View Full Version : Is Bush the worse US President ever?
Ava Estelle
12-09-2006, 08:58 AM
Is Bush the worse US president you've ever had?
From a recent blog ...
"He was a failed student, a failed military man, a failed businessman who drove several businesses into the ground. An ex-alcoholic and substance abuser."
This, from another site ..
Bush and his oligarchic companions sabotaged American democracy so they could pillage taxpayer resources.
Bush and his cabal of henchmen lied to the American people about Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, and they continue to obfuscate the truth while their companies cash in, Iraqis suffer and American soldiers die.
Bush is bad for business and the economy. He is only interested in enriching himself and his friends.
Bush is bad for the future. He is compromising the prosperity of tomorrow's America by shortchanging today's children.
Bush is bad for the environment.
The Bush Administration has manipulated the media to the point of undermining the Constitutional guarantees of a Free Press.
Bush has tried to undermine the United Nations, a democratic institution created in large measure by Presidents Eisenhower and Truman. Without even understanding what the UN does, Bush has called it "irrelevant" when it fails to fall in line with his dictates.
Bush is inarticulate and projects a stereotype abroad of Americans being ignorant and myopic.
Bush torpedoes global agreements on everything from racism and global warming to biological weapons and land mines, and then expects the world to line up behind him.
Bush took positive patriotism and global support in the wake of 9/11 and forced it behind his own narrow self-interest in Iraq. He hijacked 9/11 for his own benefit.
Bush stands against everything America stands for.
Source (http://www.whywehatebush.com/)
So, has there been a worse one, apart from Jimmy Carter, of course? :lol:
Can a mod move this to Funny Stuff? :unsure:
I really hate to dignify this thread with a legitimate response, but I guess I'll have to give vidcc something to comment on so he doesn't praise this as the Best Thread Ever. :whistling
There have been plenty of successes during the Bush administration:
Tax cuts.
No child left behind
Prescription drug plan
Housing policies that have obviously expanded home ownership.
Any appraisal of Bush's record must consider that he took over in difficult times. By most measures, the economy is doing well: Inflation, interest rates, and unemployment are low, the stock market is higher than it's ever been and still climbing, economic growth is right with it also.
Bush has had the uneven trip of guiding the USA through the post 9/11 era, and the country has not seen an attack in over five years, though there have been many attempts.
A recent column I read put it well:
I don't know how history will judge him. My guess is that, like most presidents, he will have a mixed record. We can debate policies and actions now, but honesty should force us to acknowledge that real judgments will have to wait.
Jimmy Carter was the worst U.S. president ever.
He is now the worst ex-U.S. president ever.
It is not likely his remarkable incompetence will be eclipsed, ever.
Is Bush the worse US president you've ever had?
From a recent blog ...
"He was a failed student, a failed military man, a failed businessman who drove several businesses into the ground. An ex-alcoholic and substance abuser."
This, from another site ..
Bush and his oligarchic companions sabotaged American democracy so they could pillage taxpayer resources.
Bush and his cabal of henchmen lied to the American people about Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, and they continue to obfuscate the truth while their companies cash in, Iraqis suffer and American soldiers die.
Bush is bad for business and the economy. He is only interested in enriching himself and his friends.
Bush is bad for the future. He is compromising the prosperity of tomorrow's America by shortchanging today's children.
Bush is bad for the environment.
The Bush Administration has manipulated the media to the point of undermining the Constitutional guarantees of a Free Press.
Bush has tried to undermine the United Nations, a democratic institution created in large measure by Presidents Eisenhower and Truman. Without even understanding what the UN does, Bush has called it "irrelevant" when it fails to fall in line with his dictates.
Bush is inarticulate and projects a stereotype abroad of Americans being ignorant and myopic.
Bush torpedoes global agreements on everything from racism and global warming to biological weapons and land mines, and then expects the world to line up behind him.
Bush took positive patriotism and global support in the wake of 9/11 and forced it behind his own narrow self-interest in Iraq. He hijacked 9/11 for his own benefit.
Bush stands against everything America stands for.
Source (http://www.whywehatebush.com/)
So, has there been a worse one, apart from Jimmy Carter, of course? :lol:
I'll bet you'd have been a sterling example of "Hitler Youth", had you been alive in the '30s.
You buy bullshit wholesale and eat most of it, while offering to share small lumps with others. :yup:
Jimmy Carter was the worst U.S. president ever.
He is now the worst ex-U.S. president ever.
It is not likely his remarkable incompetence will be eclipsed, ever.
