The Bush thread

[Dr Unne]

Maybe we should all just have it out once and for all, instead of talking George Bush in every thread on the forums. So give your general opinions of Bush, or just argue with me about mine. Here's my opinions.

I'm in favor of the war in Iraq. There are a lot of countries in the world run by psychopaths, and even letting them sit around and ignoring them isn't enough to get them to keep their killing to themselves. If we had the power to do it, I'd be in favor of wiping out every corrupt regime on the planet. We likely don't have the power to do it, so one or two is good for now.

Justification for the war. Bush said Iraq had weapons and posed a threat. Let's assume (and I'm just assuming) that Iraq had no weapons and posed no threat. That means that Bush's words were untrue. Now for some reason people make the leap of judgment to say "He lied!". That would imply intent, and I see no reason to believe there was intent. Possibilities as I see it: 1) He lied. He knew we had no reason to go to war, so he made up a reason. 2) He guessed. He didn't know whether Iraq was a threat or not, so he took a blind guess, or made a biased decision based on factors other than the US's safety, and was wrong. 3) He had good reason to believe we had reason to go to war because Iraq was a threat, but he was still wrong. If the first, he's a liar. If the second, he's reckless or at least not entirely honest. If the third, I'm fine with it. I lean toward the third.

Foreign policy. I couldn't give less of a crap about foreign policy. The opinions about this country that matter stop at this country's borders. So long as we're not waging open war on our allies or something, or doing something that really harms our nation in some way, we should do what's in our own best interests, and Bush seems to.

Economy. I have no job, and computer jobs are bleeding out of the country right now, going overseas to dirt-poor countries like India, where people there will take $50,000-a-year jobs for the equivalent of less than a Taco Bell employee makes. If someone in India is willing to work for bread and water, why hire me here, who has a ridiculously high cost of living to maintain? Tech jobs are being destroyed in a way that people are comparing to the way farm jobs were destroyed by the rise of factories, and factory jobs were destroyed by the rise of computers. Is that Bush's fault? Well it's the habit to blame everything in the world on the President, so who knows. Bush had a huge tax cut, but no one in my family got a dime. I couldn't get a grant to go to college, but illegal aliens get free health care from the government, and Bush wants to invite another couple hundred thousand truckloads over the border. If I vote with my wallet, Bush wouldn't get my vote, but who knows. My sight is short, in the case of money, and I'm no economics professor, so I have to mostly ignore this issue. It's a great knee-jerker of an issue though.

Bush is probably owned by corporations and rich people, but who isn't? Money runs this country, whether I like it or not.

Philosophy. Bush is a religious whacko, and I don't care much for that. I get nervous when people start making references to deities when talking about the laws and dealings of this country. He's also apparently anti-gay people, and wants to make laws outlawing gay marriage if he can; I can't say I agree with that.

Environment. I can't say I could possibly give less of a crap about the environment, so long as we aren't causing mass-extinctions.

Abortion, he says he's anti-abortion except for rape and to save a mother, and I'm in agreement with that morally, if not legally.

There's all these Big Brother laws that people gripe about, because they "take away our freedom". I think if we destroyed more evil countries' regimes, we wouldn't need so many of those laws where innocent people are screened and prosecuted along with the bad guys. I can't agree with the idea that a broad enough net will catch all terrorists. There are too many people in the world to watch them all. There are too many chances to eliminate all possibility of harm. Crazy monitoring systems and giving the police super-powers and such are just treating the symptoms, not the problem. The problem is that so many of the mindless murderers of the world are still free and/or alive. Maybe it's not possible to catch / kill them all, but I'd rather see more effort going into that, or into digging countries out from under the weight of despotic dictators and the poverty and desperation that results, and such, than into pointless things like airport security which fail miserably time and time again.

And finally, the stupid arguments. "Bush is stupid!" Bush is a bad speaker, that's as far as I will accept that argument. I couldn't care less; so am I, and I'm not stupid. Bush says things that aren't completely true; let's see anyone consistently stand up to the ridiculous scrutiny of having every single one of your words analyzed, and every single move you make in public watched from a hundred angles. Actions bely words; I think people should judge the President on the big things that happen, the big actions and major decisions, not on the small things, not picking his words apart.

Like most voters, my opinions are ill-informed at best. A whole government's worth of people's opinions go into making every decision that's made, but we just throw "George Bush" out there as a figurehead or a symbol of the administration as though he's the King of America. We see a few minutes worth of public speech on the TV, which is the tip of the iceberg of the 4 YEARS worth of Presidency by which we rightfully should be judging him. We don't have that knowledge. We get to make a guess. And we're all voting for our own self-interests; there's not a person in the country who is doing otherwise. In fact that's the whole point of voting; to vote for our self-interests. The process is almost emotionally biased by defintion. But I guess we make do with what we can.

