-biased as possible. Ok I believe with everyone who is saying bush is an idiot. Honestly, most americans should think about who they are electing and what that person is likely to do if he gets MORE power. Im a canadian, and you people are probably going to flame me because of it or atleast my country, I am not a person who hates "America" or the "idea of america" i just hate your gevernment and Military. There are many ways to look at things, and 90% of people do not agree on certain topics. The fact of the matter is George W. Bush does not think he is the president of the United states, he tbinks he is the president of the world and he can play with his G.I.Joes and army men all he wants and it doesnt matter what army men are left stepped on and broken in several pieces. He doesnt want world peace. He wants to run the world it doesnt matter who has to pay. His slogan should be "No One Fucks With Us, We Fuck with them, and They are gonna like it!" As I said before I do not hate america and americans I just hate ignorant f***s overall, even in Canada. But man what percent of you are ignorant and complete morons. I dont affiliate myself with republican, Liberal, PC, Democratic, Anarcist, Communist or anything else I am a person not a label. Americans always talk about how the have the right to Free Speech. Honestly WHAT THE F**K ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT. anybody who opens there mouth to say anything bad about Bush gets thrown in Jail. Or anyone who is non patriotic is labeled as a Traitor. anyways I could go on for ever bitching, i tend to do that. I realize I have been all over the place here but seriousely people THINK BEFORE YOU MAKE A DECISION, THINK BEFORE YOU TURN THE CORNER BEFORE YOU CROSS THE STREET, BEFORE YOU BUY ANOTHER MEAL AT MCDONALDS AND BEFORE YOU START TALKIN ON YOUR DAMN CELL PHONES WHEN DRIVING. anyways im done for now im gonna add this page as a favorite, i'd like it if someone responded. ahhh... bitching feels good. Erik (2003-11-04): An interesting perspective. Of course, as an american, I do not feel that we have lost our freedom of speech, or that our military is deserving of hate, but I am right there with you in disgust of the people who put Bush in office. wolfboy1988 (2003-11-20): Did you know Bush is an accranim(sp?), it stands for Big Underachieving Shit Head. Go fuck yourself Eric You are a Moran (2003-12-16): Throughout your article, you did not provide one decent fact as to why GWB is a bad president. Instead you left that up to an author who idiolizes Canada and the Canadian way of life. So I am daring enough to ask you, why do you personally hate GWB so much? Let me chance an answer, because more than likely you are not familiar with a leader that prides himself on having a moral code, and not only has one, but has the character to allow his morals to define his presidency. So, I have one last question for you Eric- why does the secular population of the United States fear GWB so much? Are you afraid he is going to start preaching to you? Your Canadian Shut the Fuck up- (2003-12-16): Comment moved to Some People's Comments Erik (2003-12-16): While you could have spelled my name correctly, and not used the 'F' word, I'm actually quite glad you posted this. Your question is quite valid, since I did, as you said, provide no evidence to back up my assessment. However, I did reference the Michael Moore book for the facts you want. I'll provide you with some of my evidence, but I strongly suggest you read "Stupid White Men...". It contains more research supported facts than I could ever provide, unless I likewise became a journalist. First, to address your religious statement: No, I'm not afraid he's going to start preaching to me. I'm afraid he will allow christian morality to dictate his policy. I'm afraid 'Rowe vs. Wade' will be overturned. I'm afraid my children will be forced to recide the 'under god' part of the pledge of allegiance. I'm afraid Judges will be allowed to keep the christian 10 commandments on the walls of courthouses. I'm afraid Bush's religion will dictate which supreme court judges he appoints. Other reasons I hate Bush and disagree with his politics are: 1. The evidence for this Iraqi war did not support his position, the rest of the world rejected with it's necessity, Saddam was known not to have anything to do with terrorism, yet Bush pushed ahead, getting thousands killed. 2. Bush spent 300 billion dollars getting airspace needed for the Iraq air strike, when the annual US education budget is far less than that. 3. Some of Bush's first acts in office: 3a. Start scouting natural preserves for drilling 3b. Appoint a super-right attorney general 3c. Resign from the Kyoto accords 4. The 'Patriot Act', blatantly sacrificing the rights of US citizens for increased power and less accountability for government agents. 