President Bush should step down

[DirtyDishSoap]

im pretty sure we put Saddam in power...and guess who did that wonderful job?

[falcon]

im pretty sure we put Saddam in power...and guess who did that wonderful job?

Well I know for certain this Bush didn't

[She Wolf]

personally, i support my President. if it wouldn't have happened now it would have happened at some point. that is true.

Pres. Clinton sat on the terrorist crap while getting a helping hand from Monica. he knew of the threat and took no action.

so, to say that it was a Bush thing is not totally true. the way i see it, it is a holy war. muslim extremist vs everyone else.

I prefer that they fight over there rather than in the US or in any other country.

you have to think no one has targeted the United States since the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor.

also, you have to look @ the first bombing of the towers that was unsuccessful. by the same extremist group.

did anyone here read in the newspapers this past week of the certainty of sleeper cell born & breed americans being trained to become suicide bombers? it's bad enough that our borders are not secure but that anyone, even an american can cause devastation in our country.

As far a decision 2008. so far i see no one that interests me. somehow, the picking is slim. & someone other than the candidates that are showing up are less than worthy.. for once i believe i can't see anyone worth my vote.

Clinton , i'd rather die a slow & painful death than vote for her.

[DangerBoy]

Luns, my friend... Getting a little wearing now...

So are the overly simplistic arguments against Bush. We all have to live through times when there are leaders who don't agree with our personal ideologies. It seems that the left (in America at least) just can't handle anyone who disagrees with them and lashes out with all kinds of accusations of corruption.

[Guiscard]

Luns, my friend... Getting a little wearing now...

So are the overly simplistic arguments against Bush. We all have to live through times when there are leaders who don't agree with our personal ideologies. It seems that the left (in America at least) just can't handle anyone who disagrees with them and lashes out with all kinds of accusations of corruption.

Those arguments aren't coming from me. I like to think I argue my points in a reasonable, logical and detailed way (whether or not you agree with them).

And I was referring to the sarcasm, not the argument.

[Backglass]

So are the overly simplistic arguments against Bush. We all have to live through times when there are leaders who don't agree with our personal ideologies. It seems that the left (in America at least) just can't handle anyone who disagrees with them and lashes out with all kinds of accusations of corruption.

Or maybe...some people just don't like to see over $400,000,000,000.00 poured into a hole in the sand on the other side of the world for no gain, when we have bigger problems in our own country.

[safariguy5]

Accusations of corruption you say? They are not accusations if they are true. If you watch how far Bush is distancing himself from Abramoff, it's obvious that Abramoff is corrupt.

And there were no accusations for Abu Ghraib, the pictures spoke for themselves.

Right after 9/11, Bush's approval rating was above 90%.

Now, it's about 28%.

I think both the left and right don't support his policies or ideas.

[Splash]

lets seee...every one of my cells think "DOWN WITH BUSH!" I would say his approval rating is -100%

[dwightschrute]

lets seee...every one of my cells think "DOWN WITH BUSH!" I would say his approval rating is -100%

thanks for the insite

[Jenos Ridan]

personally, i support my President. if it wouldn't have happened now it would have happened at some point. that is true.

Pres. Clinton sat on the terrorist crap while getting a helping hand from Monica. he knew of the threat and took no action.

so, to say that it was a Bush thing is not totally true. the way i see it, it is a holy war. muslim extremist vs everyone else.

I prefer that they fight over there rather than in the US or in any other country.

you have to think no one has targeted the United States since the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor.

also, you have to look @ the first bombing of the towers that was unsuccessful. by the same extremist group.

did anyone here read in the newspapers this past week of the certainty of sleeper cell born & breed americans being trained to become suicide bombers? it's bad enough that our borders are not secure but that anyone, even an american can cause devastation in our country.

As far a decision 2008. so far i see no one that interests me. somehow, the picking is slim. & someone other than the candidates that are showing up are less than worthy.. for once i believe i can't see anyone worth my vote.

Clinton , i'd rather die a slow & painful death than vote for her.

Wow, you nailed it all right on the head. However, the root cause of the current terrorist trouble goes back further, to the Nazies using arabs to attack the brittish and visa versa. Made worse by the creation of Israel (in spite of my belief in their legitimate claims to the land, I can still see how it is a world problem), the Cold War and then ignored by Clinton. So Bush sr. and jr. were/are stuck with the heraclean task of cleaning the stables. And the president after Bush will have to contend with the left-over work plus any foil ups.

[DangerBoy]

Those arguments aren't coming from me. I like to think I argue my points in a reasonable, logical and detailed way (whether or not you agree with them).

And I was referring to the sarcasm, not the argument.

Alright. So does it bother you as much as it bothers us when people just start threads about bashing Bush simply for not agreeing with their own personal ideologies. What do they expect - that he's going to change just for them?

The Clinton bashers annoyed me as well. It seemed that even when he agreed with the Republican congress, he still got criticized. I never voted for Clinton because I was too young at the time to vote anyway, and I don't agree with most of his policies - but he was still the president and needed to be respected. It seems that a lot of people here refuse to give that respect to Bush. They are not just simply disagreeing with him.

[vtmarik]

Clinton didn't go after Osama for only one reason: He didn't have enough evidence to make a case. Unlike some presidents, Clinton didn't invent intelligence and evidence to trick congress into doing what he wanted.

