What's wrong with Bush?

[MoralLibertarian]

I see so many movies on Newgrounds against our president. I know that it's been common in the history of the USA to poke a bit of fun at the presidents. But the jokes and insults on Bush are more meanspirited.

The man is obviously trying to do what's right, and he's working for what he feels is in the nation's best interests. He does this regardless of what the public or what the world thinks of him. Regardless of what I think of his decisions, I must say that I admire that.

I am a liberal, and I don't like the idea of war. But I can see why it might have to happen. Sadaam should have been disarmed 10 years ago, yet everyone says "No violence, more diplomacy." But where do you draw the line? And people say "We're just in there for the oil..." Yeah...that's a factor. It's important to us Americans to be able to use automobiles. All in all, I think Bush's intentions are for the safety of America.

[EvilGovernmentAgents]

Whether or not Bush's intentions are good is irrelevant to the matter. In this world, it doesn't matter, whether or not the intentions are good, but what the person's actions are. Remember, Mao wanted to give peasants in China a good life, but that didn't stop him from killing off thousands during the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution

[RoboTripper]

You know, there are lots of reasons I don't like Bush, but just to mention one thing that gets me:

The man was an avid cocaine user during his college days, and you know if he was doing the yay there are a lot of other milder drugs like pot he tried too. Then when he gets into office (as governor and president) he cranks up the drug war and increases all the minimum sentencing for drug use. And he hires a drug-Nazi like Ashcroft as Attorney General. So it was fine and okay for Bush to experiment around, but if anybody else wants to smoke a joint (not to mention blow some coke) they get fucked. Can you say HYPOCRITE!

PS - Ashcroft just busted a bunch of internet retailers who sell pipes for "tobacco use" Great, we've got what, an estimated 1000 terrorists in the US, but lets focus on internet headshops. Fucking asshole.

[MoralLibertarian]

At 2/26/03 11:09 PM, UNpossible wrote: Whether or not Bush's intentions are good is irrelevant to the matter. In this world, it doesn't matter, whether or not the intentions are good, but what the person's actions are. Remember, Mao wanted to give peasants in China a good life, but that didn't stop him from killing off thousands during the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution

The Cultural Revolution was a whole different ball game from this. The comparision you're making basically compares Bush to Mao. This is the kind of thinking that really starts to scare me. Weak point.

The odd thing about this situation is that there is no clear moral choice, although people on both sides would disagree. This is no "Cultural Revolution." It's meant to keep people in America safe. We all hope that he's making the right choice.

[MoralLibertarian]

At 2/26/03 11:15 PM, DenkSmoker wrote: You know, there are lots of reasons I don't like Bush, but just to mention one thing that gets me:

The man was an avid cocaine user during his college days, and you know if he was doing the yay there are a lot of other milder drugs like pot he tried too. Then when he gets into office (as governor and president) he cranks up the drug war and increases all the minimum sentencing for drug use. And he hires a drug-Nazi like Ashcroft as Attorney General. So it was fine and okay for Bush to experiment around, but if anybody else wants to smoke a joint (not to mention blow some coke) they get fucked. Can you say HYPOCRITE!

PS - Ashcroft just busted a bunch of internet retailers who sell pipes for "tobacco use" Great, we've got what, an estimated 1000 terrorists in the US, but lets focus on internet headshops. Fucking asshole.

So you don't like him because he's a bit of a hypocrite? Name a politician who didn't do a hypocritical thing or have a hypocritical thought. It's not easy, is it?

Bush knows first hand the bad effects of drugs, understands that it's a problem in this country, and tries to do something about it. Big deal. His hypocrisy may help our country's fight against drugs.

Your last point doesn't make any sense. It isn't Ashcroft's job to look for the 1000 terrorists in this country. It's his job to fight the war against drugs. And he's doing his job. Don't understand that logic at all.

[RichardSimmonsAgogo]

no one wants to admite they're being assholes, sure bush isnt the greatest president ever, sure hes not that good, in fact sure hes terrible, and im a hardcore conservative republican/libretarian, all in all people just like to make themselves feel better by making fun of someone they feel is inferior, thats why you always feel good when you win an argument. however the point is no one will answer your question, i hate bush but i dont make fun of him, i just voice my opinion in political forums such as this, or banter among other people, so the point is please people the fact that you can make someone look bad by making fun of them doesnt hurt the person or the opinion of him/her and reveals you as the flaming idiot you are

[EvilGovernmentAgents]

>The Cultural Revolution was a whole different ball game from this. The comparision you're making basically compares Bush to Mao. This is the kind of thinking that really starts to scare me. Weak point.

