George W. Bush, a bad president

[Shangui]

Am I the only one thinking that George W. Bush doesnt know the meaning of democratie ? I mean, he did said himself that he went against his people because they "didnt knew what was good for them". And he accuses others of attacking democratie. I sure hope he wont get elected in the next elections.

[NEMESiSZ]

At 4/9/03 06:11 PM, Shangui wrote: Am I the only one thinking that George W. Bush doesnt know the meaning of democratie ?

What exactly is democratie? Good thing I'm not the president, it would be pretty embarassing for me not to know what "democratie" is.

Seriously, don't post anymore, you're an idiot with retarded opinions based on, if we're lucky, skits from Saturday Night Live.

[NJDeadzone]

it's for your "embetterment"

[JMHX]

What a horrible thread. George might be a bad president, but I don't know what democratie is either.

[fourdaddy]

i think he might be trying to say democracy, but since he cant, i dont think he has any say as to who our president is come next november.

and i agree, this is a terrible thread

[Slizor]

It's funny how both Bush and Blair are crusading for "democracy" while A) undertaking no electoral reform B) being significantly opposed by the people.

[fourdaddy]

At 4/10/03 12:09 PM, Slizor wrote: It's funny how both Bush and Blair are crusading for "democracy" while A) undertaking no electoral reform B) being significantly opposed by the people.

significantly opposed? over 70% of the US supports the situation. isnt a democracy sort of built around the principle of majority rule? 30% may be quite a bit, but i really do not see why the minority should be given priority...thats like affirmative action, ridiculous.

[mysecondstar]

At 4/10/03 12:09 PM, Slizor wrote: It's funny how both Bush and Blair are crusading for "democracy" while A) undertaking no electoral reform B) being significantly opposed by the people.

Tony Blair has substantial support in the House of Commons as well as the general public in the UK and George Bush has the same.

also, if i'm not mistaken, electoral reform in the US will take an ammendment to the Constitution. that is not a simple task. is the process out of date? yes. are the people in the US more informed than they were 200+ years ago? yes. will change come? yes. but it will take some time.

[Slizor]

significantly opposed? over 70% of the US supports the situation.

Currently they do, but they didn't before the war. The swing has been the utter crap "Get behind our troops" and various other propaganda exercises.

isnt a democracy sort of built around the principle of majority rule?

No it's not. That's majoritarianism. Democracy is rule by consensus. Funny that you don't understand a concept that so many people espouse in your country.

[Slizor]

Tony Blair has substantial support in the House of Commons as well as the general public in the UK

Again, this was not so before the war.

also, if i'm not mistaken, electoral reform in the US will take an ammendment to the Constitution. that is not a simple task. is the process out of date? yes. are the people in the US more informed than they were 200+ years ago? yes. will change come? yes. but it will take some time.

To claim it will come but it is hard is in total disregard of the facts. The major parties would not want to push electoral reform because it will weaken their position. And....George W. Bush has done no electoral reform.

[NEMESiSZ]

From now on, anyone who doesn't speak english can't complain about bush.

[mysecondstar]

At 4/10/03 03:50 PM, Slizor wrote:

Tony Blair has substantial support in the House of Commons as well as the general public in the UK

Again, this was not so before the war.

yes it was before the war. one week before the first precision bombings took place, 54% of the population in the UK believe that is was a good idea to take action in Iraq according to SKYnews.

also, if i'm not mistaken, electoral reform in the US will take an ammendment to the Constitution. that is not a simple task. is the process out of date? yes. are the people in the US more informed than they were 200+ years ago? yes. will change come? yes. but it will take some time.

To claim it will come but it is hard is in total disregard of the facts. The major parties would not want to push electoral reform because it will weaken their position. And....George W. Bush has done no electoral reform.

the US is based on a bicameral election more or less. third parties make hardly a scratch on the political radar. the Libertarian Party took something along the lines of 13% (some number around there. probably less) of the popular vote taking away votes from the Democratic Party. it would be in Bush's best interest to use popular vote in place of the Electoral College. but that would have to take place in the Supreme Court. if you feel this strongly about electoral reform, lobby at the Capitol. otherwise the US will just maintain the status quo.

[TheDoctor]

Y'know Bush really is lacking in the intelect department. All he did before he was president was to sit in his office playning video games, and now he wants to go on a rampage of killing British citizens claiming it's because of a "war" just to benifit his career. If he is not removed by the next election I shall hunt him down with a large pair of naval
callipers.

P.S He goes on vacation every two days as well!

[mysecondstar]

At 4/10/03 04:08 PM, TheShadowOfLenin wrote: Y'know Bush really is lacking in the intelect department. All he did before he was president was to sit in his office playning video games, and now he wants to go on a rampage of killing British citizens claiming it's because of a "war" just to benifit his career. If he is not removed by the next election I shall hunt him down with a large pair of naval
callipers.