[DangerBoy]

So are the overly simplistic arguments against Bush. We all have to live through times when there are leaders who don't agree with our personal ideologies. It seems that the left (in America at least) just can't handle anyone who disagrees with them and lashes out with all kinds of accusations of corruption.

Or maybe...some people just don't like to see over $400,000,000,000.00 poured into a hole in the sand on the other side of the world for no gain, when we have bigger problems in our own country.

So then why don't they say that instead of just saying things like...

i really hate him.

I hate bush even though I am in canada,

Before Bush should be impeached, it should be Cheney who should be done away with. Let's face it, Bush is Cheney's puppet (also meaning that Bush lacks a brain and therefore good decision making abilities). Cheney, who does have a brain and uses it to take advantage of his power (perhaps too much) is easily the most corrupt in the entire administration.

or your own simplistic statement:

He should step down, based purely on this photo alone.

[vtmarik]

So then why don't they say that instead of just saying things like...

It's easier to say "I don't trust him" than to launch into the whole political and economic reasoning behind it.

And I believe the old saying goes "Brevity is the soul of wit."

[Iz Man]

Luns, my friend... Getting a little wearing now...

Screw that.

Keep it up Luns, you're making a good point.

[Avron]

Not gonna read the whole thread all just sum up my opinion shortly, Obviously hes done enough for the State of Vermont(Many more soon, hopefully) to vote into congress Articles of Impeachment against him.

[reptile]

your fist paragraph is not even worth talking about cause you need to get your facts straight, i am guessing even everyone else on your side of the debate wish you didnt make a fool out of yourselfes.

your second paragraph, by you posting that on the internet and them not but rather going into a church or house. who is really getting into eachothers lives? seriously though, it is everyone. there will always be whining.

You are an imperialist aggressor. What did Sadaam Hussein ever do to you personally? Al Queda is just standing up for itself and you and your big bully friends who think you're so tough with your automatic rifles come in and complicate things. I hope you're proud of all the destruction and death that you've accomplished.

lol

[Anarchy Ninja]

And I suppose all those that are innocent and your own soldiers are neccessary casualities. At least when saddam was in control he was actually in control. Now the country is more screwed then before, don't misunderstand he was by no means a good person and certainly an evil dictator who should have been removed, however you can't say the country is in any better shape now then it was (seeing as it is in worse shape).

I'm sure this has already been said, but it would have been obviously ignored.

[Stopper]

So are the overly simplistic arguments against Bush. We all have to live through times when there are leaders who don't agree with our personal ideologies. It seems that the left (in America at least) just can't handle anyone who disagrees with them and lashes out with all kinds of accusations of corruption.

Or more to the point, you live in what is supposed to be a democracy, so by definition, a significant minority, or for Bush what is by now a majority, will disagree with the choice of president.

Of course, freedom of speech means you're allowed to voice your disagreements with the president in any way you wish.

I'm puzzled by your arguments. You seem to be saying that everyone should agree with Bush, or at the least, be quiet, particularly if you feel their arguments aren't up to scratch.

If you prefer that kind of government, I know a place you might like. North Korea, how about it?

[luns101]

Not gonna read the whole thread all just sum up my opinion shortly, Obviously hes done enough for the State of Vermont(Many more soon, hopefully) to vote into congress Articles of Impeachment against him.

All right! We will win this thing. The intellectual bastion that is Vermont has spoken. What is taking the other 49 states so long?!! Why wait for an election in order to make our case. Presidential campaigns just mean a lot of wasted time trying to justify our positions. We can just skip all of that nonsense. I really don't believe that people would vote for Republicans if they understood just how truly evil they were. I can feel the strength of the right crumbling even as I write! I'll post later after I return from my anti Wal-Mart rally.

[Jenos Ridan]

Clinton didn't go after Osama for only one reason: He didn't have enough evidence to make a case. Unlike some presidents, Clinton didn't invent intelligence and evidence to trick congress into doing what he wanted.

Still, leaving terrorists alone? ones that had stated goals of attacking the US. Agreed, Bush ain't the best, but he tries.

And luns, keep on those Wal-Mart bastards.

[Titanic]

Clinton didn't go after Osama for only one reason: He didn't have enough evidence to make a case. Unlike some presidents, Clinton didn't invent intelligence and evidence to trick congress into doing what he wanted.

Still, leaving terrorists alone? ones that had stated goals of attacking the US. Agreed, Bush ain't the best, but he tries.

And luns, keep on those Wal-Mart bastards.

Watch this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXKJAgEgWe8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wos_ShIsHmo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFMHGBM6eq0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2P-xiZxfLO4

Clinton tried. He did much more then Bush. Bush dudn even have a meeting about terrorism in the months of his office up until 9/11. Clinton tried much more then Bush.

[Jenos Ridan]

As I recall the guy was in office for under one year when 9-11 happened. Sure, he didn't seem all that concerned until then, but what exactly did Clinton ever do?

[Iz Man]

Or more to the point, you live in what is supposed to be a democracy, so by definition, a significant minority, or for Bush what is by now a majority, will disagree with the choice of president.

We live in a Representative Republic.

[Guiscard]

Or more to the point, you live in what is supposed to be a democracy, so by definition, a significant minority, or for Bush what is by now a majority, will disagree with the choice of president.

We live in a Representative Republic.

He doesn't talk of bringing representative republicanism to Iraq does he?