So anyways, will I vote for him. It's hard to decide. So far of the democrats I've seen super-liberal nut-cases, or else people who say "Vote for me; I'm not George Bush!" That's not good enough for me. I'm leaning towards either voting for Bush or not voting at all; probably not voting. But there's a long time to still think about it, and I've only just begin to consider it. I won't vote for a non-Bush by default though, as many people seem willing to do. Better the evil you know than the evil you don't.

[eestlinc]

Reasons why Howard Dean would make a good president:

1. Dean is a fiscal conservative. As governor of Vermont he tooka record decifit and made it into a surplus without raising huge taxes and while providing health care to 99% of children in the state. Bush by contrast has run up huge deficits while simultaneously lowering taxes for the wealthiest americans. You can't increase spending humoungously and cut your income.

2. Dean isn't owned by large corporations. He has almost exclusively financed his campaign from small donations on the internet from individual voters. Bush collects huge donations from corporations in exchange for favors.

3. Dean has been consistently against the war in Iraq. He rightly acknowledges that Saddam Hussein was never an imminent threat to the United States. He might have been a threat 10 yearsd ago but sanctions and UN efforts had reduced his capacity to put up any fight. Osama Bin Laden is a threat, Saddam is not. Obviosuly Saddam is a bad man and is better out of power, but Bush hasn't fixed anything for Iraqis. People laugh about Dean claiming we weren't any safer now that Saddam is captured, but now that we have destroyed the Saddam government, Iraq is anarchic and a haven for terrorists. If anything, toppling Saddam has strengthened Al Qaeda. Saddam never supported them anyway. It's the Saudis who support Al Qaeda.

4. Dean stands up and speaks the truth. Bush lies constantly.

That is enough for now...

[Bahamut2000X]

I agree mostly with waht Dr. Unne said. I support Bush and especially the war. Although one thing I dislike is that so many people assume he lied to get us into war, but most everyone just ignores the countless spies we had in Iraq before the war who gathered information classified top secret. And then people just forget that top secret means they don't reveal the details if not even the infomation to the public. I mean in 50 or so years we'll probally get a full detailed report of every weapon of mass destruction Saddam had probally. Although people also seem to forget that Saddam broke nearly every law the UN passed on him, including the law that he was not to build weapons like Scuds, and within minutes of the war scuds start flying from his sides to ours.

As for the philosphy that Dr. Unne mentioned, I never knew about that (then again I never pay much attention to politics.) but from the sound of it I fully disagree with Bush's religious views on anti gay and all that such.

Well that's all I can think of to say.

[Mr. Mojo Risin]

Hmmmmm

Iraq. Another extension of US hegemony. No I don't blame Bush personally, I blame the people around him. I cringe at the tought that the Reagan administration is still in power. They're the most regressive power concentration in the last century. What's interesting is that these same people, like Rumsfield, supported Saddam through his worst atrocities and when a popular movement tried to overthrow him, this administration suppressed the rebellion. Then we supported despots, like Marcos, in the Phillipeans(sp?) and the Panama. We are also currently supporting a dictatorship in Mexico and since NAFTA poverty has doubled and wages have been cut in half. I find it highly unlikely that this administration wants to end poverty and dictatorships when they endorse them right next door and even in the poorest communities in the US. Colin Powell has admitted that there was no connection to terrorists and the intelligence community has admitted there is no weapons of mass destruction. So, basically this war was a pile of poop.

Foreign Policy. I will, respectfully, disagree with Unne's assessment. Bad foreign policy can cause resentment amongst the world, particularly our 7.5 billion dollars per year to Israel.

Economy. Yes, those conditions are every President's direct responsibility. Treaties like NAFTA allow businesses to control profits directly for their benefit. Jobs are being shipped out but big business doesn't suffer a lick, neither do large banks and investors. A progressive administration would not allow a company to ship jobs out for their own profit. Keeping jobs here has tremendous benefits. Big companies get subsudized and put a mailbox in the caribbean to avoid taxes while the rest of us foot the bill of rising education and health costs. We should be subsidizing universities, the poorest public schools, and clinics. Instead, worldcomm gets a contract in Iraq for "wireless communications" and GE gets a very generous 10 billion dollar a year subsidy contract. Our whole society is being put on the market. If you're poor, you won't get an education, you'll die of curable disease and live in tremendous debt. The the past 4 administrations(including clinton) have supported such neoliberal policies.