5. He STOLE the US presidency. Gaining more respect for you- a Reply (2003-12-16): I have to first appologize for the conclusion I jumped to about you- I have many aquentances that hold your opions but have no clue about information backing them up. Secondly, Your fears about Christian morality "underminding" our way of life is petty. Might I remind you that, that Christian Morality is the same Christian Morality that setup this nation as a haven free of any "religious obligations." As for reasons 2 - 4 they are independent topics that have justifiably aurguments either wany and I respect the fact that you are using them to base your judgement on. As for Reason 1- Primarily we sent Troops to Afgan. to seek out and obtain bin Laden as well as a slew of other possibly threats as terrorists. Iraq as well as other middle eastern countries are known sympathizers to the anti-american movement. And lastly in regard to 5 I cannot imagine how Al Gore would respond to 9-11 and to the rest of it all, but I know that out of the two I would only want Bush to face the problems we have been facing. He is a president that is finally stepping up to the international outcry against us, and I am pround that we are finally "shaking things up" instead of trying to appease every single nation- (to the point of killing our economy as Clinton did with the Nafta treaties). Erik (2003-12-16): Christian morality had nothing to do with setting up the government seperate from religion. It was setup that way for logical, not moral reasons: Preserving freedom. None of the framers wanted to be persecuted for their religion. I, as an Athiest, strongly believe in the seperation of church and state. I strongly disagree with the placement of the word 'God' on our money and in our pledge of allegiance. I see no reason the pledge should apply any differently to an athiest or multi-theist. Bush and Ashcroft are working hard to weaken this seperation, and that is wrong for moral, ethical and legal reasons. Also, Iraq was not 'known' as a sympathizer to terrorists. In fact, Saddam Hussein was very much against Al Quida. Bush promoted the idea that Iraq was sympathetic to terrorists, and that Saddam himself was a terrorist to further his ambition to go to war. Lastly, neither you nor I have any idea how Al Gore would have reacted to 9/11. Moreover, I have yet to hear any plan as to how to react to 9/11 that sounds sensible. Terrorism is a very real, very COMPLEX enemy. Bush's yeehawing through the middle east is exactly the wrong response. His actions may look heroic to some people, some people describe his actions as "shaking things up", but what he's really doing is further pissing off a massive, nearly invisable enemy. Still Pro Bush (2003-12-16): Ironic then how a recent poll of younger palistinians shows diminishing support for bombings and other forms of terrorist acts. It is also Ironic that some terrorist groups are flooding Iraq- It seems -to me at least- that not only is he persuading middle easterners that acts not conducive with peace are useless, but has has baited and drawn in numbers of anti-american groups to challange us- in a country that is already in shambles where conflicts will not take place on US soil- our success in the middle east is also persuading France, Germany, and Russia to aid us in our efforts-- it seems to me that if you do not see what the president is doing in the middle east then you severely lack foresight- no enemy is invisable and Bush is breaking down the finacial aid and leadership of this complex enemy. I again have another question for you- would you at least respect Bush's actions through his Presidency if he also captures bin Laden? or what if the now capture Hussein admits to aiding financially or in otherways to efforts against the US? Erik (2003-12-16): While you see my viewpoint as "severely lack[ing] foresight", I see your viewpoint as deluded. You have been sold the party line, and even in the face of obvious contrary information, you, and millions like you, hold fast because you've been bought. In answer to your question, no, I would not approve of Bush one iota more if he captured Bin Laden. With the effort put forth already to do just that, I find it amazing he hasn't captured him already. The longer it takes him to do it just makes him even more ineffective. Lastly it is not our "success" in the middle east that has "persuaded" Frannge, Germany, Russia and other to come to the aid of the Iraqi people (note: not to help us, but them), in fact the US was publicly denounced at the last major UN confrence. France, Germany, Russia and others are comming to the aid of the Iraqi people, grudgingly, by their sense of good will. Kofi Annan called to them to come to the humanitarian aid of the Iraqi people, not because of US "success" but because of the abject suffering of the Iraqi people. AntiBush (2003-12-20): If you thing that capture of Saddam or Bin Laden will solve your problems with