The odd thing about this situation is that there is no clear moral choice, although people on both sides would disagree. This is no "Cultural Revolution." It's meant to keep people in America safe. We all hope that he's making the right choice.

That's not my point. My point is, that Bush can have all those good intentions in his mind that he wants, like saving Africa, no more drugs, no wars, ect, but he does the wrong thing, then the fact that he had good intentions in mind when he did that "wrong thing" does not make him innocent of that "wrong thing"

[RoboTripper]

At 2/26/03 11:29 PM, Rooster349 wrote: So you don't like him because he's a bit of a hypocrite? Name a politician who didn't do a hypocritical thing or have a hypocritical thought. It's not easy, is it?

You are correct (unfortunately) and that is a good point. However there is a difference being hypocritical and being hypocritical when those actions are victimizing people - in this case non-violent offenders.

If a politician goes out and preaches to everyone that they need to lead a Christian life and then its discovered that he's banging his kids nanny, that is hypocritical but he's not really hurting anybody other than himself.

When Bush goes through a completely normal stage of experimentation and then after he gets sobered up starts implementing harsher drug laws, that is having an affect on other people, many of whom are non-violent.

Bush knows first hand the bad effects of drugs, understands that it's a problem in this country, and tries to do something about it. Big deal. His hypocrisy may help our country's fight against drugs.

DOES he know the bad effects of drugs? He seems to have gotten through the whole stage of drug use just fine - a little thinner wallet maybe, but it certainly didn't derail his life. He should realize from first-hand experience that drug use in moderation is not something that someone needs be locked up for.

I'm not talking about the people pushing tons of the stuff here - I'm talking about the fact that people are being punished much more severely than their actions warrant - just in the name of "setting an example." Meanwhile Bush sits there just as guilty as anyone.

Your last point doesn't make any sense. It isn't Ashcroft's job to look for the 1000 terrorists in this country. It's his job to fight the war against drugs. And he's doing his job. Don't understand that logic at all.

You are right and I am wrong. It is not Ashcroft's job to look for the terrorists. But speaking to my larger point, shouldn't he have a better use of time and taxpayer money than stuff like this? Fight drugs, ok that's fine (or a debate for another thread anyway), but at least go after the real problems.

[WadeFulp]

At 2/26/03 11:15 PM, DenkSmoker wrote: You know, there are lots of reasons I don't like Bush, but just to mention one thing that gets me:

The man was an avid cocaine user during his college days, and you know if he was doing the yay there are a lot of other milder drugs like pot he tried too.

Well, some of the most inspirational people I have met are people who have over come addictions. These people have a first hand experience with these evils and were able to realize how bad they can be and get away from them. So maybe Bush knows first hand how bad drugs can be and what they can do to you and he wants to make sure other people don't follow the path he once did. Makes sense to me.

[WadeFulp]

Everyone is so focused on this war with Iraq and they fail to see all the other good things Bush is doing. Bush has impressed me many times with some of the things he does. One example is when he came to my home state of Pennsylvania. We have a health care crisis here. Many of our doctors are leaving this state because their malpractice insurance premiums are to high. Say you are a brain surgeon or something and you have to pay $100,000+ a year in insurancec and maybe you make $150,000 or $200,000 a year? Or maybe you can't even find an insurance company to cover you! Your option? Go to another state that will insure you for like $20,000 or whatever.

This is a HUGE problem here. Can anyone imagine having to go to another state if they needed surgery, or needed to delivery a baby? I'm lucky I have a doctor to deliver my baby this March!

So what's the reason for this? LAYWERS! In this state people sue their doctors for huge amounts of money and often get it! Listen to this fact. The city of Philadelphia awarded as much money in malpractice claims in one year as the entire state of California did in THREE YEARS! California has a cap on these lawsuits, PA does not. Doctors have tried striking, marching on our state capital, but nothing has been done!

However, President Bush saw this was a big problem, and it wasn't just happening to PA. I mean, what could be a bigger problem in the US than not having any doctors for people in need? President Bush came to Pennsylvania and proposed the Federal Government puts a $250,000 cap on non-economical damange lawsuits.

Basically what that means is if the hospital cuts off your arm by accident you can sue for all the money you can't earn, plus up to $250,000 for pain and suffering. Some people may say "F that! I want to sue for 20 million!" Well, it was a horrible mistake, but we have to draw the line. Should the guy get $20 million for lossing his arm and end up causing the state to lose all their doctors so now millions of people don't have doctors? Or should he take the $250,000 and deal with it so the millions of people can keep their doctors?

