BushWorld
- Thread starter Squiggy
- Start date
the sad thing is with EVERY president we can have a list like this. All of them are liars and will mislead us to further their own agendas. Unfortunately we the voters are left with voting for the lesser of 2 evils. Which still leaves us with an evil in the white house.
This is true squiggs, but name a president who hasnt sent our boys into some distant country only to die in our lifetime? I cant think of any. The scale may have been smaller then currently but they have all done it.
And for the most part we come back with our tail between our legs worried about international propaganda and that we might not have any friends if we really did what we went in for in the first place.
And for the most part we come back with our tail between our legs worried about international propaganda and that we might not have any friends if we really did what we went in for in the first place.
paul_valaru
100% Pure Canadian Beef
you have to give bush one thing, he stands by what he says.
paul_valaru
100% Pure Canadian Beef
Oz said:I thought he stood by wot God said?
no he thinks he is........
uhmm, nevermind
that is another story, and a side of him I find distastful I can understand him being a christian, but I find he brings it up too often, and it alienates voters who are not christian. I also find it influences his policy desicions, which is blurring that all important line between church and state.
His good points are he is intelligent (I know they make fun of him, but he comes off looking dumb becasue he is a horrible public speaker)
he has a strong personality, and goes after what he thinks is right.
bad points
he goes after what HE thinks is right.
and if i where an american and had to choose, I'd be a democrat.
RDX
Member
Interesting read.
Well...yes, but this has been the case for a long time, not just Bush. I personally don't find it necessary to expose our fallen troops to public exposure. It seems less dignified; obviously you have a different opinion.
I agree with you on this one. Using pictures of fallen troops is not the way to campaign.
Give it some time. Democracies usually aren't born over night; especially in nations that have never experienced a democratic governemnt.
If negotiations fail, is there a reasonable alternative?
Actually, in all recent polls the majority of Iraqis still support the US invasion in Iraq. Most of them would also like self rule, but the safety of their country is a larger consideration.
In all reality, $700 million is really not much money considering what kind of dough we're really putting into the war. You are right though; if congress approved those funds for Afghanistan, they should be going there.
Are you a big fan of Bush Sr ? Are you critisizing Bush for being a Christian? When was the last time we had a President that wasn't a Christian (or at least claimed to be)?
Now this caught be by surprise! I thought that you of all people would not pushing for the invasion of Saudi Arabia!
Yes, it's just a big pissing contest. It really doesn't matter at all. I don't care if Bush or Kerry recieved 14 purple hearts and 5 medals of honor, it doesn't have anything to do with the job of being President.
Highlight your strenghths, hide your weaknesses; expose the opponents weaknesses - I don't see how he is different from any other polotician in this regard?
Do you realize how many briefings the President goes through each day? If he responded at each hint of trouble by evacuating entire cities, I doubt you would be praising him.
There is some truth to this.
I am actually shocked by this statement. The church and state have definetly been moving away from each other in the past few decades, and even more so in the past century.
That is kind of funny. I don't know what that is supposed to prove though.
A war with no casulities...it's a nice thought. How can you take over a large nation, losing only hundreds of soldiers in the process, and call it a failiure?
People make decisions based on information. Sometimes this information is not concrete, other times it is. Bush thought that there was enough evidence to warrent an invasion. The pros outweighed the cons. As I see it, he gambled and lost. Now he's just trying to make the best of it.
I believe you are criticizing the CIA now, not the President. The President did not create the CIA, nor does he lay down the guidelines for how it attains data.
If there is a president to blame for that, it would be Clinton (although Bush Sr. did start the reductions towards the end of his term.) By 1994, our armed forces had been reduced to about 75% of what they were at the end of Reagan's term. Between 1992 and 2000, about half a million national defense personnel were removed from the armed forces. President Bush inherited this reduced military; he didn't create it.
Perhaps more problems are being created than solved. If we do succeed in Iraq, I believe that it will just make the Terrorist burn with even more rage thanthey do now. On the other hand, if we succeed in Iraq and it is transformed into a rapidly developing country, we will see much broader support from many foreign nations that had previously been critical of our actions.
True enough. I don't think that there was very much senior leadership strongly opposed to the war.
Ok, we're really trying to grab onto some here...anything.
We do not disdain the process. I think we were just disappointed that a few nations did not decide to help with the effort (even if they were not involved militarily). I don't believe anyone, including the President, is pushing to "change the system".
Politics at its core.
Well...yes, but this has been the case for a long time, not just Bush. I personally don't find it necessary to expose our fallen troops to public exposure. It seems less dignified; obviously you have a different opinion.
I agree with you on this one. Using pictures of fallen troops is not the way to campaign.
Give it some time. Democracies usually aren't born over night; especially in nations that have never experienced a democratic governemnt.
If negotiations fail, is there a reasonable alternative?
Actually, in all recent polls the majority of Iraqis still support the US invasion in Iraq. Most of them would also like self rule, but the safety of their country is a larger consideration.
In all reality, $700 million is really not much money considering what kind of dough we're really putting into the war. You are right though; if congress approved those funds for Afghanistan, they should be going there.
Are you a big fan of Bush Sr ? Are you critisizing Bush for being a Christian? When was the last time we had a President that wasn't a Christian (or at least claimed to be)?
Now this caught be by surprise! I thought that you of all people would not pushing for the invasion of Saudi Arabia!