terrorism, you're wrong. Another Laden will come and there will always be one, as long as america will act as a terrorist in the eyes of Arab world. Do you think that '911' was an attack, something like declaration of war? I think it was more likely a revenge. More pressure on muslim world will result in more revenges. Joe (2004-01-21): How I love these Athiests... I hope you have fun here on earth... And you better get used to Bush--- you'll be spending plenty of time with him in Hell. Nice site. Erik (2004-01-21): Thanks, but... Didn't you see that episode of South Park? It was the Mormons who got the religion guess right. If there is a hell, you, and I, and Bush will all be there together. (Given that a good Mormon wouldn't talk to me in such a rude way.) Just someone passing by (2004-02-08): Consider this, the reason the attacks of 11 September, 2001 happened was, in large part, because of US involvement in the middle east. The attempt was to scare us back to our own shores and stay out of their affairs. Obviously, that didn't have the desired effect. However, does anyone think that an increased US presence in that region is going to do anything to decrease the desire to get us out of there? I sincerely hope not. Here's another thought for you - someone asked earlier how Gore would have handled the attack. I suspect that it would have been less likely to happen if our president at the time were not related to George H W Bush. I also don't think we're likely to see another attack of that magnitude unless our current president is re-elected. Homeland defense claims there methods of ensuring homeland security are working because there hasn't been another attack. That same logic would say that everything that every previous administration did worked better because there wasn't an attack of that sort before GWB took office. Athiest too! (2004-03-22): You go Erik... I agree with you 100%... I love the idiotic responses you are getting from those religious freaks... one day they will learn the truth, and see what idiots they all are... and have been for thousands of years! anonymous (2004-07-16): Erik, I admire you and mostly agree with you. Bush is a loser and, although too stupid to be the anti-Christ, very well could be part of his plan. I guess that leads me to the area where we disagree. I respect you for standing up for what your believe... but how can your stand up when you don't believe. The only way I know we are going to come out of this ok is because it is God's promise to us... at least to those of us who believe. I don't make it a habit to preach and I'm not going to in this case either... but I am going to ask you to not settle for having nothing to look forward to. Do some more research... talk to some more people...WITH AN OPEN MIND... I only hope I will meet you someday in paradise. My thoughts and prayers are with you. I know God is in you because you have helped so many people with your site... I hope you find him soon. KG Erik (2004-07-16): KG, Thank you for your kind thoughts and wishes. I can stand up because, while I do not have any kind of faith in a divine being, I do believe in morality. My morality, which is heavily influenced by Christianity, due to the society I was brought up in, but re-considered and added to by yours truly. I believe my morality is all the more valid because of the continuous thought that goes into it. No one dictated to me what is right and wrong, and therefore there is one less person would could be wrong in making that assessment. I use this, my morality, my beliefs in every decision, and every opinion. In my judgment Bush is amoral, irresponsible, and in every way that counts to me, evil. breadlady (2004-07-26): I think President Bush has done alright. The least we can do is have a little respect for the person who is in charge of the United States, the Father of our Country. I would rather have Bush, who has some morals, instead of Clinton with no morals. What an example for our young people. If the President can do it so can I. Right? Erik (2004-07-27): How moral is it to hold suspected terrorists without trial or access to an attorney? How moral is it supplant the civil rights of citizens of this country at every turn? How moral is it to name a new law the "Patriot" act, when in fact it goes against every prinicpal in our constitution? How moral is it to kill thousands of Iraqi citizens because their dictator was bad? How moral is it to expose an under cover FBI agent because her husband exposed the fraud behind the war? How FUCKING MORAL is it to rig a presidential election?! Matt (2004-08-10): Erik, love your thinking!! Why aren't there more like us??? I love reading morons defend Bush. They are the same people watching Jerry Springer. "Have some respect for the person in charge of the US???" Please!!! Free country, well... Morals? Bush has morals? Clinton was a horny guy, that is Hillary's