do u like president bush?

[grant3kisses]

i wanna kno do u like president bush are u a republican a democrat or do u have a ? for me?

[MightyJoe]

I'd say I lean more republican however don't really agree with everything Bush has done. My question to you, is how old are you?

[Demosthenes]

I'd say I lean more republican however don't really agree with everything Bush has done. My question to you, is how old are you?

I lean far more to the left, and I severely dislike our president.

See: http://zelaron.com/forum/showthread.php?t=33757&highlight=Bush
and http://zelaron.com/forum/showthread.php?t=27787&highlight=Bush for why.

[Dubby]

i am on opposite end of the political compass that bush is on. so no, i do not like that man.

[Mantralord]

i'm against bush, for log cabin republicans

[Sovereign]

Not really.

[Dar_Win]

I'm neither, and I don't like Bush that much.

But I do believe he is the best person for the job.

[Grav]

Best person? Are you joking?

[KagomJack]

I'm a moderate or a centrist, whatever you want to call it.

I dislike Bush strongly, but I hate no one.

[Thanatos]

That's like saying an elderly woman is the best candidate for the Nascar champion.

[Lenny]

I can't say which way I lean, but I can say that I don't like Bush.

And he was the right candidate for the original job... but now he's overstayed his welcome.

Would Gore or Kerry have done what he has done? Sure, he might have gone a bot over the top, but early on in his terms he did what seemed to be right.

[!King_Amazon!]

I don't agree with sticking with one side on every issue anymore. Back a few years ago I would have said I'm republican, but I think my views have matured a bit more to where I don't have to go along with everything everyone else says. There's no way to have a completely republican or completely democratic view on every hot topic out there, at least not to the point that there would be two parties that all have the same opinions. I personally think gay marriage and abortion are two completely different topics and my opinion on those should not be based on what party I would consider myself a part of.

As for Bush, I don't really like him myself, but he was the lesser of two evils of the last election. In times of war I'd rather have a president who might make bad decisions rather than a president who makes no decisions at all.

[Grav]

"Times of war?"

There IS NO WAR. We are occupying a nation

The whole fiasco would not have occured if Bush was not President.


The lesser of two evils bullshit is spouted off way too much by people whose heads are so far up their asses that they blindly refuse to look beyond the two-party slave system that has been so nicely forced down our throats by money-grubbing evil plutocrats.

The fact that you gladly succumb to their thought process by only considering two possible candidates whom THEY CHOOSE FOR YOUR VOTE TO NOT MATTER ON (ahem, electoral college 2000 election) should alarm you somewhat.

[!King_Amazon!]

When did this become a discussion about the election system?

I've said before I think the electoral college is bullshit. The fact is, in the last election, the only two people who had a chance of winning were Bush and Kerry, whether I like that or not, one of those two was going to be the winner. Is that my fault?

If one of two people is going to win, why vote for a 3rd who has no chance? You'd be better off not voting at all.

As for this "fiasco" not occuring if Bush were never president, what do you think Kerry would have done differently? He's said on two different occasions that he'd both support sending more troops and that he was against the war or some bullshit. Kerry has probably never said what he actually feels, he says what he thinks people want him to say. That doesn't mean he would act in that way.

In the beginning, Bush made the right choice. He couldn't sit idly by while our country was being threatened by terrorism. Anyone would have had a hard time dealing with that right after being elected president. The problem is how he has dealt with things since. The war on terrorism has gone on far too long, too many lives have been lost.

Tell me Grav, if there is no war, why do we lose soldiers every day? Why does the death toll keep rising? There is a war.

We're not just occupying Iraq just to say "haha you losers we own you." We couldn't just go in and destroy their government and then leave them hanging. If we had left right away, things would have gone back just how they were.

[Lenny]

We should have done things other than occupy. What's wrong with reform within the Iraqi armed forces? What's wrong with letting Saddam have had a fair trial in Geneva in front of a completely unbiased and untouchable human rights court? Why send him to his death in such an undignified manner, AND on the holiest day of the year.

