bush's approval rating

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by DanS
Good for you. You must realize that Louis Farrakhan can also turn out that many people. Haven't seen him have much of an electoral impact.

Farrakhan hardly got 200,000 to show up to his ordeal, and his mission was not to make an electoral impact, but to make black men make an affirmation towards their communities.

Likewise, the war protests were not organized to make an electoral impact, per se, but they did display an incredibly deep displeasure at the war.

I guess you would have to be a protester to understand the level of commitment it takes just to have everyone show up at the same time, at the same place, and the feeling of solidarity it brings. And a lot of people care deeply about a lot of issues, but you will never see 100,000 protesting about healthcare, or taming the deficit.
Judge Moore got maybe a couple of hundred to protest the removing of the ten commandments.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by johncmcleod
Bush is a terrible president.

He has completely destroyed our reputation in the international community, and many more people have been recruited as terrorists around the world because of his actions.

Do you have a source for your assertion that "many more people have been recruited as terrorists around the world because of his actions"?. One could look at the trends and wonder which way things are going. Certainly a lot of Islamist groups around the globe have had their organizations disrupted, some severely. Not only in Western countries either. Saudi Arabia is getting into regular firefights with Al Quaeda these days. A number of actions have also occurred in Yemen. These aren't terrorist attacks I'm talking about, but attacks on terrorist groups by governments that previously were loathe to lift a finger against these groups.

Originally posted by johncmcleod
Bush invaded Afghanistan, has weakened their economy and in everywhere except Kabul the country is torn apart by violence. Warlords rule the country and they are unchallenged by the US.

Bush has weakened the Afghani economy? How so? How could one tell? The country is torn apart by violence? Not really. I bet if you asked someone who has lived there a while (and who knows a thing or two about being torn apart by violence) you'll find that the average Afghani doesn't have nearly so bleak a picture of what's happening there. Also, we are presently warring with one of the "unchallenged "warlords (Hektamatyr, probably misspelled) and have him on the run. This will be a long process as we run every warlord who challenges central authority down one by one, but it is preferably to facing them all at once.

Originally posted by johncmcleod
He went into Iraq. Now the Iraqis have no security, infrastructure, and power and running water took months to get working. Thousands of lives have been lost, and are troops are now in a bad position. They are in a land where they are being attacked almost daily and the people do not want them there. A perfect situation for terrorists. So many more lives will be lost, and Iraq will become another brutal dictatorship (of course it will be on that supports the US).

Iraqis have no security? What the hell does that look like? What percentage of Iraqis are killed every day to justify that sort of statement? Are you saying that Iraqis also have no infrastructure? That would be stupid, but the way you've phrased it (and the general quality of your post) I can't tell what you mean. Or are you saying that Iraq's infrastructure "took months to get working"? That's kind of stupid as well, as much of it was never in any distress, while other parts are still out of order. As for electricity and water, they are now more plentiful (in total) than before the war.

Originally posted by johncmcleod
Bush has also put the country into the biggest national deficit the country has ever seen. It could destroy our economy. And to 'fix it,' he cut taxes to make it way worse. I just don't understand my opponents' point of view on this situation. Since when is it good to be in major debt?

Don't you follow the news, or are you simply incapable of puting events into their proper order? This stuff only happened a couple of years ago, so it seems as though you should be able to follow the simple steps in order.

Bush championed a series of tax cuts in his first year in office in order to "stimulate the economy". At the time these tax cuts were introduced we were already in the opening phase of the Clinton recession, but tax projections were sky high (thanks to both the White House and CBO hoping to leave a lot of room for pork). In this atmosphere a series of tax cuts were passed by Congress with some important support from Democrats. Then came 9/11 which no matter how you slice it had a terrific impact on our economy directly, and caused an enormous flurry of government spending. Not only the invasion of Afghanistan, but all that homeland security crap that the Dems were trying to make an issue of as well as enormous expenditures to secure allies in various parts of the world against Al Quaeda etc.

Finally, there was the optional item on Bush's agenda, Iraq. This item is a real budget buster no matter how you slice it. It makes the tax cut look like lawn mowing money in comparison. If you want to ***** about fiscal sanity here's a good place to start. Of course you might also want to realize that the Congress starting in the Clinton administration was raising the budget at about 8% a year while simultaneously doing very little in the way of new programs. At least half of that was pork, pure and simple. It's good to have another person around who cares about deficit spending, and isn't simply looking for a cheap excuse to spew vitriol about a politician that they hate.

So your phrasing above is terrible. Bush does the tax cut thing to "fix" the economy and relieve Americans of a small portion of their tax bill. Then a lot of expensive sh!t happens and the budget goes to hell, and then he decides to invade Iraq and provides a golden handbasket for it.