Bush is wacky. As governor, he had the power to stop a mentally retarded person from being executed but choose not to. UGGGHHHH!

I'm for abortion until the beginning of the second trimester. That gives a woman plenty of time to decide. This is the only solution that seems reasonable to me personally.

I'm guessing you're referring to the Patriot Act. Well, 2 parts have been deemed unconstitutional already and other parts are being challenged in court. Being able to detain people without a judges's permission for an indefinite amount of time is a clear violation of civil rights. And then denying them legal counsel is worse. The Patriot Act was designed to lock down basic civil liberties, it does not deal with national security in anyway. A possible extension of the Patriot Act includes stripping people of their US citizenship without a trail! How does that deter terrorists who don't have citizenships?

You're right, most voters are stupid. That's why I'll never vote for a Democrate or a Republican. I personally always vote for the populist movement.

[eestlinc]

Originally posted by goyabean
You're right, most voters are stupid. That's why I'll never vote for a Democrate or a Republican. I personally always vote for the populist movement.

I agree with you 100% on that post, but I must say there is a populist movement being led by Howard Dean.

[Azure Chrysanthemum]

A chance to gripe about Bush, pince me I must be dreaming.

Iraq: Whatever happened to Laissez-faire? What ever happened to America not attacking any country unless it was provoked or endangered? Iraq was not a threat. Also, there is the fact that, though I actually might have supported the war if it were to remove a despot, I support no war that requires us to flout the UN and that was presented under... let's just say questionable pretenses. Also, I do not believe that Bush will go after any other dictator. He wanted Saddam, he got Saddam. I do not feel we were justified in this attack, and I do not feel that the cost of lives, both among the American military and the Iraqi civilians are worth it. We are attacking the way of life of the Iraqis, they find us immoral and, to some degree, evil. We shouldn't be there.

Foreign Policy: Like it or not we are not the only country, and we are definitely not strong enough to defend ourselves from a coalition of superpowers who feel that America is becoming too agressive and power hungry. The feelings of the rest of the world matter, we should not be hated and reviled, it is dangerous and unproductive.

Economy: Frankly I find Bush's economic plans highly suspect. Many protest that its all Clinton's fault, saying that the economy is the result of the former president. My contention is that Clinton had two terms, and the economic boom was in his second. And even with a regression this big, we had a surplus, that going to the largest deficit in US history doesn't strike me as sound economic planning.

Philosophy: Seperation of Church and State still exists, whether Bush likes it or not. Also, this same amendment makes all anti-homosexual laws completely unconstitutional.

Environment: It doesn't hurt to go the extra mile to protect the environment instead of recklessly destroying it.

Abortion: Though morally I agree, I feel I don't have the right as I am neither female, nor am I likely to get a girl pregnant in the near future. If I were, I would strongly fight against having an abortion, and be willing to raise the child on my own if need be. However, I am not in this position, so I will not argue it.

Bush's Stupidity: I am willing to accept that he isn't stupid. Doesn't make it any less amusing to listen to him speak though.

I will not vote for Bush unless I feel him to be the lesser of two evils, and the Democrats, at this time, seem far preferable.

[Chickencha]

So as to keep some semblance of order in this post, I'll (for the most part) use the topics Unne brought up in his original post, in his order.

The war in Iraq - I was completely against it. I would say I am still, but what's done is done. I support the reconstruction efforts because I think we have an obligation to clean up our mess, but I don't think that Bush has really put a lot of thought into what will actually be done. Furthermore, he's decreased the likelihood of intenational support by going in unilaterally.

Justification for the war - There was none. Many (if not all) of the documents the Bush administration used to show that Iraq had WMDs came from bad sources. We've found nothing so far but "related program activities," whatever those are. I think it's fine that we toppled Saddam's regime, but I think the means to that end were poor ones. Bush wants us to think that there are reasons or important pieces of information we don't know about, but I really don't think that's the case. For the sake of the country, though, I hope it is. Otherwise, we look pretty bad on the international level.

Foreign policy - What other countries think of us does matter. Unilateralism is a really bad policy. Bush promotes an extremely selfish foreign policy. There are a bunch of other countries out there and just because the United States thinks it's more powerful and more important than them doesn't mean it should do whatever it wants.