There are still 2 years to go.
Dubya will show you that there's nothing he can't do.
Jimmy Carter was the worst U.S. president ever.
He is now the worst ex-U.S. president ever.
It is not likely his remarkable incompetence will be eclipsed, ever.
There are still 2 years to go.
Dubya will show you that there's nothing he can't do.
Here's the really funny part:
He'll need the complicity of a democrat legislature to do it.
I can't wait, actually. :whistling
MagicNakor
12-09-2006, 11:57 AM
I don't know about the worst president ever, but he certainly is the worst that I remember.
:shuriken:
I don't know about the worst president ever, but he certainly is the worst that I remember.
:shuriken:
Which is certainly to Carter's advantage; his tenure was, to say the least, forgettable.
Ava Estelle
12-09-2006, 02:56 PM
I'll bet you'd have been a sterling example of "Hitler Youth", had you been alive in the '30s.
What a ridiculous thing to say, another example of the way you attack the player when you have no intelligent answer.
You buy bullshit wholesale and eat most of it, while offering to share small lumps with others. :yup:
From the king of bullshit, you've proved your gullibility from your total belief in WMD's to your refusal to admit your wonderful Reps have caused a civil war and mass instability in the Middle East.
Ava Estelle
12-09-2006, 03:14 PM
By most measures, the economy is doing well: Inflation, interest rates, and unemployment are low, the stock market is higher than it's ever been and still climbing, economic growth is right with it also.
This is so far out it's almost funny: from the highest surplus ever when he took over, to the highest deficit in history: the first president in history to preside over a reduction in the total number of jobs during his first term, from 132 million to 131 million, compared to Clinton's first term in which he added 11 million jobs.
The value of, and confidence in, the dollar is collapsing all over the world, and if OPEC decided to peg oil to the Euro, as some member states have recommended, the dollar would collapse completely. But never mind, I'm sure the undemocratic country China will prop you up for a good while yet, seeing as they practically own you. :lol:
JPaul
12-09-2006, 03:38 PM
There are predictions of the dollar going to $2 = £1 in the not too distant future.
The trilliions of them being spent on financing the ongoing wars can't be helping the economy very much.
What a ridiculous thing to say, another example of the way you attack the player when you have no intelligent answer.
An attack?
Hardly.
I merely compare you to those who indiscriminately consume propaganda owing to mis-informed inclinations imbued by those who've indoctrinated them, a la the Hitler youth.
I guess I could call you a Kool-Aid drinker, if you prefer...
You haven't a single piece of rhetoric you can call your own; it all comes from the catalog of lib-speak.
You buy bullshit wholesale and eat most of it, while offering to share small lumps with others. :yup:
From the king of bullshit, you've proved your gullibility from your total belief in WMD's to your refusal to admit your wonderful Reps have caused a civil war and mass instability in the Middle East.
Whether or not the coalition found WMD or not, there is no denying Saddam had them, for we saw their effect on the Kurds, among others.
That you ignore this for your own convenience does not go un-noticed by others, I assure you.
As to the question of whose leaders have caused a civil war, I might promote the fact your own took a hand as well, since Bush might not have proceeded had he not found your government "willing".
Besides all that, "mass instability" is the normal state of affairs in the mideast.
BTW-
Do you remember (or did you ever know, given your political bent) that it was Jimmy Carter who urged Saddam to attack Iran, way back when?
I'm betting that's news to you, sunshine. :whistling
Ava Estelle
12-09-2006, 03:54 PM
There are predictions of the dollar going to $2 = £1 in the not too distant future.
The trilliions of them being spent on financing the ongoing wars can't be helping the economy very much.
A truly startling amount of money, the sort of figures that are only available for waging wars, never for winning the peace.
Third World debt, Aids, child poverty, preventable deaths from common ailments, starvation ... etc.. The amount of money quoted to deal with these problems is minuscule compared with the money available to wage war.
The cost of the war in Iraq. (http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182)
Ava Estelle
12-09-2006, 04:06 PM
Blah, blah, blah ...
If you can't answer the question, attack the messenger.
I take it by your obfuscation that you have no defence of Bush worth hearing, and that you believe him to be the second worse US President in history after Carter.
Ava Estelle
12-09-2006, 04:20 PM
worst
I agree, he's the worst.:yup:
Busyman™
12-09-2006, 04:51 PM
Is Bush the worse US president you've ever had?
From a recent blog ...
"He was a failed student, a failed military man, a failed businessman who drove several businesses into the ground. An ex-alcoholic and substance abuser."