We may have toppled one of the worlds greatest modern dictators, but we didn't need to go and make a complete hash of everything for the next 3 years.

[KagomJack]

K_A has a point. In the beginning we were starting out right. I myself was Republican at the time before the 2004 elections ever occurred. Bush did what he thought was right and I supported, and still support, going to Afghanistan to route out the Taliban, though now they're regaining power because we've spent way too much of our effort in the idiocy that is Iraq.

But I believe the war would've been justified if he had just been honest about it and actually had a real reason to go to Iraq, not some lameass "WMDS!" "They tried to kill my daddy." or "THEY HAVER TIES TO AL-QAEDA!"

[Grav]

When did this become a discussion about the election system?

I've said before I think the electoral college is bullshit. The fact is, in the last election, the only two people who had a chance of winning were Bush and Kerry, whether I like that or not, one of those two was going to be the winner. Is that my fault?

If one of two people is going to win, why vote for a 3rd who has no chance? You'd be better off not voting at all.

As for this "fiasco" not occuring if Bush were never president, what do you think Kerry would have done differently? He's said on two different occasions that he'd both support sending more troops and that he was against the war or some bullshit. Kerry has probably never said what he actually feels, he says what he thinks people want him to say. That doesn't mean he would act in that way.

In the beginning, Bush made the right choice. He couldn't sit idly by while our country was being threatened by terrorism. Anyone would have had a hard time dealing with that right after being elected president. The problem is how he has dealt with things since. The war on terrorism has gone on far too long, too many lives have been lost.

Tell me Grav, if there is no war, why do we lose soldiers every day? Why does the death toll keep rising? There is a war.

We're not just occupying Iraq just to say "haha you losers we own you." We couldn't just go in and destroy their government and then leave them hanging. If we had left right away, things would have gone back just how they were.

There is no real war on terrorism. It is really just a false metaphor used as an excuse to curb our liberties. And why are people dying every day?

Hmmmm... because

-Our country is on such a downward slope that many young people feel forced into joining the military as a way out?
-The complete lack of education and excruciatingly low standards set in this country compound the problem? This is no coincidence. We are being dumbed down because it makes us easier to control. The average level of intelligence and just competence in general is becoming painfully low.
-The Bush family has been in bed with Saudi Arabian royalty for decades? Did you know that Saddam was the biggest enemy of said royalty? They hated him passionately. Is it a mystery why both Bush presidents have sent soldiers to die to fight him? Oh, "WMDs." Right.

I am probably not going to even give you a response after this one because it just makes me so seethingly angry that "intelligent" people such as yourself fall for this shit this hook line and sinker that I get a headache.

[KagomJack]

I feel that we focus too much on extracurricular activities instead of the actual education itself in schools. We need reform and not have money thrown at it. We need to actually try and get back to the way we once were.

Also, enlighten me more about the Saudis and Bush family. I'm truly intrigued now.

[Jamesadin]

Short answer:

No, hes absolutely terrible. He should have never been put in power, and he has put the United States in a place where it shouldn't be and probably won't get out of for a long time, unless they pull their act together real quick.

A democratic house of representatives and senate is the first step though. At least some changes are being made.

[Demosthenes]

Short answer:

No, hes absolutely terrible. He should have never been put in power, and he has put the United States in a place where it shouldn't be and probably won't get out of for a long time, unless they pull their act together real quick.

A democratic house of representatives and senate is the first step though. At least some changes are being made.

ZOMG, JAMES!

[!King_Amazon!]

There is no real war on terrorism. It is really just a false metaphor used as an excuse to curb our liberties. And why are people dying every day?