Economy - The deficit in its current state is bad news. Bush claims to be fiscally conservative, but he hasn't proven it. Reagan economics (the "logic" used in Bush's tax cuts) are just plain dumb. I'm not going to use Bush as a scapegoat for job losses because I don't know enough about economics to back myself up, but I think the deficit and the tax cuts are reason enough to not vote for Bush on the economic level.

Philosophy - Having a man who preaches religion in his political speeches scares me. I have no problem with religion whatsoever, but I'm a firm believer in separation of church and state. Bush has blurred those already unclear lines even further.

Environment - Bush's environmental policies are appalling. He claims that the environment is important to him, but his administration's policies don't reflect that one bit. Many of his staff members in charge of environment are actually former lobbyists that lobbied in favor of polluters. Bush's problem with the environment is that it interferes with business now, but in the long run it hurts business to have poor environmental standards. A common theme in many of Bush's policies seems to be the concentration on the present, rather than on the future and the long run.

Social issues - Here's where I think Bush gets really offensive. His view on gay marriage (and gays in general) is just plain hateful. I agree with his pro-life stance morally, but not politically. (There's no right choice when it comes to deciding on abortion.)

Freedoms - The Patriot Act goes too far. That's all I have to say.

Education - If you want to know how unsuccessful No Child Left Behind has been, just talk to any teacher in the country about it. I can almost guarantee that that teacher will have nothing but bad things to say about it. What do teachers know about education, anyway?

"Bush is stupid!" - I don't think Bush is that stupid. I think he's easily manipulated (and easily manipulates) and not a very good public speaker, but I don't think he's stupid. I'd probably like him more if I did think he was stupid. The way things look now, he's doing all these horrible things on purpose.

I won't be voting for Bush. I won't necessarily be voting democrat either, but I probably will. If Dean gets the nomination, I'll vote third party. There are a few other democrats I wouldn't vote for, but it doesn't look like they have a chance at this point.

[Casey]

1. Dean is a fiscal conservative.

IMO, hes not conservative, he is far left... Liberal.

My opinion on Bush is, he doing a good job.

Tax cuts is what we need, unlike democrates taxes... I dont know why people say tax cuts bad, I myself think tax cuts needed for low income people. Like a payroll check taxcut depending on your income.

Economy, well yea defecit... We owe money?? I know its sky rocketing but its slowly recovering now from 9/11, afghanistan war+ iraq war.

An his foriegn policy I agree.. ''The United States, doesnt need a permission slip to defend are security....''. And this war for oil is total bs, only reason other countries oppose the war is because they had oil contracts with Iraq. Plan and simple, and were not profitting off this war spending billions on rebuilding Iraq. But one thing we are profitting off is the future of the middle east, will it stabelize??


An also Im all for anti-abortion. Because Abortion is like legalized murder, if the woman didnt want the baby in the first place she shouldve used a friggin condom, the pill, or some responsiblity, and if she was rapped or either way, doesnt want the baby? give it up for adoption.

[eestlinc]

Dean is much more conservative with money than Bush. Bush spends HUGE amounts of money. That's not very conservative, or very wise, especially when combined with tax cuts.

[Skogs]

George Bush only attacked Iraq because of oil. The war on terror only gave him an excuse to. Iraq was never a threat and George Bush knew that. The plight of the Iraqi people had nothing to do with the Iraq war. If that were the case, why isn't the Bush administration trying to sort out the situation in Africa, where the humanitarian crisis is far, far worse than it was in Iraq.

I also made a comment about Bush handling of foreign policy and world opinion in a thread just before the server switch. I don't suppose someone with access to the backups could fish that out?

[Bahamut2000X]

Why does everyone think we're in Iraq for oil. Look at the facts, we have NO extra oil after taking Iraq and we haven't gotten any oil from Iraq in the past. So how can anyone say it's about us stealing the oil if we aren't taking any? So please explain how, we're after thier oil by leaving it there and not touching it? The closest we've come to taking it is by stopping Saddam's men from burning all the oil fields. I just don't see any proof to the idea that we're there for oil is even slightly true.

[DocFrance]

Ya know, it's really easy to say that we shouldn't be in Iraq right now from the comfort of your safe, warm home. Try asking the men and women who are living and dying right now in that hell-hole - I guarantee most (if not all) of them will say that this is what needs to be done.

[Shadow Nexus]

Bah, you know I hate Bush. Kind of....I'm tired of justifying my reasons. He's an imperialist blablabla his speechest are sophistic blahblah he's maniacheist blah blah blah I'm a baby eating tree-hugging greenie commie with black dots. Thats all, you know I am really tired of talking about it. He just sucks from nearly every philosophical point of view, and the philosophical point of views from the ones he dosen't are exactly the ones I opose to.