This, from another site ..
Bush and his oligarchic companions sabotaged American democracy so they could pillage taxpayer resources.
Bush and his cabal of henchmen lied to the American people about Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, and they continue to obfuscate the truth while their companies cash in, Iraqis suffer and American soldiers die.
Bush is bad for business and the economy. He is only interested in enriching himself and his friends.
Bush is bad for the future. He is compromising the prosperity of tomorrow's America by shortchanging today's children.
Bush is bad for the environment.
The Bush Administration has manipulated the media to the point of undermining the Constitutional guarantees of a Free Press.
Bush has tried to undermine the United Nations, a democratic institution created in large measure by Presidents Eisenhower and Truman. Without even understanding what the UN does, Bush has called it "irrelevant" when it fails to fall in line with his dictates.
Bush is inarticulate and projects a stereotype abroad of Americans being ignorant and myopic.
Bush torpedoes global agreements on everything from racism and global warming to biological weapons and land mines, and then expects the world to line up behind him.
Bush took positive patriotism and global support in the wake of 9/11 and forced it behind his own narrow self-interest in Iraq. He hijacked 9/11 for his own benefit.
Bush stands against everything America stands for.
Source (http://www.whywehatebush.com/)
While I agree he is the worst President ever, I don't agree with all of the above.
Busyman™
12-09-2006, 04:58 PM
I really hate to dignify this thread with a legitimate response, but I guess I'll have to give vidcc something to comment on so he doesn't praise this as the Best Thread Ever. :whistling
There have been plenty of successes during the Bush administration:
Tax cuts.
No child left behind
Prescription drug plan
Housing policies that have obviously expanded home ownership.
Any appraisal of Bush's record must consider that he took over in difficult times. By most measures, the economy is doing well: Inflation, interest rates, and unemployment are low, the stock market is higher than it's ever been and still climbing, economic growth is right with it also.
Bush has had the uneven trip of guiding the USA through the post 9/11 era, and the country has not seen an attack in over five years, though there have been many attempts.
A recent column I read put it well:
I don't know how history will judge him. My guess is that, like most presidents, he will have a mixed record. We can debate policies and actions now, but honesty should force us to acknowledge that real judgments will have to wait.
Housing policies that expanded home ownership?:lol:
No sir. Bush had shit all to do with that.
9/11 + recession = interest rate cut = buy a home now
Prices got jacked up due to higher demand because of the interest rate.
The housing market then became a stock market where people were just buying homes to flip them thus producing even more higher costing homes.
Now homes are higher than before and the interest rate is stabilizing. Those that did not have the money to get in initially are pretty much shut out now.
I don't attribute any of this to Bush.
You say there is this economic growth yet it doesn't translate to the average joe.
Company stock prices may go up but it could be due to job cuts, outsourcing to India, and so forth.
And dollar is shit comparing to the Euro and pound. Travelers abroad get sticker shock when they find sea bass at the Jules Verne Rstaurant is $78, a soda is $9, or dinner for 4 at a pizza place is $100.
Low personal savings, A BURSTING HOUSING BUBBLE, THE US DEFICIT, and indications of a recession are fucking up the dollar.
JPaul
12-09-2006, 05:14 PM
Low personal savings, A BURSTING HOUSING BUBBLE, THE US DEFICIT, and indications of a recession of fucking up the dollar.
No shit Sherlock
vidcc
12-09-2006, 05:59 PM
I really hate to dignify this thread with a legitimate response, but I guess I'll have to give vidcc something to comment on so he doesn't praise this as the Best Thread Ever. :whistling
Oh Ok
Although..... even though I think jnr. is the worst president in modern times I wouldn't say this is the best thread ever.
There have been plenty of successes during the Bush administration:
Tax cuts.
No child left behind
Prescription drug plan
Housing policies that have obviously expanded home ownership.
Tax cuts that led to a huge increase in the deficit, increased borrowing form countries like China amongst other borrowing. Meanwhile spending increases with not one spending veto. ( republican controlled spending). We still hear the "democrats tax and spend" mantra when in fact the republicans are the big spenders...."borrow, spend and let future generations pick up the tab".
http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/5177/deficitexpresscardah0.gif
Todays children all have one and all are maxed out.
I'm all for decreased taxation but I believe that spending should be under control to justify the cut before the cut is made. Any policy that leaves us beholden to other nations is not good.
