[dgs212]

Well, do you? Feel free to answer regarding George W as a president, as a person, as a bumbling corrupt liar (not to be biased), as a lover, etc.

Personally, I feel he's a terrible person and president, and a selfish lover to boot.

[Face Ache]

Are you kidding me???!!!!!

I luuuurve G.W. Bush.

That guy has given me so many laughs it's not funny.

Mind you, I live in the most isolated capital city in the world (Perth, Western Australia) so I feel quite safe.

[dgs212]

Originally posted by Face Ache:
<STRONG>Are you kidding me???!!!!!

I luuuurve G.W. Bush.

That guy has given me so many laughs it's not funny.

Mind you, I live in the most isolated capital city in the world (Perth, Western Australia) so I feel quite safe. </STRONG>

I'm sure he's very funny across several thousand miles of ocean, but imagine if he was your Prime Minister. He'd be helping millionaires embezzle kangaroos and setting wild dingos loose in daycare centers.

[TNproud2b]

I like Dubya.

After eight years of Bill Clinton - anything is an improvement.

[ringo]

Not really. I'm concerned that he hasn't really said what our goals are with the new war. Wasn't that the problem in Vietnam?

[KellyHogan]

Last night I dreamt I was in a restaurant talking bad about the Bush family. Then I notice Dubya sitting at the next table. He's much older and all by himself.

I go up to him and explain why I think his family sucks. I told him something like 'Politics is dirty business and your family mixes politics and business. So logically your family is dirt'.' Dubya, for some reason he is depressed and lonely, admits to what I said to him. That was the dream.

[shanraghan]

Definitely werewolves.

[Face Ache]

I'm sure he's very funny across several thousand miles of ocean, but imagine if he was your Prime Minister. He'd be helping millionaires embezzle kangaroos and setting wild dingos loose in daycare centers.

We've got John Howard who is a bit like Bush's clueless cousin. He makes the same noises but doesn't know why.

But by definition, any "Australian" Prime Minister is benign. What's the worse that could happen down here?

Oh, yeah. Indonesia invading....

Did I mention I'm getting 5 acres in the hills of the most isolated capital city in the world?

[dgs212]

Originally posted by TNproud2b:
<STRONG>I like Dubya.

After eight years of Bill Clinton - anything is an improvement.</STRONG>

It's hard for me to be a Clinton apologist, what with his poor showing on welfare status (in my eyes) and corporate handouts, but it seems that most people dislike him because he *gasp* had sex with somebody. Alert the news! Convene a special senate subcomitee! The president *gasp* had sex! To quote Nell Carter: "Gimme a Break."

As far as Bush goes, please do yourself a favor (left wing or right) and read this Open Letter to George W Bush

Why do we let these *$#% get away with this stuff?

[ 03-03-2002: Message edited by: dgs212 ]

[ringo]

Why do we let these *$#% get away with this stuff?

Greed and Sloth. Most people don't care about the issues as long as they have a steady supply of cheap consumer goods and bad TV. The sheep are too scared that someone's gonna take away their Sony to bother with anything that can't be resolved in a corporate funded block of fine network programming. (4:45 AM rant over, must sleep......).

[TNproud2b]

nah. I didn't dislike Bill for cheating on his wife.

I disliked Bill because he lied about it.


But this debate is silly if you insist on giving presidents bonus points for spending more tax money...

[M�lum]

Bush is just another puppet president. Once the "war" is over, people will want to get rid of him soon.

Clinton (Bill), maybe only history will know, was one of the greatest US presidents of all time.

(just for reference; name your favourite presidents and check out their sex lives)

[theolein]

I dunno, I kind of liked Clinton. He seemed fallible, you know, human. Getting it off with some secretary I didn't find so bad and I only thought he was dumb to lie about it when everybody knew different.

Bush is probably a nice guy privately, but I can't get rid of the feeling that some people in his administration are really corrupt evil buggers, such as Cheney , Fleischer and Rumsfield. Every time I hear about Cheney, I think oil companies and energy scandals and for some reason (I'm prpobably just crazy) he always makes me think of JFK's assasination and conspiracy theories.

[driven]

Originally posted by dgs212:
<STRONG>

It's hard for me to be a Clinton apologist, what with his poor showing on welfare status (in my eyes) and corporate handouts, but it seems that most people dislike him because he *gasp* had sex with somebody. Alert the news! Convene a special senate subcomitee! The president *gasp* had sex! To quote Nell Carter: "Gimme a Break."

