- #1
Zero
Anyone? And, to simplify, I could prefer that we start with one claim, post some links, and figure out that one before moving on to the next...
Originally posted by Zero
No one has a positive assertion to make?
Ok, so, if you are a millionaire arms dealer, you are better off thanks to Bush?Originally posted by pelastration
I believe I found one: He really supports the US weapon industry and insures that way 'extra' jobs !
I don't believe Gore would have done this better.
Some 'holes' in Florida made the difference.
Aren't those millionaire arms dealers telling Bush what to do? They give him the comics to read.Originally posted by Zero
Ok, so, if you are a millionaire arms dealer, you are better off thanks to Bush?
Now, now...I was hoping for some serious discussion here...making fun of Bush's intelligence isn't getting us anywhere.Originally posted by pelastration
Aren't those millionaire arms dealers telling Bush what to do? They give him the comics to read.
I am sure one of them is Superman.
I was hoping that someone would make a supportable argument for re-electing Bush...I honestly don't see one, but obviously not everyone who votes for him is a slobbering moron.Originally posted by Mattius_
Well, Zero, What do you expect, you have posted this in a forum full of educated people... Educated people arrive at the same conclusions.
On the other hand, one could say that Bush has been given a ****ty hand to play with... IMO, these have been two pretty terrible years for a conservative leader. Ofcourse he can manipulate the general public, as any president can, and still attain the majority will. But he cannot manipulate the educated; Eventually, the educated will manipulate the general public against the conservative.
One could say that under Bush, the **** has slid down hill slower.
If that is a positive thing...
Why is Bush a good president?
Educated people arrive at the same conclusions.
Not good compared to anyone...can you present stand-alone reasons that Bush is a good president?Originally posted by kat
"Good" compared to who?
Ok. But why ??Originally posted by Hurkyl
I object.
Ha ! Ha ! HA !Originally posted by pelastration
When cultures (based on supremacy of race or religion) clash on the world map (cfr. Former Yugoslavia, Palestine, ...) we always see growth of extremism and the behavior which embeds aggression and motives for terrorism. We see always that action causes reaction.
Tolerance is the key to a better world.
So a question arises: Why does US (Bush) fears of the International Court of Justice (http://www.icj-cij.org/). Are there things we don't know? Did Clinton had the same problems with the ICJ? No.
This is the something that would be better served in a separate thread, not discussed here.Originally posted by pelastration
I think good or bad are just perception definitions in relation to each one's goals, ideas or ethics.
For sure Bush or his administration have done a number of good things. But other may be called doubtful.
My concern is that a number of his decisions may be based on pure religious motives, pure fundamentalist believes (like being be chosen not only by the voters but also by God ... with the task to bring his will on Earth). On Internet I found indications on that but I don't know how solid these are.
So if Bush has not only a RED telephone direct with Putin but also a direct BLUE telephone line with God then we may have a problem.
We see a number of similar world leaders like that: the Iranese top, Sharon, the Pope, ... whom all 'believe' they represent a 'chosen group' and have an "un-doubtful right" to tell others how everything should be organized and settled.
History shows were extremes can lead: Stalin and Pol-Pot (pseudo religion), Hitler ( superior race), ...
There is something like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and I believe that is very important.
(http://www.un.org/rights/50/decla.htm )
Article 2.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
Fundamentalist standpoint's are in essence anti-democratic, and in a certain extend even racist if a certain group is give a natural supremacy given by God. They deny that other have similar rights as themselves.
When cultures (based on supremacy of race or religion) clash on the world map (cfr. Former Yugoslavia, Palestine, ...) we always see growth of extremism and the behavior which embeds aggression and motives for terrorism. We see always that action causes reaction.
Tolerance is the key to a better world.
So a question arises: Why does US (Bush) fears of the International Court of Justice (http://www.icj-cij.org/). Are there things we don't know? Did Clinton had the same problems with the ICJ? No.
Originally posted by Zero
Not good compared to anyone...can you present stand-alone reasons that Bush is a good president?
If there are no 'good' presidents, then at least we can ask if their policies have the promised outcomes, and whether those outcomes are a positive or negative for all of us.Originally posted by kat
I can't remember a "good" president..not any of those I remember from the last 4 decades at least. No, wait, I take that back...Carter was a "good" president, but he was not a very effective one.
Is that something Bush is responsible for? How many terrorists attacks have there been on U.S. soil total? (I assume you mean foreign terrorism)Originally posted by Mattius_
Ok, i just thought of something positive about bush.
There haven't been anymore terrorist attacks on u.s. soil.
Really? He did that? Is that the goal of the military? And would there have been less casualties if he had done things differently?Originally posted by Mattius_
Also, He has kept US casualties low in both Afghanistan and Iraq.
Zero, I thought the question was if he was "good"? Now you seem to be asserting that unless he's perfect, he can't be good.Originally posted by Zero
Really? He did that? Is that the goal of the military? And would there have been less casualties if he had done things differently?
Originally posted by Mattius_
Also, He has kept US casualties low in both Afghanistan and Iraq.
That's an...interesting(?) argument. You don't care about the purpose of the invasion of Afghanistan, and you don't care if the president lies to the American people about why our troops and Iraqi civilians are dying? Wow, honesty, cool!Originally posted by Mattius_
Who really cares if the taliban and al-qaeda got away? they arent here, and they haven't been able to get here, so who the hell cares?
secondly, the war in iraq was much more than wmd's it was aimed to do a multitude of other things. Sure he lied about wmd's but it was his justification to get other things on his agenda done.
Two questions:Originally posted by russ_watters
Zero, I thought the question was if he was "good"? Now you seem to be asserting that unless he's perfect, he can't be good.
And yes, keeping casualties low is a goal of the military's leadership, which includes both the uniformed and civilian leadership.
In any case, the primary thing that I see from Bush that is good is leadership. Its the reason presidents have a high approval rating during time of war, but it is very difficult to quantify.
they arent here, and they haven't been able to get here
Who really cares if the taliban and al-qaeda got away? they arent here, and they haven't been able to get here, so who the hell cares?
Can I ask you a question? How do you balance the idea that Iraq was a threat to the U.S. with the fact that we steamrolled over Iraq with minimal casualties?Originally posted by Mattius_
Secondly, Last time I checked, the civilian casualty count was not available... so how can YOU begin to postulate our brutality? Also, last time i checked, losing a couple hundred soldiers in a war which removes another person from power is UNPRECEDENTED IN HISTORY. k?
please try to avoid being a product of the media. Thx!
the war in iraq was much more than wmd's it was aimed to do a multitude of other things. Sure he lied about wmd's but it was his justification to get other things on his agenda done.