I personally always vote for the populist movement.

OK, about that, I don't know exactly what populism is in English, but in my language "populismo" stands for a political strategy that consists in winning elections not with real merits, but just for being popular. Example, in Chile, Lavin (Preety right winged) went to the poor sectors of Santiago and started giving away kitchen equipment. He also did an artifical beach in Mapocho. Populism is basically that, electoralism and demagogy. Like, before the elections, Bush starts this plan for nice immigrants to stay more on the country and . Thats electoralism, compete populism. Kissing babies or going on humanitarian good deed before the elections is populism too. Thats why I keep saying democracy has degenerated into a populism.

Ya know, it's really easy to say that we shouldn't be in Iraq right now from the comfort of your safe, warm home.

Yes

[KingAlces]

Truth be told, Bush ought not to have been president anyway. Now it's time that fate catches up with him, and he leaves the office.

And why, ye Republicans might ask?

Because he has not been leading America in a healthy direction.

He has (or at least tried to)

-Mandate the overdemanding "No Child Left Behind" program while at the same time cutting funding from public schools.

-Sent troops to war yet cut armed forces' pay and veteran benefits.

-Started with the biggest tax surplus in history and eventually created the largest national debt in history

-He had the audacity to call an unconstitutional policy "The Patriot Act," asserting that his definition of patriotism was the only true one.

And with regard to the war, I'm not sure I'd put a whole lot of blame on him directly for the WMD claim that turned out to be a load of bull. The CIA had been overzealous to prove a falsehood, and Bush liked what he heard from them.

Iraq needed help, and Hussein needed to go away, but we probably could've gone about it with a much better way. If Bush had been smart, he would've been sneaky about it. The CIA has committed sneaky acts before and arranged displacements of government (read: assassinations or coups). If Bush had been smart, he would've invaded Iraq with a crack-team of assassins, gotten rid of Hussein, and then rebuilt the country quickly with newleadership without having to bomb the place and ruin the infrastructure.

History would've hated Bush for it, but from a leadership standpoint, it would've been more cost-effective and less deadly. Instead, Bush went to Iraq with guns blazing, instilling a fear in the general public of a foreign threat that didn't exist. He got there and got Saddam, but he had no realistic plans for how to rebuild Iraq. Colin Powell had said from the beginning that we don't have the resources to do this, and Bush ignored him for so long that Colin just gave up saying it.

We can't keep Bush in office. Not only do we need a feasible rebuilding of Iraq, we need to rebuild our own country. We need to bring back jobs in this nation. We need to bring back trust in the office of the President. We need a president who can write his own speeches, or at least not sound like an idiot when he reads off a speechcard.

And as for the alternatives...

I am generally unimpressed with Dr. Dean. Hee-aaaah!
Kucinich doesn't have a chance in the world, and he's more liberal than most healthy human beings ought to be.
Sharpton doesn't really want to be president, he just wants delegates at the Democratic National Convention to have influence on the party platform. I respect that.
Kerry seems like a decent guy. And Clark is very responsible.

But I've been in support of Edwards from the beginning. I've actually met the guy, and that makes a world of difference. He hasn't been the most notable of senators here in North Carolina, but he did his job to the best of his ability while juggling the presidential race at the same time.

My only problem is this... I'm registered as an independent, and in North Carolina, only party members can vote in the primary. And I don't particularly feel like joining the Democratic party.... by the time we get a primary it'll be pretty much decided anyway.

[Mr. Mojo Risin]

Originally posted by Shadow Nexus
OK, about that, I don't know exactly what populism is in English, but in my language "populismo" stands for a political strategy that consists in winning elections not with real merits, but just for being popular. Example, in Chile, Lavin (Preety right winged) went to the poor sectors of Santiago and started giving away kitchen equipment. He also did an artifical beach in Mapocho. Populism is basically that, electoralism and demagogy. Like, before the elections, Bush starts this plan for nice immigrants to stay more on the country and . Thats electoralism, compete populism. Kissing babies or going on humanitarian good deed before the elections is populism too. Thats why I keep saying democracy has degenerated into a populism.

I was using the dictionary definition of pupulism, meaning anybody who supports policies for ordinary people, rather than the privileged elite. I see it as the first step to ending corporate capitalism.

Dean isn't a populist. He puts on a show just like everybody else.

oh....there won't be any Iraqi oil for several years but there is *cough*Haliburton*cough* great opportunity right now for kickbacks and corporate profiteering.