Hmmmm... because

-Our country is on such a downward slope that many young people feel forced into joining the military as a way out?
-The complete lack of education and excruciatingly low standards set in this country compound the problem? This is no coincidence. We are being dumbed down because it makes us easier to control. The average level of intelligence and just competence in general is becoming painfully low.
-The Bush family has been in bed with Saudi Arabian royalty for decades? Did you know that Saddam was the biggest enemy of said royalty? They hated him passionately. Is it a mystery why both Bush presidents have sent soldiers to die to fight him? Oh, "WMDs." Right.

I am probably not going to even give you a response after this one because it just makes me so seethingly angry that "intelligent" people such as yourself fall for this shit this hook line and sinker that I get a headache.
Aww gravvy you're getting so grown up, getting all educated at college.

No wait, you sound like one of those shit-spewing hippies.

[Thanatos]

The hippies are gone. He's just a young, educated individual that is smart enough to not believe everything our government tells us. Don't trust our government. Politics is nothing but lies.

[Demosthenes]

I severely disagree with Darwin's statements. Best person for the job? If you're talking about dealing drugs, perhaps, but if you're talking about running the country, then fuck that. You can't possibly say he's the best person for the job because there is no way you can know every one of the 6.howeverMany billion people there are on this planet. However, there are people who are certainly far more qualified for the job, and better for the job. Your statement seems to contradict itself. You state that you don't like Bush very much. That implies that you disagree with some of his decisions in running the country. Then you say he's the best man for the job, which implies that you don't disagree with most of his decisions. If you think his decisions are shitty, then why is he the best man for the job, if not, why do you dislike him?

I do think most of the people who judge Kerry, though, are full of shit. They are judging him based off of very little for the most part. Wouldn't make any decisions at all? He would have been the motherfucking president, of course he would have been decisive. Jesus Christ. At the time of the last election, Bush had already fucked up. Why you think that Kerry would have done worse is beyond me. WAHH! WAHH! HE'S A PUSSY! HE'S A FLIP-FLOPPER! Those are prissy school-girl insults, and highly inappropriate when judging a candidate for presidency. They are random insults thrown around by the opposite party. The exact same thing could have been said about Bush if enough propoganda was spewed about it.

I agree with Grav...there is no war on terrorism. It's propoganda. Why? Simple. You can't wage war on an idea. You wage war on people. You can fight terrorists but you can't combat thoughts with arms. You combat thoughts with education. If you want a war on terrorism, perhaps its time to start spreading education around, rather than smart bombs.

I disagree with Grav, however, when it comes to voting on third parties. Yes, you're absolutely right, I could vote on a third party, but what good would it do? I am better off serving the country by sitting on my ass at home, not wasting my time, and not polluting the air by driving to a voting-booth because my vote would be irrelevant. If there was ever a serious third-party candidate, then maybe, however until then its frivolous. Until the system is changed, voting for a third-party or an independent is like not voting at all. America is not perfect, as much as some zealous, chauvinistic patriotic motherfuckers like to assert. The system is not perfect. It is flawed. It can, and needs to be changed. Perhaps, perhaps one can make an argument that it is the best system that exists, but that is not relevant. What matters is that their is room for improvement.

Tell me Grav, if there is no war, why do we lose soldiers every day? Why does the death toll keep rising? There is a war.

By this criteria, you should also acknowledge the fights between the Bloods and Crips as an all-out war. But, I think even that is more of a war than what is going on in Iraq. Both the Bloods and the Crips have a defined enemy. Who is it exactly that we're fighting? The insurgents? That's just a fancy word to say whoever opposes us. We have no defined enemy. We're just killing anyone who gets in our way. The loss of troop life is a consequence.

[Willkillforfood]

K_A has a point. In the beginning we were starting out right. I myself was Republican at the time before the 2004 elections ever occurred. Bush did what he thought was right and I supported, and still support, going to Afghanistan to route out the Taliban, though now they're regaining power because we've spent way too much of our effort in the idiocy that is Iraq.