Originally posted by johncmcleod
Bush has also turned the country into a country filled with nationalistic, zealous fanatics that believe the country can do no wrong and that Bush is on a quest to spread liberty throughout the world.

I am so old that I remember what this country was like before Bush took office in 2001. I can assure you that this country was already filled with every sort of annoying fanatic imaginable. Bush had nothing to do with this one.

Originally posted by johncmcleod
Bush has done absolutley nothing for the environment.

He never promised that he would.

Originally posted by johncmcleod
Bush is also spreading the message that international law and the rest of the world's opinion does not matter. Not to mention his policies encourage nuclear proliferation.

Your best point yet, too bad it comes as too little too late.

Originally posted by johncmcleod
Please, stop posting BS here. You are wasting everyone's time by making such idiotic statements. It is obvious that you live in the US, because you have been brainwashed to hate an entire ideology without understanding it to the point where you make rash generalizations that are so blatantly false it is almost funny. And you hate everyone who believes in that ideology. Such closed-mindness and blind hatred is dangerous. There are millions of people in the world you hate and you don't even know them.

Hey at least he's taking his hatred overseas where there is at least some excuse for the ignorance. You are at least as bad about people in your own country who you see everyday, and should know more about if you are going to actively hate them so much. Your post was crap, but this final paragraph screamed hypocrit so loudly that it made me respond.

[Ben Kenobi]

NeOmega:

Ben Kenobis B****

Shame you are just a prince, otherwise we could make an avatar bet.

I you lose, you agree to put up whatever I say in your location field provided it does not violate the rules of the forum. If I lose, you get to put whatever you want in my location field, again provided it does not violate forum rules.

You won't know until the election results what I want in your location field.

And I agree to wait for the primaries. It won't matter. Even a Dean / Clark ticket won't do the trick for the dems.

Those acceptable terms?

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Those acceptable terms?

Sounds like fun. 3 months on the location field. I will not do it for any other candidate except Dean, since my statement was based on Dean's grassroots support.

[Ned]

Dittos to Sikander's post.

JohnC, your post is so ignorant as to be pathetic. Where in the world do you get your information on world events?

[atawa]

Compared to what you have been proclaiming in this thread me thinks he's making better points by far.

Seems you only state soundbites and when someone responds with actual arguments the best you can do is respond with personal insults.

[Ned]

atawa, do you have something to contribute here rather than to defend JohnC's rant? I said I agreed with Sikander. Do I need to repeat everything he said?

[DanS]

Farrakhan hardly got 200,000 to show up to his ordeal, and his mission was not to make an electoral impact, but to make black men make an affirmation towards their communities.

I was downtown that weekend. I can assure you that it was closer to 1 million than 200,000. I've seen more than my share of these demos.

The anti-war movement didn't/doesn't have a tenth of the intensity of feeling that the million man march had.

[johncmcleod]

We're not supposed to argue on this thread or it will get closed.

And when I said he made a tax cut after Iraq, I was talking about the one he made for the rich after the budget deficit was out of control.

And the reason I'm mad at Bush for doing nothing for the environment is not that he promised he would. You argument is like saying: "It's OK Bush made the world a worse place, he didn't promise he'd make it a better one." The fact is, we are completely trashing our world and straining it to the point where we will face some serious problems in the future.

Though I can't argue, I guess I'll clarify my posts so we can all understand them better. For the first argument, my source is common sense. The Arab people think the war in Iraq is another war by a colonial power to loot a Muslim nation. You can't deny that the Arabs hate the US and their war. The US decided to invade an Arab country, and it was a decision the rest of the world hated. This is exactly what terrorist recruiters such as OBL want.

As for when I said Iraq has no infrastructure, what I meant was it was destroyed by the invasion. It took months for running water and power. And as for when I said there is no security, I was mostly referring to the earlier months of the war, when the Iraqi people were scared to leave their homes and the looting was out of control.

As for the religious zealots, wheat I meant is they are now all united together on a crusade. They are also gaining power, which is a scary thought.

Why are you accusing me of hate? I did not say the word 'hate' in my post. However, Ned specifically hates socialists and communists. I don't hate anyone. The religious fanatics are very annoying to me, but I don't hate them. The same goes for the right. I have different political opinions then they do, and because I live in Idaho, I am surrounded by conservatives who actually believe if we don't do something Saddam will atack us with nuclear weapons. This kind of stupidity frustrates me, and you can see why I am frusturated with the Republican party, but do I hate them? Of course not. I believe George Bush is a terrible president. I disagree with almost all of his policies, and I can't stand the way he is making the US look, but I don't hate him.

Just because I have different opinions than you does NOT mean that I am a hateful person.

[johncmcleod]

atawa, do you have something to contribute here rather than to defend JohnC's rant? I said I agreed with Sikander. Do I need to repeat everything he said?

Ned, do you have anything to contribute here rather than tell us how much you hate people that disagree with you?