P.S He goes on vacation every two days as well!

good god, i should hit you. you go to Yale for 4 years and try getting Cs. sheesh, it does make him sound stupid, but seriously, try it. it isn't as easy as you would think. and none of this "because his daddy went to Yale and just paid them off to get him in".

[ThorClock]

-Don't be a group of Nazis. Hes the president and just because you personally don't like one thing others may be in favor of it. Basically mostly the democrats put out this stuff to try to make fun of Bush. Hes the president and if you dont like the way we run our country go somewhere else.

[Slizor]

Again, this was not so before the war.

yes it was before the war. one week before the first precision bombings took place, 54% of the population in the UK believe that is was a good idea to take action in Iraq according to SKYnews.

A) MurdochNews = Rubbish B) The war was inevitable, support the troops kicks in C) Precision....hah.

To claim it will come but it is hard is in total disregard of the facts. The major parties would not want to push electoral reform because it will weaken their position. And....George W. Bush has done no electoral reform.

the US is based on a bicameral election more or less. third parties make hardly a scratch on the political radar. the Libertarian Party took something along the lines of 13%

Would you vote for a party that wouldn't win? The electoral system especially retards the growth of new parties. Note: I'm British.

[Jimsween]

At 4/10/03 06:30 PM, Slizor wrote:

Again, this was not so before the war.

yes it was before the war. one week before the first precision bombings took place, 54% of the population in the UK believe that is was a good idea to take action in Iraq according to SKYnews.

A) MurdochNews = Rubbish B) The war was inevitable, support the troops kicks in C) Precision....hah.

To claim it will come but it is hard is in total disregard of the facts. The major parties would not want to push electoral reform because it will weaken their position. And....George W. Bush has done no electoral reform.

Before the war more Americans favored the war, this isnt just one news station saying this, that was the total consensus of all of them including NPR. As for britan... I'll leave that up to you two.

[MadMax501]

some of you keep referring to statistics (which btw, are not very accurate). Just because somethings a general consensus still does not make it right. Don't forget that.

[Jimsween]

At 4/10/03 09:36 PM, MadMax501 wrote: some of you keep referring to statistics (which btw, are not very accurate). Just because somethings a general consensus still does not make it right. Don't forget that.

Really? Then how can you determine what is right? And dont say bible...

[TheDoctor]

At 4/10/03 04:20 PM, mysecondstar wrote: good god, i should hit you. you go to Yale for 4 years and try getting Cs. sheesh, it does make him sound stupid, but seriously, try it. it isn't as easy as you would think. and none of this "because his daddy went to Yale and just paid them off to get him in".

Just because he did that it dosent make him a good politician!

[nomisdp]

At 4/10/03 03:59 PM, mysecondstar wrote:
it would be in Bush's best interest to use popular vote in place of the Electoral College

surely considering it was the quirk of the electoral college that got Bush in despite losing the popular vote, it is in his interests to maintain that system?

[mysecondstar]

At 4/11/03 06:38 AM, TheShadowOfLenin wrote:

At 4/10/03 04:20 PM, mysecondstar wrote: good god, i should hit you. you go to Yale for 4 years and try getting Cs. sheesh, it does make him sound stupid, but seriously, try it. it isn't as easy as you would think. and none of this "because his daddy went to Yale and just paid them off to get him in".

Just because he did that it dosent make him a good politician!

you were arguing that he was stupid. i responded to your argument and now you're telling me that he isn't a good politician. alrighty then. i'll assume that in that case i proved my point and go on to your whole politician deal.

politicians are commonly referred to as snakes. if i remember correctly the line from "The Hunt For Red October", it goes, "i'm a politician. if i'm not kissing babies i'm stealing their lollipops." so far, Bush hasn't gotten himself into a scandal like most politicians do, he does what he says unlike most politicians, and he's very straight foward, unlike the masterful orator Bill Clinton who can skirt the issue easier than you can say Monica Lewinsky. so, in that respect, i agree with you. Bush is a horrible politician. but it doesn't seem so bad, does it...

[mysecondstar]

At 4/10/03 06:30 PM, Slizor wrote:

yes it was before the war. one week before the first precision bombings took place, 54% of the population in the UK believe that is was a good idea to take action in Iraq according to SKYnews.

A) MurdochNews = Rubbish B) The war was inevitable, support the troops kicks in C) Precision....hah.

a. as i see it, Rupert Murdoch's news programming has been the most fair reporting i've seen in some time. this is as opposed to CNN, etc.
b. you're justifying the fact that there was support for the war. i'll tell you this. ask anyone whether or not they like Saddam Hussein or think that he is a good leader and you'll most definitely recieve a prompt "hell no". that ever since they knew what a Saddam Hussein was during the first Gulf War. now it's been 12 years, and nothings changed. so we can argue that concensus was that ousting Saddam Hussein goes further back than you would think.
c. by precision i meant the 30-40 some odd munnitions fired into Iraq before the heavy bombardment.

the US is based on a bicameral election more or less. third parties make hardly a scratch on the political radar. the Libertarian Party took something along the lines of 13%

Would you vote for a party that wouldn't win? The electoral system especially retards the growth of new parties. Note: I'm British.

i am all for a popular voting system. it makes for a much fairer election. the old system was set up because people did not know what was going on in the country. so they relied on the electoral college to, more or less, choose the president for them since they were better traveled and well versed in politics. and now here we are. everyone has their own political views and, we can assume, are intelligent enough to make the right decision on voting. not only that, with the information super highway, i can now talk to people accross the country and, for that matter, across the vast continents to people in the UK, China, Africa, anywhere within seconds. we aren't farmers anymore.

and i also agree that it does stunt the growth of new parties. Note: i'm Korean.