But I believe the war would've been justified if he had just been honest about it and actually had a real reason to go to Iraq, not some lameass "WMDS!" "They tried to kill my daddy." or "THEY HAVER TIES TO AL-QAEDA!"

Gay Republicans make about as much sense as nun porn stars =P.

[Willkillforfood]

If only his worst problem was infidelity= (.

[Dar_Win]

I was saying he was the best out of the presidential candidates, not the best in the world.

I suppose hippie Al Gore would've made a better decision?

Or flip flopper John Kerry? (Do your homework, he changed his mind on many subjects.)

If I have more time this weekend, I will respond to your entire post.

[Demosthenes]

I suppose hippie Al Gore would've made a better decision?

Or flip flopper John Kerry? (Do your homework, he changed his mind on many subjects.)


Absolutely. George Bush had run this country into the ground before the 2004 election. Practically anyone would have been a better candidate.

I don't doubt John Kerry changed his mind on matters. What would terrify me is if he failed to do so in the face of new evidence.

[Jamesadin]

I suppose hippie Al Gore would've made a better decision?

Or flip flopper John Kerry? (Do your homework, he changed his mind on many subjects.)


Al Gore would have been a fantastic president. He's smart, he has charisma, and how he lost to such a doofus like George Bush is still beyond my comprehension.

Yes, John Kerry would have been a better president than George Bush. So what if he flip-flopped in the past, it would have been to make the right decision. Not like George Bush... even if his ideas and actions are completely horrible, he won't go for the better solution. He's a bumbling idiot, who is failing to look at the wider picture.

Imagine how different The United States would have been if Al Gore would have been elected president in 2000. I am certain that America wouldn't have turned out to be such the divided nation that it is, and it wouldn't be in such deep trouble with Iraq, the deficit, and so many other issues.

[Slyvr]

Seriously...would your life really change at ALL if al gore was pres or kerry?

[Demosthenes]

Seriously...would your life really change at ALL if al gore was pres or kerry?

I wouldn't have family overseas for a frivolous cause, so absolutely.

[Slyvr]

Well not a whole lotta people have family overseas...but what would anyone else do after 9/11? Would we all just sit here and look at the rubble and say "Hey, look at that...what should we do about this? I think we should all just stand around, maybe talk to some insano terrorists and hope they don't blow our brains out while we try to talk to them." If Bush didn't bring the war to them, they woulda brought it here.

[Demosthenes]

Well not a whole lotta people have family overseas...but what would anyone else do after 9/11? Would we all just sit here and look at the rubble and say "Hey, look at that...what should we do about this? I think we should all just stand around, maybe talk to some insano terrorists and hope they don't blow our brains out while we try to talk to them." If Bush didn't bring the war to them, they woulda brought it here.

Iraqis did not fly planes into the WTC, nor was any link found between the Iraqi government and those who flew planes into our buildings.

Of course, that is not the only way that the president has affected my life. There are plenty of other things as well.

[Jamesadin]

Thats frustrating. Mjordan, you're totally right. Alot of people somehow manage to make connections to 9/11 and the Iraq war. It really shows the problem when people actually listen to the propaghanda which the American media spews out every day.

The world would be very different. The United States wouldn't be in this ridiculous conflict. The environmental policies wouldn't be such a joke. I imagine that the deficit wouldn't be at abyssmal as it is right now. Human rights would be honored.

Stuff like that. But I guess it's all pretty unimportant.

Hell, and I'm not even American. I can feel for you, though... we have a conservative douchebag in government.

[Dar_Win]

The American media is mostly liberal.

[Grav]

The American media is mostly liberal.

The problem is that republicrats and democrans are just two sides of the same coin.

[Slyvr]

So, are we in Iraq to take out terrorists or are we now trying to convert their government? I thought we were killin terrorists...

[Lenny]

Iraq was originally invaded as it was speculated that Saddam had ties with Al-Qaeda, and that he was secretly holding WMD (with, ironically, would have been sold to him buy George Bush Sr. to fight Iran).