issue, not ours! As long as he runs the country well is my only concern, people need to get their own lives and stop meddling in others out of boredom... and you know what, how cares if 2 men or 2 women marry, if you don't approve, then don't marry the same sex, but who the Hell is Bush to say what's right and wrong? Free country? steve (2004-09-08): Bush didn't steal the election. Not a single recount that was performed in 2000 showed Gore as winning. I believe they performed 4 or 5 statewide recounts. The only recounts that gave it to Gore came waaay after the fact and required the bending of rules on a per county basis. Bush may be an idiot, but he'll do less bad for this country than Kerry. Erik (2004-09-08): Interesting. I don't think I've heard a pro-Bush person using the "lesser of two evils" logic. My experience has been that Bush supporters see no fault with the president, which has caused me great sadness. If you're pro-Bush, but with qualifications, that means you're not so close-minded as many others. I'd love to discuss the Bush vs. Kerry issue with you. Something good might come of it! Personally, I see a lot wrong with Kerry! He's definitely not as strong as I would like. He should never have said he would have made the decision to go to war with Iraq. He's not going on the attack as much as he should. However, in my view, he is the FAR lesser of the two evils. From the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to the systematic dismantling of the constitution with things like the anti-same-sex marriage amendment and the PATRIOT act, not to mention the record unemployment and budget deficit, Bush has demonstrated that he is as destructive to our way of life as any president could be. Therefore, anyone, including Kerry would be a better choice for me. nogeorgeforme (2004-09-15): Talk about morals, Bush lied to the world about WMD, he lied about his ANG service, he has lied about his cocaine abuse, and womanizing, and when it is time for W to be Mr. Clean, his image is garnished in the media, as Prince George savior of american freedom. What a freaking joke, the american media is pro bush it makes me sick, millions more without health insurance millions more in poverty, 10's of thousands dying in Iraq, record deficits. The prison torture scandal that was just a few hundred rotten apples who got no direction from Mr. Clean, yeah give me a break. If George W. is so moral than why in the hell did he refuse to testify under oath to 9/11 commission. George W is running the country like a drunken sailor on a weekend cocaine binge. Where are all the republican deficit hawks who ripped the democrates for decades about tax spend tatics, who in their conservative mind would think cut taxes, and spend like crazy was the answer. remember there was 13,641 stories about Clinton getting out of the service, and there was about 42 on how George W. american savior avoided going to war, and getting out early (vacation party time). the american people dont realize George W. is a professional vacationer. maybe if he wasnt on vacation 42% of the time in the first 9 months of his presidency 9/11 might not have happened and this is his excuse for everything. I guess old that ang training allowed him to sit in that classroom for 7minutes while america was suffering its worst attack,an attack president dick head couldnt understand even if OBL called him in crawford and said the attack was on 9/11. All I know is the media must think John Kerry is terrorist, because there is no way George W. shouldn' even come close to being reelected. Brian (2004-09-17): Sorry, but we a President to be pro-active and attack before terrorist cowards can take more innocent lives. Bush went on the offensive and attacked the countries that not only harbor terrorism, but we lead by tyrants and warlords. Can we afford to elect Kerry? No. He will sit on his hands waiting for the European countries to decide what they are going to do, and how he can make a decision that won't offend any of them. Well this American believes that America doesn't need a "permission slip" from the UN or any other country to defend itself from terrorist and their cowardly acts. We need a President who has proven he will act and stand by that decision. Kerry is a Monday morning quaterback, he always has the right answer after the fact. Well, John we can't afford to sit by and wait for the next 9/11. Can we? Remember how you felt on 9/12? Do you ever want to feel that again? Bush has proven he can make the tough decision, decisions we can't wait around to make. Kerry promises alot. He can tell America there are problems here and there, but not once has he outlined his plan to America. His plans are so secret, he doesn't even know them. His whole Presidential campaign is based on a 3-4 month tour of duty in Vietnam. Why aren't we questioning why Kerry's platform isn't based on over 20 years as a Senator? Because