As far as Bush goes, please do yourself a favor (left wing or right) and read this Open Letter to George W Bush

Why do we let these *$#% get away with this stuff?

[ 03-03-2002: Message edited by: dgs212 ]</STRONG>

I could personally care less if he had an orgy on camera with pornstars of the 80's.

What I didn't like he that he lied about it and attempted to cover it up for no good reason. If he did all that to prevent his wife from finding out what would he have done if a foreign nation had the dirt on him?

I swear if he came right out and said "Yeah, I did it" he would have been stud #1 and one of the most popular presidents we ever had.

But covering up such a stupid little thing? That's a problem in my eyes.

[driven]

Originally posted by M�lum:
<STRONG>Bush is just another puppet president. Once the "war" is over, people will want to get rid of him soon.

Clinton (Bill), maybe only history will know, was one of the greatest US presidents of all time.

(just for reference; name your favourite presidents and check out their sex lives)</STRONG>

Mine would be Nixon (That's a qualified endorsement), Reagan (by far) and Carter (Not as a president, but as a person.)

[driven]

I like Bush. I like his administration.

(There I said it!)

The truth will set you free.

[theolein]

Originally posted by driven:
<STRONG>

Mine would be Nixon (That's a qualified endorsement), Reagan (by far) and Carter (Not as a president, but as a person.)</STRONG>

?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????????


<font color = red>question marks reduced so they don't hold the window open</font>

[ 03-03-2002: Message edited by: Demonhood ]

[Millennium]

Towards Bush himself, I'm neutral. He's not great, but I don't believe any of the other candidates in the loast election would have handled current events any better. Indeed, I think Gore and Nader would have been much worse; we may have had no 'Axis of Evil' speech but we could have kissed any semblance of freedom goodbye. Granted, we're certainly getting our rights eroded bit by bit under Bush, but at least there's still the opportunity to fight this; there would have been no such chance under anyone else. So while I can't say I like his lack of skill, that very lack of skill is what saved this country. I suppose I've got to give him some respect -if grudgingly- for that.

Then, though, there's Ashcroft. When he was being nominated, I defended him on the grounds that a person's religious beliefs -whatever they may be- are no grounds for keeping someone out of office. I still believe this, but I am ashamed at having defended a traitorous scumbag like him. He said he wouldn't attempt to project his religious beliefs into the law, and he flat-out lied.

[KellyHogan]

Originally posted by Millennium:
<STRONG>
Then, though, there's Ashcroft. When he was being nominated, I defended him on the grounds that a person's religious beliefs -whatever they may be- are no grounds for keeping someone out of office. I still believe this, but I am ashamed at having defended a traitorous scumbag like him. He said he wouldn't attempt to project his religious beliefs into the law, and he flat-out lied.</STRONG>

How did you even believe that in the first place?

[The Jackalope]

Originally posted by M�lum:
<STRONG>
Clinton (Bill), maybe only history will know, was one of the greatest US presidents of all time.

</STRONG>

If you count "shitting on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights" as points towards "Who's the greatest US Presidents", then, yeah, Billy-boy was up there. Not as high as Lincoln or FDR, but up there.

I think the only person that I can think of that ran seriously for president in the 20th century that I would have voted for (maybe) was Goldwater.

L Neil Smith is the only one nowdays. But he was only on the ballot in Arizona the last time...I wrote him in anyway.

[smacintush]

Yeah I like Bush. I never understood how the same people championing those with mental impairments and learning disabilities call him a bumbling idiot just because jumbles some words when he tries to make a speech. He is a lot more intelligent than people want to give him credit for, just check his college record and compare to the "brilliant" Gore.

It really gripes me too, how the Bush haters are just waiting for something like Enron to be linked to him to show how corrupt he is. George W. Bush, whether you like him or not, is one of the most honest presidents we have had in decades.

As for Clinton being "the greatest president of all time"�what exactly did he do? He engineered the largest tax hike in history which his weasel friends in congress willingly passed, he let terrorist attacks slide, he lied about everything, he tried to hijack one seventh of the economy with that health care debacle, he let every scum imaginable (including Ken Lay) sleep in the lincoln bedroom for money and the only GOOD thing that came out of his administration was the economy which he had NOTHING to do with(in fact he FOUGHT against the very policies the created the great economic situation). So what the hell was so great about him?

[vmarks]

Originally posted by KellyHogan:
<STRONG>

How did you even believe that in the first place?</STRONG>

"It's said that we shouldn't legislate morality," Ashcroft told Charisma magazine in December 1999. "Well, I disagree. I think all we should legislate is morality. We shouldn't legislate immorality."

http://tlknapp.freeservers.com/essays/ashcroft.html

is a good criticism of Ashcroft, by comparing him to T. Jefferson.

