Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Off-topic' started by Malum Prohibitum, Jul 17, 2007.
Politics of the Iraq War: Bush's tenure is heading for success
I disagree. I think history will judge him harshly.
Full Disclosure: I voted for him twice .. should have wrote in a name ... any name
That is a lie in so many ways it is sickening.
Does anyone actually support him anymore?
That is a lie in so many ways it is sickening.
Does anyone actually support him anymore?[/quote]
I support him fully. Has he made mistakes? Yes. But a man in his position is set up for falling at times. Do I agree with all his decisions? No. He is still the man I voted for Both terms and he is still the President of our great nation.
We people tend to forget what happened on 9/11 and how the outcry of the country was retribution for those responsible and those connected with that horrific act on our soil. When we went to war President Bush said it was not going to end soon and our nation backed him.
For those of you who think I am not old eneough to talk like this I will be 51 in November of this year. I have lived through Vietnam and if I could have gone I would have then. I lost a few good friends in that war. So I for one am tired of bashing our Presidents, even Carter and Clinton. I think President Bush has done a great job and will be remembered well in history.
"That all I got to say about that".
Do I agree with a lot of things he has done? No.
Am I glad that we had someone in the oval office on 9/11 that wouldn't back down and apologize? HELL YES!!!
Would I rather have Kerry, Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Gore, or any others like them in there, even now? HELL NO!!!
We Americans are always quick to forget just how good we have it. He may not be Reagan, but it could be much much much much much much worse.
+1 on TJ200 & Weeks comments.
I really didn't have a big problem with Bush up until his supporting of the Amnesty bill. I just don't understand where that came from at all.
I wish he had been more like Reagan but he sure a heck was/is better than anoy of the possible alternatives.
I did not support him even when he was running (I thought that "compassionate conservative" was another way of saying not conservative), and I have been very disappointed with the increasing growth of government both in terms of dollars and powers. With that having been said, I think his critics are far too harsh in what they say. This article pointed to some good things, not the least of which are Supreme Court appointments (once we got over that Harriet Meirs debacle - he did replace O'Connor with a conservative) and tax cuts.
On the war, I do not want to start a war debate, as I know strong feelings exist on both sides in this forum, but I think the article in the link has some interesting things to say on the issue.
Very good point MP.
I think the problem with the two party system is exactly that - only 2 choices.
The Republicans had to get someone they knew stood a chance to actually get elected even if they didn't exactly agree with their choice of candidate.
It wasn't that he got the nod because he was the best choice - he was simply the best shot at victory they could put up to keep the other side from gaining ground.
Ditto. I also think we wouldn't be in the mess we're in concerning the war if they'd let the military fight it the way they should, you know, with none of that touchy-feely can't-engage-until-I-run-my-checklist crap.
Thank you Geneva convention. Since when were there rules in war?
The only important thing when the SHTF is that you are the one that goes home at the end of the shift, day, month, year, war, whatever.
Expansion of the Federal Government in it size/bureaucracy [DHS]. A Federal deficiet that is a direct threat to our national sovereignty in the next half century. Expansion of Executive branch powers with an unparalleled use to making things secrets. A president who does not understand that presidents are subservient to the Congress [more a problem with modern presidents, than GWB]. Restrictions of freedoms across the board. A war of American aggression [Iraq].
He gets credit for no terrorist attacks since 9/11, but the price Americans are having to pay with their freedoms is too high a price to pay. The Founders would weep.
Completely agree - but what do you think would be going on if Gore or Kerry had gotten elected?
Gore really scares me.
Good question, but I will respond with a quote.
yes, i voted for him twice , i would vote for him again, and again!
I voted for him twice. Not so sure I would again though. He's unable to work with others and that bothers me.
I voted for in the last presidential election. I now regret my vote.
You're blaming that on the wrong party. He worked well with others including Democrats throughout his tenure as Texas governor. After the 2000 election crap in Florida, the Dems in Washington were not going to work with him, period. And they would have acted the same way If it had been anyone else. In school, that was called being a sore loser.
Read your Constitution again. The President is a check and a balance against Congress as much as the other way around. Yes, the Presidency has usurped powers not granted to it, but it is wrong to say it is subservient.
And what freedoms have you lost due to the war against the Islamicists? The freedom to call phone numbers from captured Al-Queda cell phones without possibly being listened to?
I voted for Badnarik.