If a doctor screws up does it really matter if he's sued $250,000 or 50 million if his insurance covers it? The money isn't a punishment, he should be punished in other ways.

So why is Bush taking a stand on this impressive to me? Well, most politicians are LAYWERS! Also many elected politicians were given big camapaign donations by LAYWERS! Guess who will be really pissed if they can only sue for $250,000? You guessed it, LAYWERS! Think these laywers would go after some of these crazy lawsuits if they weren't getting 40% of 10 milliond ollars? So the thing is laywers don't want these caps, they want to suck us all dry. They put tremendous pressure on our elected politicians to allow these huge lawsuits to continue. I think Bush will make a lot of enemies (laywers) if he passes these caps, but it is the right thing to do.

What Bush is doing takes balls. Big ones.

[JMHX]

Yes, we forgot all the good things Bush did.

- Jamming the economy into the ground
- Spacing himself from corrupt businesses so he can avoid problems
- Losing interest in Osama bin Laden
- Wanting to finish up some unfinished family Saddam. Er. Business.
- Making tax cuts that only further the deficit
- Making tax cuts for the rich
- Being a contradictory little shit
- Wanting to move nuclear weapons from a special-class missile to a normal-class missile

[RoboTripper]

At 2/28/03 09:38 AM, WadeFulp wrote: Well, some of the most inspirational people I have met are people who have over come addictions. These people have a first hand experience with these evils and were able to realize how bad they can be and get away from them. So maybe Bush knows first hand how bad drugs can be and what they can do to you and he wants to make sure other people don't follow the path he once did. Makes sense to me.

I agree that it's good to have a leader with some life experience in the issue. But his drug problem was not solved by him being thrown in the slammer. Maybe instead of advocating unfair laws like mandatory sentencing, he should advocate whatever it is that got him through his time - like treatment and/or detox programs. Nobody wants to be addicted to drugs, and I think Bush should realize from his experience that addicts want to be rehabilitated and need help. Instead, he sticks to his party lines on the issue and ignores the success of whatever method it is that he himself used. As the president, the country's drug problem is definitely a priority for Bush, but I just thought it was hypocritical for for him to use his power to put the hammer down on people who are in the exact situation he was once in.

[lapslf]

The whole war on drugs is stupid. Drugs are good! (NOFX)

It's the strange contradiction that i never understand in you liberals. You want freedom this, freedom that. Well, than let's all have the freedom to smoke a fucking joint! Why can't whe use drugs? because it's dangerous. Well, carrying a gun is way more dangerous, but that's legal and all the liberals support it. weeeeeeeeird.

[WadeFulp]

At 2/28/03 12:05 PM, Veggiemeal wrote: The whole war on drugs is stupid. Drugs are good! (NOFX)

It's the strange contradiction that i never understand in you liberals. You want freedom this, freedom that. Well, than let's all have the freedom to smoke a fucking joint! Why can't whe use drugs? because it's dangerous. Well, carrying a gun is way more dangerous, but that's legal and all the liberals support it. weeeeeeeeird.

Hahah. I think you have liberals and conservaties mixed up. I wish more people carried guns. If more honest people had guns it would keep the criminals more in check. If you were a criminal think you'd fuck with someone if you knew you'd probably get shot?

[WadeFulp]

At 2/28/03 10:03 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: Yes, we forgot all the good things Bush did.

- Jamming the economy into the ground

We were already going into a recession during the last quarter of Clinton's term. Clinton road Regan's economic wave and didn't do anything to keep it going. Most of Clinton's good economic times were based on all the tech companies and scandal as well, which he obviously didn't do much about. Then there was 9/11 shortly into Bush's term because Clinton failed to take out Osama when given the chance. So it's not fair to blame Bush when he was left with a big pile of shit. I think he's doing a lot of good to clean it up.

- Spacing himself from corrupt businesses so he can avoid problems

He's trying to put things into place to discourage dirty business, like getting rid of the double tax of dividends.

- Losing interest in Osama bin Laden

If you make a statement like that you are crazy. He is constantly on Osama's trail. They are arresting Al Quada members all the time. Bush would rather destroy Al Quada as much as he can than just take out Osama. What good is taking out Osama if you leave his network in place for someone to take over? If Osama is even still alive his network is being taken apart piece by piece everyday.

- Wanting to finish up some unfinished family Saddam. Er. Business.