As for Bush, I reject him, because he doesn't uphold the oath he swore to, and he doesn't uphold the stated principles of his party.

[ 03-03-2002: Message edited by: vmarks ]

[poocat]

**** ALL YAALLLL...

gwbush is the shiznit... provided youlike ****ing premarital sex resulting in children cause he preaches abstinence, and nuclear war because the man doesn't believe in global warming...

LET ME TEACH YOU SOMETHING.

GLOBAL WARMING IS A FACT.

THE PRESIDENT WHO BUILDS ENERGY COMPANYS AND MILITARY SUPPLIERS WHILE DENYING THE IMPORTANCE OF THE ENVIORNMENT IS A RETARD.

THE MAN IN OUR PRESIDENCY IS THE SON OF THE MAN WHO TRIED TO DESTROY IRAQ. HE IS TRYING TO DESTROY IRAQ. COINCIDENCE? HMMM...

HE IS AN ABSOLUTE RETARD WHEN IT COMES TO UNDERSTANDING PEOPLE FROM OTHER NATIONS.

DON'T TRY TO DENY IT. BUILD HIS STRENGTHS ALL YOU WANT, IT'S TRUE. (and he does have strengths, i'm not denying that...)

THIS IS THE MAN WHO THINKS A "STARWARS" PROGRAM IS A _GOOD_ IDEA.

um...

****.
can't say anything more.

too pissed at all of you.
tnProud2b, you're first on the list.... just like you're earlier sex rants...

poocat.

[TNproud2b]

Wow....where did you go to school, homie?

I'm not sure that any of your words are spelled correctly.

But it's not YOUR fault, is it? It's MY fault that you cannot achieve.

[TNproud2b]

*backhands poocat and sends him to the kitchen to make me a sandwich*

[dgs212]

Originally posted by smacintush:
<STRONG>
It really gripes me too, how the Bush haters are just waiting for something like Enron to be linked to him to show how corrupt he is. George W. Bush, whether you like him or not, is one of the most honest presidents we have had in decades.
</STRONG>

Check your facts. GW has lied consistently and thoroughly throughout the Enron scandal, a scandal which is a BIG BIG BIG deal (as opposed to Monica-gate), but our stupid bloated populace refuses to recognize it as such because they can't understand it (boo hoo). He lied during his election campaign and he's lying now. The man does not give a single shit about you or anyone you know (unless of course you have a few million you wanna throw his way, or you want to lend him your private jet, or bail him out, or...). He treats this country and its citizens as his own personal objects, which sickens me, frankly.

His only saving grace is that he's not nearly smart enough to pull any of this off.

[ 03-03-2002: Message edited by: dgs212 ]

[Earth Mk. II]

Originally posted by smacintush:
<STRONG> George W. Bush, whether you like him or not, is one of the most honest presidents we have had in decades.</STRONG>

&lt;cheep shot&gt;
If by honest you mean, "forming shadow governments and not telling anyone about it," then yes. W. is the most honest person I know.
&lt;/cheep shot&gt;

I joke about that only partially in fun. I used to just disagree with W. and his administration, but I still gave them some respect as they were in power. Recently though... any respect I had for him and his administration quickly went down the crapper when this whole "We'll enact an old cold-war contingency plan and not tell anyone - not even congress" thing happened.

This isn't about conspiracy theories, this is about the trust that people place in the government. I just feel like I've been mortally screwed and betrayed by his administration. Government exists by a will from the people. So why are the people the last to know about something like this?

*sigh* maybe I'm over-reacting � but I doubt it less as time goes on.

[xyber233]

I like him. Hes handling the current events very well. He is doing well because he is surrounded by a good administration. Plus...anything is better than Clinton.

[dgs212]

Originally posted by xyber233:
<STRONG>I like him. Hes handling the current events very well. He is doing well because he is surrounded by a good administration. Plus...anything is better than Clinton.</STRONG>

Please explain how shadow governments and secret military tribunals and horrific recession and corporate control of the government is "better than Clinton" (Okay, okay, Clinton's administration was just as mired in corporate control).