he has done anything except marry a rich business woman. He plans on cutting overseas jobs, yet Hienz biggest production plant is in Mexico. Prove your plan John, more some Heinz jobs back to the US. Kerry is a bleeding heart liberal. First he goes to war, becomes a war hero, returns home to oppose the war, writes a book "The New Soldier" which calls Vietnam veterans "thugs and murderers", spends 20 years in Senate (see "do nothing"), then runs for President and bases his whole platform on the war he opposed. Yeah, he will make a great President, right up until he make to make a decision. Erik (2004-09-18): 9/11 was eight months into Bush's presidency. He had that long, and many warnings of the attacks. He got a report from his intelligence personnel specifically about Al Quida's plans to attack the US just before the attack. What exactly is it that makes you believe Bush is capable of keeping us safe? How is getting 1030 US troops killed and 3271 wounded attacking Iraq a justified reaction to an attack from Al Quida, that killed 2000 people? How many dead US sons and daughters makes it justice? Where is Osama Bin Laden? How does not finding a man (on dialysis!) for over two years prove that Bush is competent? How many no-bid contracts for oil in Iraq for Bush's buddies will it take to make you wonder about corruption? You people make me sick. You care more about the size of the belt buckle on the man than his honesty and clear thought. You think Bush, who tried to block the formation of the 9/11 commission, and then refused to testify under oath for it really cares about those families? Do you really think those families think bombing Iraqi citizens by the thousands is justice for their loved ones? Your party, your government and you only care about yourselves; your wallet and how you can make yourself feel like a man. Get back in your spotless dualie truck, go home, and try the other ruler. Maybe it'll measure your penis a little bigger than the other ones did. John (2004-09-18): What's the alternative? Someone like Clinton? "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" lol shit that was funny tv :) (honesty eh? *rolls eyes*) Oh and let's not get started on Rwanda... Kudos to Bush for going in strong on Sudan by way of sanctions...oh wait let's not mention these things... Erik (2004-09-19): How does the Lewinski "scandal" make Clinton worse than coke-head Bush? How was the Clinton's property "scandal" worse than the Halliburton's no-bid win of the Iraqi oil contracts? I'm the last one to expect honesty out of politicians, but I've never seen any politician lie so much, so blatantly, in the fact of so much contrary facts! He doesn't even respect us enough to make up good lies! John (2004-09-19): How do you get to decide which is worse and by what standards? Decide this one then: Which was worse, the President that stood idly by(along with other world leaders), whilst hundreds upon thousands of Tutsis were slaughtered. (By the way if Clinton had fulfilled his obligations under international conventions, a rapid response force would have been sent to halt the killing, or the President that invaded Iraq under false pretences to free a country from a dictator, and lets not be naive here, a country that were it of democratic governance would have enormous benefits for the US. Which was worse? I neither expect honesty from politicians, and neither am I overly pro Bush. In fact I had hoped Gen Clark would get the dem. nod. However, given the choice that now exists I would vote for Bush. Americans have become so polarised..."Bush is the devil" crowd versus "Bush is God" crowd...sigh what a waste of time...politicians lie all the time, let's not get our panties in a bunch over it. If Bush haters themselves were in the same position as Bush they would probably have done the same. I cannot stand the Bush policy of pre emptive strikes, but that doesn't preclude me from understanding where the guy is coming from. What if Putin,in the wake of Beslan, invaded Uzbekistan because they were harbouring Chechen rebels. Does that make him evil? The arguments against Bush are that he lied. Holy shit! Stop the presses! A politician lied! How do you know that you've never seen a politician lie so much? Maybe you have and you just didn't know it. lol shakes head...you would think more of Bush if he made up "good lies"?...oh yeah then there's the crowd saying what about the environment! Kyoto was abandoned. Why? It would have cost the States too much, that's why. But let's forget about that coz there's lots of Bush haters around who drive to work in SUV's, and rile against his record on the environment. A word of advice dude, don't get so worked up about Bush. After all, what's the alternative? Kerry? Screw that. Then I'd miss reading entertaining pieces like on this site lol. Peace out dude, a fellow democrat Me again (2004-09-19): lol oh yeah, forgot