It turned out that there were no WMD. And that there were no ties whatsoever with Saddam, or indeed any of the top officials in Iraq, and Al-Qaeda.

[MightyJoe]

The problem is that republicrats and democrans are just two sides of the same coin.

This is a very good point, the political climate in the US really does not cater to extremist on either sides, both parties are becoming in my views more closely linked with each election.

Anyways responding to some other shit in this great thread...

Al Gore would have been a horrible president, first off the man claims to have invented the internet among many of his other flaws... He was too focused on having the government help out each individual with any problems they might have had. If i remember correctly he was also pushing for health insurance for all, which I don't even want to get started on how bad that would have been for the economy and everyone involved.

Kerry as a president, may or may not have worked. Normal flip flopping comments don't need to be made, if you're interest you can see the real facts about him by looking at his voting record and understanding it. His main flaws I felt, were not separating himself enough from Bush. While he and Bush had some similar view points, he did not do enough to show what his plans were and how he would make an impact on the average person. (not sure if this is going to sound how it does in my head)

Also blaming Bush for the economy in a depression is fine, if you don't understand economics. If you do, you can see he inherited the depression, which was trigged by a number of issues that were seen late in the Clinton Administration, also Sept. 11 did not help to get the economy back on track.


As for going to war in Iraq, Gore would have not gone. With Kerry I'm fairly certain he would have at the very least allowed for air strikes into Iraq. Iraq was a very dangerous country at the time, while we have not found any WMD's its known that Saddam had chemical weapons and used them. I don't think I'm being naive, that he still had access to at the very least make them or get a hold of them.

[KagomJack]

We were here to get back at Saddam for "Trying to kill my daddy" as well as a slew of reasons we probably don't know. But it sure as hell wasn't about terrorists, that was only the guise.

[Dubby]

We were here to get back at Saddam for "Trying to kill my daddy" as well as a slew of reasons we probably don't know. But it sure as hell wasn't about terrorists, that was only the guise.

it was about the oil of course.

[!King_Amazon!]

Free healthcare all around!

Shitty doctors abound!

[Slyvr]

Lol, what if we nuked Iraq? Think the oil would make an even bigger boom boom?

[KagomJack]

I highly doubt that just because the oil is combustible that it'll make a bigger "boom boom."

[Thanatos]

I wanna boom boom your anus.

[KagomJack]

lolpants

You're silly Thanatos.

[Demosthenes]

Lol, what if we nuked Iraq? Think the oil would make an even bigger boom boom?

Absolutely. There would assuredly be retaliation. America isn't so high above the world that it can simply nuke people on a whim, nor is it invincible as everyone likes to assert. "This is god's favored land!" Bullshit. People need to come off their high-horse for a second.

[Jamesadin]

Lol, what if we nuked Iraq? Think the oil would make an even bigger boom boom?

Plus, you know, the couple hundred thousand civilians killed. But oh well, collateral damage.

I hope your joking. :weird:

[MightyJoe]

Lol, what if we nuked Iraq? Think the oil would make an even bigger boom boom?

This is what could kill a decent discussion. You need to go drink Drano or something.

[Slyvr]

Die discussion! Lol, i'm kidding...geez

[KagomJack]

Your kidding is duly noted as not being funny. :|

[Lenny]

You know, he'd be great at adding to the British HumoUr Forum.

Bu-dum tich!

See what I did there? Eh? Eh?

[MightyJoe]

Oh I see what you did there.

[!King_Amazon!]

You made a joke about him being not funny, with a joke that wasn't funny, and you're british, making jokes about british jokes not being funny when your own jokes that are british making fun of british jokes are not funny.

This is all kind of funny, but then it isn't, because it's british, which is what was funny in the first place, but also not funny.

[Lenny]

I find it quite amusing.

[Grav]

Shut your face, Redcoat.