[MadMacs]

[OldManMac]

GW is, relative to many of the other presidents we've had (democrat and republican), dumb as a rock! That is not to say that he's not an intelligent man; he is. A president has to be above being an intelligent man; he has to have a "grasp" on what's going on in the world, and not just pick a bunch of smart advisors and ask them what to do today, or what his position on an issue should be today. GW was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, period! He has some experience in the oil bidness because of daddy. He wasn't very successful in that either. I will grant that he's learned that you actually have to show up for work, since 9/11, but he's also the man who brought John Ashcroft to a position of power as an absolute enemy of civil liberties, and he's also the man who is now preaching that the military will be our "saviour", both of which positions have done extremem damage to the Constitution. Bill Clinton was/is an extraordinarily smart man; he misapplied his capabilities, which is what the country focused on, and those sexual escapades are no one's fault but his own. GW doesn't give a tinker's damn about you or I, unless we're very, very, rich, and we give lots of money to the republican party! He's just another proponent of the "trickle down" theory, which I've discovered does work, as we do get p****d on frequently, trying to scrape up crumbs left on the floor, as the gap between the rich and poor widens.

[MacGorilla]

No, I don't like him.

Though I do like the guy who plays him on Saturday Night Live

[driven]

Originally posted by theolein:
<STRONG>

?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????????</STRONG>

This is what I hate about these political arguments. All emotion, no well-thought out debate. &lt;sigh&gt;

<font color = red>question marks reduced so they don't hold the window open</font>

[ 03-03-2002: Message edited by: Demonhood ]

[driven]

Originally posted by Millennium:
<STRONG>
Then, though, there's Ashcroft. When he was being nominated, I defended him on the grounds that a person's religious beliefs -whatever they may be- are no grounds for keeping someone out of office. I still believe this, but I am ashamed at having defended a traitorous scumbag like him. He said he wouldn't attempt to project his religious beliefs into the law, and he flat-out lied.</STRONG>

I would be surprised if Bush would appoint him again for a second term if/when he gets re-elected.

[yoyo52]

Neither like nor not like. Fear, yes.

[driven]

Originally posted by smacintush:
<STRONG>Yeah I like Bush. I never understood how the same people championing those with mental impairments and learning disabilities call him a bumbling idiot just because jumbles some words when he tries to make a speech. He is a lot more intelligent than people want to give him credit for, just check his college record and compare to the "brilliant" Gore.

It really gripes me too, how the Bush haters are just waiting for something like Enron to be linked to him to show how corrupt he is. George W. Bush, whether you like him or not, is one of the most honest presidents we have had in decades.

As for Clinton being "the greatest president of all time"�what exactly did he do? He engineered the largest tax hike in history which his weasel friends in congress willingly passed, he let terrorist attacks slide, he lied about everything, he tried to hijack one seventh of the economy with that health care debacle, he let every scum imaginable (including Ken Lay) sleep in the lincoln bedroom for money and the only GOOD thing that came out of his administration was the economy which he had NOTHING to do with(in fact he FOUGHT against the very policies the created the great economic situation). So what the hell was so great about him?</STRONG>

I try not to dwell on Clinton too much any more since he is gone now.

But that said: I wonder if he had responded to the simultaneous attacks on the U.S. Embassies in Africa with military force (similar to what is being done now) if 9/11 would have even happened?

I remember being devastated with the death toll from those attacks and then wondering why nothing significant was done? Then the attack on the Cole was likewise dismissed. (Granted, that was a military target.)

By the time 9/11 got here I can't help but wonder if Al Qieda expected a similar passive response.

[driven]

Originally posted by dgs212:
<STRONG>

Please explain how shadow governments and secret military tribunals and horrific recession and corporate control of the government is "better than Clinton" (Okay, okay, Clinton's administration was just as mired in corporate control). </STRONG>

Why does anyone think that this shadow government is new?

Is anyone else aware that congress and the judicial branch have their own (and different) contingency plans? Both plans are probably activiated just as the executive branches has been.

[theUpsetter]

I like Bush.
I think more of you would like Bush too if you looked at the facts.

He's not a dumb guy, got better grades in college than Gore, how many of you could speak in front of the crowds he speaks to and not screw up? Even Clinton wasn't a great speaker, but, like Bush, he improved after being in office. And besides, does an intelligent man make the best president, Cater (I like as a person) was probably the smartest man in office in the 20th century, but was a lousy president.

He actually passed laws to reduce pollution from commercial trucks, then the Democrats tried to pin him for not supporting the arsenic reduction plan, the same plan they voted against six months earlier when Clinton was president.