to add...lots of people have done coke...does that make them bad people in your book? (or unfit to govern, unfit to be parents, unfit just in general?) Brian (2004-09-21): Since national security is such a big issue, will you vote for Kerry? A man who missed 75% of all national security meeting in 2003, and a man so bent on national security he has missed every meeting this year. And people talk about Bush being on vacation. Give me a break. Kerry is a broken record. He just keeps talking, but about topics he has no solution for. All he has done is identify problems. NO SOLUTIONS!!!!! Great for President, no way. If his 20+ years in the Senate are any indication of his skills, only a fool would vote for Kerry. He votes one way, then later decides that it was wrong, well as soon as the liberal media decides it is. Just venting, Erik even though we differ in political views, I must say your bumper design for you Rover it cool. I plan on doing mine as well, and grafted some of your ideas. Thanks for posting it. Erik (2004-09-25): I don't blame you guys much for seeing what you do. The republican propaganda machine is awesome indeed. As I've said before, Kerry isn't my first choice either, but if the choice is between a wuss and a liar, I'll choose the wuss any day. Bush has cost lives, thousands uppon thousands of lives. From Iraqis to Afganis, to the people in the World Trade Towers, far too many lives. I'd vote a ficus in over him. CAS (2004-10-03): How was the towers Bush's fault if they entered the country with a plan during the Clinton years? Erik (2004-10-04): The World Trade Tower attacks are not singularly Bush's fault, any more than they are singularly Clinton's fault. Both could have done more to prevent it. However, Bush is using the attack as a political platform! CBS (2005-02-26): Hi Erik, As with other blogs, the liberals seem to have disappeared. I see no posts to this one since the election. Although I am sickened by the way this country is going and so discouraged and now appathetic, I still want to find so way to turn this country back around. I find it hard to believe that we continue to let these folks run all over us. Do you have ideas beyond the bellyaching? Erik (2005-02-27): CBS, I have a few related articles, like Super Tuesday, 2004, Black Wednesday and Ifulmuh. As for what we can do, first and formost: Get the word out. Talk with, not to your undecided and republican friends. Secondly, support the people you really like, for instance: Barbra Boxer's grilling of Condoleeza Rice deserves at least a letter. Thirdly, support some causes. I still believe that the election was rigged, so I have contributed to BlackBoxVoting.org, an organization that works to secure electronic voting, and to expose it's insecurities. I'm afraid we're in it for the long haul. It's going to take America a long time to get over this neo-con fad, but ever day we shave off of that is real lives. YooperJohn (2005-04-01): Wow, up in my redneck part of the country I was beginning to think that I was one the last few who see G. W. for what he is. It's nice to know that not everyone is blinded. Thanks Eric Bill B (2005-10-24): I think Bush is doing ok for what he has to work with. He had to spend his first 4 years cleaning up the mess that Clinton left behind, and then there was 9/11. He's also had to finish what the liberal media stopped his father from finishing... getting rid of Saddam Insane. That should have been accomplished 14 years ago! At least Clinton should have done something besides screwing around trying to be "popular" and just throwing a couple missiles over that way.... he did a half-a$$ed job, if you ask me. Most people don't realize (or prefer not to accept) that the changes a president makes take several years to take affect. The things that Geo. Bush Sr. did finally started being noticed during Clinton's reign. The things that Clinton did are just now becoming evident. Contrary to popular belief, he did not wipe out the deficit. He simply forgave a lot of debts and stopped spending money on things that he should have spent it on... that's why we're in the predicament we are in now. Pretending that the deficit isn't there is NOT solving the problem. Not enough money was spent on protecting our citizens, and we dropped out guard. Because of this, we are quickly falling from our stance as the most powerful nation in the world. Now we are in the middle of World War III (Yes, we are! No one said it had to be a nuclear war). This is a war that will be going on for many years, at least until we eliminate the radical Muslim extremists who, by the way, will not stop until the rest of us "infidels" are all D-E-A-D. The US citizens had better start believing that. They have been planning this war for several decades, and they have just started acting on their plans. I will support ANY president who will make this war a number 1 priority! It has to