Yes, it's just a big pissing contest. It really doesn't matter at all. I don't care if Bush or Kerry recieved 14 purple hearts and 5 medals of honor, it doesn't have anything to do with the job of being President.
Highlight your strenghths, hide your weaknesses; expose the opponents weaknesses - I don't see how he is different from any other polotician in this regard?
Do you realize how many briefings the President goes through each day? If he responded at each hint of trouble by evacuating entire cities, I doubt you would be praising him.
There is some truth to this.
I am actually shocked by this statement. The church and state have definetly been moving away from each other in the past few decades, and even more so in the past century.
That is kind of funny. I don't know what that is supposed to prove though.
A war with no casulities...it's a nice thought. How can you take over a large nation, losing only hundreds of soldiers in the process, and call it a failiure?
People make decisions based on information. Sometimes this information is not concrete, other times it is. Bush thought that there was enough evidence to warrent an invasion. The pros outweighed the cons. As I see it, he gambled and lost. Now he's just trying to make the best of it.
I believe you are criticizing the CIA now, not the President. The President did not create the CIA, nor does he lay down the guidelines for how it attains data.
If there is a president to blame for that, it would be Clinton (although Bush Sr. did start the reductions towards the end of his term.) By 1994, our armed forces had been reduced to about 75% of what they were at the end of Reagan's term. Between 1992 and 2000, about half a million national defense personnel were removed from the armed forces. President Bush inherited this reduced military; he didn't create it.
Perhaps more problems are being created than solved. If we do succeed in Iraq, I believe that it will just make the Terrorist burn with even more rage thanthey do now. On the other hand, if we succeed in Iraq and it is transformed into a rapidly developing country, we will see much broader support from many foreign nations that had previously been critical of our actions.
True enough. I don't think that there was very much senior leadership strongly opposed to the war.
Ok, we're really trying to grab onto some here...anything.
We do not disdain the process. I think we were just disappointed that a few nations did not decide to help with the effort (even if they were not involved militarily). I don't believe anyone, including the President, is pushing to "change the system".
Politics at its core.
BeardofPants
New Member
Inkara1 said:
Is that the best you can do. Saddam funding the Palestinians?
Oooh, we're real scared, those scary Palestinians are gonna come and explode themselves against the white-house. AND it's only going to take them 45 minutes to get here. 
Here's what I was talking about:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3909150/
A.B.Normal
New Member
And who were they polling,I can't imagine we'd ever hear from the polsters who went knocking on the doors of anti-American/Western Iraqi's,so those results are going to be skewed. Al-Sistani has the support of the Shiites (who are the majority in Iraq) he does not support the US and at least for the moment hes not calling for action against them .Even if a lot of Iraqis favored the removal of Saddam to think they want any US control in Iraq questionable.I find it impossible to believe the majority support the US "being" in Iraq.
RDX
Member
A.B.Normal said:
Quite the contrary. Happy content people do not make exciting news headlines. We rarely get a view of all the positive changes that have occured in Iraq.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/WorldNewsTonight/iraq_poll_040317.html
A.B.Normal
New Member
But Al-Sistani and the other clerics have a huge following ,and they are going to follow whatever they(clerics)decide and since they control the Majority of Iraqis ,well you can figure out the rest...
RDX
Member
freako104 said:
OK, let me elaborate.
Was there a separation of church and state when America was founded? Contrary to popular opinion, no. The term “separation of church and state” was first used by Thomas Jefferson in a letter written to a Baptist Association in Danbury Connecticut in 1802. The Baptists Association had written to Jefferson about a rumor that the federal government was going to sponsor a denomination, making it the official church of the United States. Jefferson wrote back, “I contemplate with solemn reverence the act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.” This statement, written to a Baptists organization, assuring them that a single denomination would not be established as the official state religion, is the pretext to the movement of the court system to establish a barrier between the church and the state.
This idea is not found in any other historical documents until it was mentioned in the 1878 court case of Reynolds vs. United States; the plaintiffs used this letter as part of their argument that polygamy laws were unconstitutional. The court however looked at the letter in its ruling and used Jefferson’s statement to argue that the government could make no denominational distinction.
A term separation of Church and State was not used again in a court of law until 1947. In the supreme court case Everton vs. Board of Education the court quoted only eight words from Jefferson “...a wall of separation between church and state.”
It is quite evident to me that we have not had a real separation of Church and State until the middle part of the 20th century. Once may argue that just because the phrase “separation of church and state” was not established in its current form until the mid twentieth century, that the founding fathers had intending this from the very beginning. I find the truth to be rather shocking.
Patrick Henry wrote, “It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason people of other faiths have been offered asylums, prosperity and freedom of worship here.”
John Jay, the first chief justice of the US Supreme Court wrote, “Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty as well as the privilege of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.”
John Adams said, “Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
A House Judiciary Report, written in 1854, said, “Christianity must be considered as the foundation upon which the whole structure rests. Laws will not have permanence or power without the sanction of religious sentiment, without a firm belief that there is a Power above us that will reward our virtues and punish our vices. In this age there will be no substitute for Christianity. That was the religion of the founders of the Republic, and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants. There is a great error on this subject in the opinion that those who organized this Government did not legislate on religion.”
Today we would regard these people as radicals and narrow minded extremists. I don’t know of any mainstream politicians these days that would dare make these statements. The way that government and religion interact has radically changed since then. But to deny that our original founders did not consider religion to be an integral part of our government, is just foolish. We can however debate whether their stance was beneficial for the nation at that time.