His plan to drill for in the ANWR is really a good idea. With new drilling techniques the amount of land need is insignificant, and there is such heavy regulation that an employee for an alaskan oil company who threw a stick at a rabid wolf was fired and fined. In addition the Indians on who's land would be drilled adamantly support the plan, because they would become rich, the Indians who oppose the plan (the Democrats got them to testify before congress) don't even live in the ANWR and they had some oil companies come in to see if there was oil in their land. The amount of oil in the ANWR would be a huge boon to America.

Why does he have to tell congress about the contingency government? Their history of spilling the beans on classified information would indicate that disclosing the plan to then would be foolish. Daschel and his goons are looking to pin him with anything action they could spin to make Bush look bad.

In light of our last president, Bush is a saint. Clinton committed a felony while he was head of the executive branch, the branch responsible for enforcing the laws. He violated the civil right of people and killed innocent civilians at Waco and Ruby Ridge. So after eight years of a president I felt was a liar and a criminal Bush looks pretty good.

Brandon

[theUpsetter]

Originally posted by dgs212:
<STRONG>

Please explain how shadow governments and secret military tribunals and horrific recession and corporate control of the government is "better than Clinton" (Okay, okay, Clinton's administration was just as mired in corporate control). </STRONG>

Shadow government sounds so sinister, it's not evil, it's a practical plan.
Military tribunals are better than they deserve, their not protected by the same right an american citizen would have in the same situation.

"horrific recession"? I am seriously laughing. The recession began when Clinton was still president, was not "horrific", and is already over. Dang, not a bad job Mr. Bush.

If there really was corporate control of the government, Enron would have been bailed.

Brandon

[ort888]

No, I do not like G.W. Bush. I like nothing about him and I am ashamed to live in a country that selected him as thier leader.

[ 03-03-2002: Message edited by: ort888 ]

[Captain Obvious]

Originally posted by dgs212:
<STRONG>

Please explain how shadow governments and secret military tribunals and horrific recession and corporate control of the government is "better than Clinton" (Okay, okay, Clinton's administration was just as mired in corporate control). </STRONG>

Whatever, you are just paranoid. I dont even want to get into this crap about the shadow government taking over the country since that isn't even close to what people like you want to believe it is. And I am fine with military tribunals if for no other reason that I don't have to hear the ACLU bitch about the rights of coward guerrillas who don't have the same status as regular POWs.

Anyway, yes as a person I think GW is very personable and I like him. If he was my age I think that he'd be someone I'd sit and have a drink with. At the same time I don't believe he will go down as one of the greatest presidents of all time.
Clinton on the other hand is a hick, plain and simple. He was a good speaker if you consider playing on the emotions of his audience a talent. He was an idiot who benefited from a period of prosperity this country had. And to anyone who thinks the President has any real control over the economy, go back to school and learn about economics... it doesn't work that way.

[dgs212]

Originally posted by Captain Obvious:
<STRONG>

Whatever, you are just paranoid. I dont even want to get into this crap about the shadow government taking over the country since that isn't even close to what people like you want to believe it is. And I am fine with military tribunals if for no other reason that I don't have to hear the ACLU bitch about the rights of coward guerrillas who don't have the same status as regular POWs.
</STRONG>

I don't think there's some secret illuminati behind the scenes, controlling everybody. The truth is even more sinister. The truth is that the people of this country saw fit to elect George W Bush, whether I like it or lump it. Whatever.

As for military tribunals, I sincerely hope paramilitary swat units storm your house in the middle of the night, take you to a secret location, and you are tried by a secret military tribunal for "crimes against the united states," far from the prying eyes of a fair jury or a defense attorney. Good luck beating those charges.

[driven]

Originally posted by dgs212:
<STRONG>

I don't think there's some secret illuminati behind the scenes, controlling everybody. The truth is even more sinister. The truth is that the people of this country saw fit to elect George W Bush, whether I like it or lump it. Whatever.

As for military tribunals, I sincerely hope paramilitary swat units storm your house in the middle of the night, take you to a secret location, and you are tried by a secret military tribunal for "crimes against the united states," far from the prying eyes of a fair jury or a defense attorney. Good luck beating those charges. </STRONG>

The military tribunals are not to be used against citizens of the USA. (Otherwise Jahalibad John would have certainly qualified!)

Seriously folks: Lighten up a bit. A little paranoia on the side of security may save some lives.

[maxintosh]

No. I don't.

First, I think this "war on terrorism" is cowardly and has no point. It's stooping to the level of those who bombed us in the first place.. further proof that humans are humans (read: idiots), no matter what country they live in.