There is no proof to these claims you make. Just stupid liberal talk. If Bush didn't take out Saddam I would be very worried and upset. A recent poll showed 71% of Americans support a war to remove Saddam. He is a bad man, has horrible weapons that could harm us if they wind up in the wrong hands. He needs to go. If someone else was in the office after 9/11 they would be doing the same thing or they would catch hell from the American people. It's just a coinsidence that he's first Preisdent Buhs's son. If anything he should be pissed at his dad for not taking Saddam out in the first place.

- Making tax cuts that only further the deficit

If his tax cuts allow businesses to grow, hire more people, we will actually end up with more tax revnue.
He is also cutting back on governmental spending to balance things out. Maybe you don't pay taxes in the US, but I do. I like seeing more money in my pay check and guess what? I can go out and buy more things, which helps the economy. I will help out a business so they don't have to lay someone off. Giving more money to the government isn't going to go into the pocket's of business owners to hire people. It will just go down the f'ing toilet or towards some $5,000 ash tray.

- Making tax cuts for the rich

They are equal tax cuts. I'm sick of this tax cust for the rich shit. If you make $100,000 a year, and I make $30,000 a year, and we each get a 5% tax cut we both get money back. You obviously get more back since you pay more. Then maybe you'll come take that money and spend it in my shop, or buy something from the company that employees me. Etc. Again, the more money we keep in peoples pockets the more they will spend which helps our economy. Giving it all to the government doesn't help the economy.

- Being a contradictory little shit

Explain?

- Wanting to move nuclear weapons from a special-class missile to a normal-class missile

I don't really care what we do with nuclear weapons because we will never use one again unless someoone launches a nuke at us. In this day in age if a US President was to use a nuke he wouldn't be in office long, unless he had a damned good reason to do so.

[RoboTripper]

At 2/28/03 02:04 PM, WadeFulp wrote: We were already going into a recession during the last quarter of Clinton's term. Clinton road Regan's economic wave and didn't do anything to keep it going. Most of Clinton's good economic times were based on all the tech companies and scandal as well, which he obviously didn't do much about. Then there was 9/11 shortly into Bush's term because Clinton failed to take out Osama when given the chance. So it's not fair to blame Bush when he was left with a big pile of shit. I think he's doing a lot of good to clean it up.

This is debatable. If "Riding Reagan's economic wave" is a good thing, then what happened to Bush Sr.? Clinton implemented NAFTA, which was very controversial but turned out to be a boon to the economy. Hah, such a right-wing idea too - make the Mexicans the new working poor of the US economy.
His skill in foriegn policy served him very well too -he completely reopened the Asian market (China, Vietnam, North Korea) which turned out to be another big boost. Both of these are something a Bush or Reagan would never have allowed under their watch.

You can't blame Clinton for the tech stocks - he has no control over people buying overvalued securities. Everyone knew they were overvalued, they just hoped the earnings would catch up. As far as the accounting scandals, I would find it hard to believe that started just a few years ago. And taking out Osama is apparently much easier said than done.

He's trying to put things into place to discourage dirty business, like getting rid of the double tax of dividends.

That discourages dirty business? I was under the naive impression that was just to give George Bush and his wealthy shareholding friends a much-needed tax break.

If his tax cuts allow businesses to grow, hire more people, we will actually end up with more tax revnue.
He is also cutting back on governmental spending to balance things out. Maybe you don't pay taxes in the US, but I do. I like seeing more money in my pay check and guess what? I can go out and buy more things, which helps the economy. I will help out a business so they don't have to lay someone off. Giving more money to the government isn't going to go into the pocket's of business owners to hire people. It will just go down the f'ing toilet or towards some $5,000 ash tray.

Trickle-down economics have not worked, do not work, and will not work. (In my humble opinion anyway)

They are equal tax cuts. I'm sick of this tax cust for the rich shit. If you make $100,000 a year, and I make $30,000 a year, and we each get a 5% tax cut we both get money back. You obviously get more back since you pay more. Then maybe you'll come take that money and spend it in my shop, or buy something from the company that employees me. Etc. Again, the more money we keep in peoples pockets the more they will spend which helps our economy. Giving it all to the government doesn't help the economy.

The tax cuts reek of desperation. Alan Greenspan, who is himself a Republican, has said in polite terms that they are a dumb idea. Tax cuts are for when you have done a good job with the economy and can afford to give something back (a la 2nd term Bill Clinton). They are not for when you have been in a 2-and-a-half-year downward spiral and are running a big deficit. Not to mention the fact that you are about to put a few hundred billion more dollars into a war.

[JMHX]

"Trickle down economics? This is mist down economics."
- Time Magazine