be! If we don't take this seriously, then life in the free world as we now it will be over. Anyone who doesn't see that is either blind, ignorant, or perpectually stoned. We, that's my 2 cents. :) Good luck America, we're gonna need it! Bill B (2005-10-24): By the way, I've been on two tours in Iraq. 99.9% of the troops over there totally agree that this is a necessary war, and are willing to sacrifice their lives to secure the future of the citizens of the free world. Who gives a rat's a$$ what the media says. But, that's a whole different rant... how the media is all speculation and commentary, and very little FACT. That's all I want from the media... FACTS! If they don't have any, then they should shut the heII up! tomi Okunola (2007-04-17): Whao this serious any way that is the same thing we're experiencing in Nigeria today, the nigerian president had succeeded in rigging the recent Election in the Country ,His Party Memebers were stealing Ballot Boxes from polling boots. i pray god Almighty will Help us Paul (2008-02-20): Pansy ass, candy ass idiots. It takes sacrifice and determination and a steel jaw to win a war. Were you knuckleheads taught how many soldiers were lost in ONE HOUR during the Normandy invasion? Probably not. Look it up. Our soldiers (two of which are in my family) are GLAD to be in Iraq doing what they know is right. So uncuff yourselves from your trees, pick up a shovel and get in the trenches for Pete's sake. Erik (2008-03-13): Paul, It does indeed take sacrifice and determination to win a war. However, it takes neither of those qualities to fake justification for a war, then send the sons and daughters of the poor to fight that war for you. No one on the Bush famility, the Rumsfeld family or the Cheny family sacrificed a damn thing for this war. In fact, they've all gotten obscenely rich(er) from it. We're in the trenches Paul, and we're fighting the good fight: To keep a corrupt, greedy man from killing thousands of our own soldiers, and hundreds of thousands of innocents in order to line his own pockets. Jocko (2009-02-25): If you think Bush was bad. Wait until the dems get thru with you. They have already doubled the deficit just in there first month in office. Erik (2009-02-26): Jocko, Obmama is cleaning up Bush's mess, and doing it in the right way, according to every reputable economist. Obama's not to blame for the current mess. We all know exactly where that blame goes. dw (2009-12-27): Perpetuation of ignorance based on lack of analysis of facts. Do your research. Look at all the facts, not just those that you want to see. Learn about politics, government economics and sociology, then draw conclusions. Oh, and stop watching the 'news.' George (2011-04-24): Hmm… Bushes mess... Coke-head Bush... I don't think all the problems in this country can be attributed to just one presidency nor repaired with name calling. Obama has admitted to doing cocaine as a youth and I don’t see you tattooing coke-head Obama on our newest president. I do know that for the last 2 years Bush was in office, the democrats controlled the Senate (including Obama in the Senate) and Congress. They legislated the laws which got us into some of the mess we are in today. Bush was called the lame duck president back then so he couldn’t have done much in a democrat controlled Congress and Feddie and Fanny were a total disaster even then and needed stopping, not more enticement to make unqualified loans. Obama, a then Senator of Illinois, was running for office telling us we need to initiate the TARP program and bail out the people which really was written to bail out the bankers only. As a Senator he helped write it. Bush got us into a war because of the same things Obama did with Libya (a maniacal tyrant torturing his countrymen). Only Bush led us to believe it was over WMDs, which no one has proved he wasn’t acting on the same information that congress had when they voted to go to war with Iraq to begin with. Since Obama, the US debt limit must be stretched from 11.2 to 12 to 13 and now 14 trillion to stay afloat? All anyone can do is say, Obama had to go this far to get us out of the mess Bush got us into? While inflation is now out of control, oil prices are through the roof, more wars in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Libya, who knows where else next month, the dollar is worthless in Canada, Mexico and other countries around the globe, insurance premiums are out of site and the insurance companies are insuring less now than a year ago, there is more racial discrimination in our country now than ever, and people think this president is worthy of a second term? Please keep the level of debate to a higher bar on this site and reduce the name calling if you would like to see more involvement. See also: Super Tuesday, 2004, Black Wednesday, Ifulmuh, Victory in 2006!, Some People's Comments, President Barack Obama! permalink |