Secondly, John Ashcroft should be shot. What a prick. He can go run some funda-seriously-mental Christian group with Fallwel et al and get his bigoted ass out of government.

Thirdy, Bush's "Christian revivalism" bugs me in the way he's always talking about his faith. He's not a priest. He's our president (unfortunately). I loved it when he was talking about his Christianity with the prime minister of China... here he is, sitting with the man ruling over one of the oldest countries in the world which has borne countless religions and fascinating culture, telling him why he believes in Jesus. For Christ's sake!

Frankly, I'm tired of rich white male presidents. Not that I will only vote for the black Jewish lesbian poor woman in a wheelchair, but we could stand a little more diversity in government. We have the same, uptight, sheltered, over-rich pompous pricks running our government time and time again. The reason? The campainging system is seriously flawed, and only the extremely rich have even the slightest chance of getting in government. Furthermore, everybody gets caught up in the Republican vs. Democratic mold. I would rather vote for someone who wants to make the progress I want to see than play a party. Ugh.

Humanity is really horrifying sometimes.

[dgs212]

Originally posted by maxintosh:
<STRONG>No. I don't.

First, I think this "war on terrorism" is cowardly and has no point. It's stooping to the level of those who bombed us in the first place.. further proof that humans are humans (read: idiots), no matter what country they live in.

Secondly, John Ashcroft should be shot. What a prick. He can go run some funda-seriously-mental Christian group with Fallwel et al and get his bigoted ass out of government.

Thirdy, Bush's "Christian revivalism" bugs me in the way he's always talking about his faith. He's not a priest. He's our president (unfortunately). I loved it when he was talking about his Christianity with the prime minister of China... here he is, sitting with the man ruling over one of the oldest countries in the world which has borne countless religions and fascinating culture, telling him why he believes in Jesus. For Christ's sake!

Frankly, I'm tired of rich white male presidents. Not that I will only vote for the black Jewish lesbian poor woman in a wheelchair, but we could stand a little more diversity in government. We have the same, uptight, sheltered, over-rich pompous pricks running our government time and time again. The reason? The campainging system is seriously flawed, and only the extremely rich have even the slightest chance of getting in government. Furthermore, everybody gets caught up in the Republican vs. Democratic mold. I would rather vote for someone who wants to make the progress I want to see than play a party. Ugh.

Humanity is really horrifying sometimes. </STRONG>

Apparently, we're a dying breed. At least on this board.

[ringo]

Apparently, we're a dying breed. At least on this board.

Dunno, I think more people feel this way then are going public with it. There's this whole red scare like thing going around right now, a lot of people are afraid to speak up lest they be branded a "terrorist" just for disagreeing with Ashcroft and his ilk.

Of course, this is exactly what Ashcroft wants. Once you've been labeled a terrorist supporter, the Feds can put a wiretap and internet tap on you without getting the courts involved (Patriot Act).

If the GOP doesn't correct themselves on a few of these issues, I don't think GW will have much of a chance when the next election comes around.

[dgs212]

Originally posted by ringo:
<STRONG>
If the GOP doesn't correct themselves on a few of these issues, I don't think GW will have much of a chance when the next election comes around.</STRONG>

But that's in three years!!!!


And what about those new commercials that equate money used to purchase drugs and money used to fund terrorism? I know a lot of y'all get your smoke on. How many of your dealers contribute to Al Queda? And Bush's answer to drug money going to terrorists? Overturning economic and aid sanctions imposed on 30+ countries who support drug trafficking (even afghanistan). While I applaud his efforts to help these countries, I marvel at his inconsistency. Should we support drugs and drug trafficking countries or not George?

[AKcrab]

Originally posted by ort888:
[QB]No, I do not like G.W. Bush. I like nothing about him and I am ashamed to live in a country that selected him as thier leader.

We didn't select him, remember?

[ringo]

And what about those new commercials that equate money used to purchase drugs and money used to fund terrorism?

LOL. Bush can't really speak about drugs, considering his old habits. His papa was a crack-pusher anyway. Read about it here.

Besides, the US has been funding terror for years. Hell, we trained Osama Bin Laden when the CIA funded anti-soviet fighting back in the Regan administration.

[driven]

I guess you are all correct with the war on terror.

After we were attacked on the 11th we should have tucked tail and send a "please don't hurt us again" note to Afghanistan. I guess we could have added a "P.S. Please continue to oppress your people. It's ok with us."

As for China: I guess Bush could have told the Chinese president "It's ok to keep locking up folks simply because they choose Christianity."

Why didn't I see this way of thinking years ago. It all makes sense now.