[Ned]

Originally posted by johncmcleod


Ned, do you have anything to contribute here rather than tell us how much you hate people that disagree with you?

JohnC, Why are you putting words into my mouth?

Also, answer my question to you. From where do you learn your world current events? The reason I ask is quite obvious to a reader of your post.

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by DanS
The anti-war movement didn't/doesn't have a tenth of the intensity of feeling that the million man march had.

Tenth? Really? Exactly which alogorithm do you use to determine "intensity" ratings?

The D.C. police said 200-300,000 showed up to the million man march. I don't remember how many marched in D.C. during the day of protest. Regardless, you are comparing apples and centipedes. MMM was well planned over a long period of time and national, the anti-war protest was local and had much less planning. Hvaing been to a couple of protests, it always seems there are more people than what the police say, and maybe there is, regardless, if the police underestimated the MMM, I am sure they undserestimated the war protests also.

As I stated before, MMM was a reaffirmation fo commitment to peoples communities, not really a political statement against the Clinton administration. The anti-war protests were.

Thirdly, you brought this MMM up because I said the feelings of the anti-war people was deep. For the people who showed up to protest, I guarantee there are many others who are not that political, but still are going to vote against Bush because of the war. Unfortunately for me, living in Wa. state, that probably just means Bush will get even a lower % than he did in 2000 during the election in Wa. state, but that is my observation.

[MOBIUS]

Look! Some sensible Americans in the UK!

How dare Bush take over our capital - we are allowed to protest if we want to!

[Evil Knevil]

Originally posted by Ned


You cannot possibly think this is amuzing. I hope you don't mind if I forward this post on to the proper authorities?

If u want to be jackass, go ahead.

Since there isn't going to be an open-top tour down the mall it's going to be tricky. A suicide bomber running at the front of his limo *may* be successful.

Or, with greater ease, plug him with a reactivated replica when he visits Sedgefield on his third day and is on foot, and in front of the press.

*bang* *bang*: "Does that answer wether I'm with or against, you bastard"

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by Evil Knevil
*bang* *bang*: "Does that answer wether I'm with or against, you bastard"

I'd throw such a big fat party.

[Ned]

Evil, Done. You are reported.

I hope you are aware that you have committed a felony in the United States by twice threatening to assassinate the president of the United States.

[Ned]

Moderators, I think it your civic duty to also report these threats to the proper authorities.

[Ned]

Originally posted by NeOmega


I'd throw such a big fat party.

NeOmega, do you want to join the list of felons?

[atawa]

Originally posted by Ned
Moderators, I think it your civic duty to also report these threats to the proper authorities.

Are you for real?

[Ned]

atawa, these are criminal threats in the United States. I would think the moderator should do something. They might even have a legal duty to do so.

[Sandman]

Ned, I plan to kill Bush by crushing his limo between two logs, Ewok-style.

Do I get on your list?

[Ned]

Sandman, no, because you are obviously joking. Evil's posts appear to be authentic threats.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Ned
Evil's posts appear to be authentic threats.

Now would people JUST CHILL... enough with the personal insults.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ned
atawa, these are criminal threats in the United States. I would think the moderator should do something. They might even have a legal duty to do so.

Actually, I've dealt with USSS on related issues, of a more serious note, in a rather different context.

1 - It's not a crime for a foreign national outside the US to wish all sorts of nasty things on POTUS

2 - It's not a crime to say you'd cheer, or that all sorts of nasty things should happen to POTUS.

3 - It is a crime to actually make threats to carry out an assassination attempt.

In reality, the latter is rarely prosecuted, and then generally when someone is starting to act in that direction, on their own, or in a group, but they're caught before you can charge for an attempted assassination or conspiracy.

In other words, to paraphrase Ming: CHILL, LADIES

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Actually, I've dealt with USSS on related issues, of a more serious note, in a rather different context.

Have you been making funny money again?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Nah, I subcontract that work out.

[johncmcleod]

I hope you are aware that you have committed a felony in the United States by twice threatening to assassinate the president of the United States.

Ned, you taught me that the only thing that matters is whether or not the action is manly and not womanish. So, is it manly to be a tattle-tale?

[Ned]

Originally posted by johncmcleod


Ned, you taught me that the only thing that matters is whether or not the action is manly and not womanish. So, is it manly to be a tattle-tale?

JohnC, Note that I asked first to invite Evil to tone it down. He said go ahead instead.

[Ned]

Also, JohnC, I still would like to know where you get your information on world events. It's hard to debate issues when we do not even agree on the basic facts.

[Evil Knevil]

What a weenie.

Thankfully I'm a British citizen, so I won't get prosecuted until after I plug him.

Although Lazarus is right, I should focus on domestic issues and gun-down Tony instead. I think it'll be a helluva lot more satisfying to kill that smug bastard