[mysecondstar]

At 4/11/03 12:05 PM, nomisdp wrote: surely considering it was the quirk of the electoral college that got Bush in despite losing the popular vote, it is in his interests to maintain that system?

the man has a 71% approval rating. he'd be mad not to.

[TheDoctor]

you were arguing that he was stupid. i responded to your argument and now you're telling me that he isn't a good politician. alrighty then. i'll assume that in that case i proved my point and go on to your whole politician deal.

politicians are commonly referred to as snakes. if i remember correctly the line from "The Hunt For Red October", it goes, "i'm a politician. if i'm not kissing babies i'm stealing their lollipops." so far, Bush hasn't gotten himself into a scandal like most politicians do, he does what he says unlike most politicians, and he's very straight foward, unlike the masterful orator Bill Clinton who can skirt the issue easier than you can say Monica Lewinsky. so, in that respect, i agree with you. Bush is a horrible politician. but it doesn't seem so bad, does it...

But seriously.... The way Bush talks..... How_can_he_have_become_president!? Bill clinton WAS a great deal more masterful then Bush, which is why I wish he was still running your country (im assuming you are american).

damn Bush! I stick by my point though, he is a bad politician and an egregiously ignorant fool!

[mysecondstar]

At 4/11/03 12:39 PM, TheShadowOfLenin wrote: But seriously.... The way Bush talks..... How_can_he_have_become_president!? Bill clinton WAS a great deal more masterful then Bush, which is why I wish he was still running your country (im assuming you are american).

damn Bush! I stick by my point though, he is a bad politician and an egregiously ignorant fool!

your original point was that he saw stupid. now you are saying that he's still a bad politician and that he's ignorant.

far be it for me to say this, but i think that he's doing a very good job of running the country. domestically and abroad. he looks out for the country's best interest as far its security and the economy. i am a big proponent of trickle down economics. and his economic proposals support that.

and he sticks to his guns. he won't back down for anyone. even Kim Jong Il is backing down saying that he will have talks regarding his nuclear arsenal. he just plays hardball and does things people want to do but never dream of actually doing. and he gets results.

[SuperG007]

I have to agree with you on this. Bush does not really understand whats going on, his only saving grace is that he has surrounded himself with fairly competent advisors. The only true exception with this is the antichrist jon ashcroft, if there has ever been a greater threat to our civil liberties then i don't know it!

[Commander-K25]

At 4/9/03 06:11 PM, Shangui wrote: Am I the only one thinking that George W. Bush doesnt know the meaning of democratie ? I mean, he did said himself that he went against his people because they "didnt knew what was good for them". And he accuses others of attacking democratie. I sure hope he wont get elected in the next elections.

Is there anything you do besides complain about Bush?

And I do think he'll get elected again because he has the highest approval rating of any American president.

[implodinggoat]

At 4/12/03 10:47 PM, SuperG007 wrote: I have to agree with you on this. Bush does not really understand whats going on, his only saving grace is that he has surrounded himself with fairly competent advisors. The only true exception with this is the antichrist jon ashcroft, if there has ever been a greater threat to our civil liberties then i don't know it!

Tisk, Tisk, don't go about making such claims when you know nothing of history. I don't like Ashcroft personally but he is far from the greatest threat ever to our civil liberties. Look up the Alien and Sedition Acts under John Adams administration. Now that was a risk to civil liberties.

[implodinggoat]

At 4/11/03 12:39 PM, TheShadowOfLenin wrote:
But seriously.... The way Bush talks..... How_can_he_have_become_president!? Bill clinton WAS a great deal more masterful then Bush, which is why I wish he was still running your country (im assuming you are american).

damn Bush! I stick by my point though, he is a bad politician and an egregiously ignorant fool!

You seem to think that a man's speaking ability is the soul measure of his competency as a politician. You know Adolph was a very gifted speaker.

Clinton was an utter piece of shit as a human being and as a politician. He had no respect what so ever for women or the honor of his office, and he cared for nothing but popular opinion.

And before you go say, "But he was so great with the economy" you must remember that it was Clinton's economic policy that allowed the stockmarket to get very overvalued. Near the end of the Clinton administration there were reports that the Dow which was over 12000 should in fact be valued no higher than 9000, but Clinton didn't gove a damn because the levee didn't break until he left office.