No child left behind Sounds like a good idea, but not funded. Schools are ending up "teaching to the test". This administration is good at giving plans names that would make it hard to object to. example "clear skies initiative" who could object to clear skies?... And then if it is shown a 1% improvement in air quality..."see we have clearer skies"...... only problem is that the program actually loosened the standards already in place which could have achieved a 4% improvement (the improvement figures are examples for demonstration only here, not actual figures).
Prescription drug plan. another "great name" but a badly put together plan. Complex and can end up costing the recipient more once their coverage level has been reached. A golden egg given to the drug companies who charge the government more than they charge private insurance companies. It explicitly bans government from negotiating price so ends up costing the tax payer more. (corporate welfare)
Housing policies that have obviously expanded home ownership.
I'm not going to give a real plus or minus on this one because I think housing is a free flowing thing and all the government has to do is not hinder it. But just showing an increase doesn't mean that (especially the less well off ) are doing well. Those in the rental market that cannot get a mortgage are struggling.
24 % increase in second homes. (tax cuts for the top earners had to go somewhere)
Home ownership has been on the increase (it has ups and downs) for a long time. However it's an easy claim to phrase it as "more people own their homes now that ever before". We have more people so we need more homes.
Any appraisal of Bush's record must consider that he took over in difficult times. I think he was left with a good deal compared to what many other presidents inherited.
Perhaps you could go over to the Jimmy carter thread and make the same point.
By most measures, the economy is doing well: Inflation, interest rates, and unemployment are low, the stock market is higher than it's ever been and still climbing, economic growth is right with it also.
Personal debt up, Medical Insurance increases way way over the inflation rates, number of people without health insurance up. Spending power in real terms down. middle income hourly wages down in real terms. Hours worked increased.
Bush has had the uneven trip of guiding the USA through the post 9/11 era, and the country has not seen an attack in over five years, though there have been many attempts.
I know republicans like to deny it happened but, Anthrax. Also policy has measurably increased terrorism worldwide.
This is so far out it's almost funny: from the highest surplus ever when he took over, to the highest deficit in history.
Name one president who left office with a lower deficit than when he begun.
Blah, blah, blah ...
If you can't answer the question, attack the messenger.
I take it by your obfuscation that you have no defence of Bush worth hearing, and that you believe him to be the second worse US President in history after Carter.
Now, that's an empty response.
Where Bush would actually fall in that pecking order is to subject to such debate as his dithering on immigration and his woeful fear the veto pen.
That debate has yet to occur, however.
My point about Carter stands.
BTW, (again)-I cannot be sure of Ian's intent, but you've gotten the spelling wrong in the thread heading as well.
I thought humans where capable of progress, just like evolution. Not regression.
...if OPEC decided to peg oil to the Euro, as some member states have recommended, the dollar would collapse completely...
Funny, that.
If OPEC saw the Euro as the best bet, they'd go that way in a heartbeat, but then there's the simple matter of European disunity, isn't there?
It's a simple matter to rattle one's economic sabre, but it only works if "one" is truly "one".
Get back to us on that, will you?
In the meantime, OPEC has to trust something, and that's the U.S. dollar. :whistling
Busyman™
12-09-2006, 07:51 PM
This is so far out it's almost funny: from the highest surplus ever when he took over, to the highest deficit in history.
Name one president who left office with a lower deficit than when he begun.
Bill Clinton and JFK to start. What's your point?
If I'm not mistaken, it was lowest when Reagan took office but we all know what happened to the deficit after that.
Busyman™
12-09-2006, 08:06 PM
...if OPEC decided to peg oil to the Euro, as some member states have recommended, the dollar would collapse completely...
Funny, that.
If OPEC saw the Euro as the best bet, they'd go that way in a heartbeat, but then there's the simple matter of European disunity, isn't there?
It's a simple matter to rattle one's economic sabre, but it only works if "one" is truly "one".
Get back to us on that, will you?
In the meantime, OPEC has to trust something, and that's the U.S. dollar. :whistling
True if Europe was unified, it's economic might would rival the US easily.
The European Constitution went belly up.
vidcc
12-09-2006, 08:06 PM
http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt_files/image002.gif
above shows actual money, but then $1 today doesn't have the same spending power as $1 of years past so below is debt along with gross domestic product
http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt_files/image004.gif
Busyman™
12-09-2006, 08:18 PM
http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt_files/image002.gif
I was waiting for that (was waiting for Skizo though).
I asked what's his point cuz hell movies also make more money than they did 20 years ago. Is this only cuz more people go to the theater?
So tell me, how does the graph relate to the GDP?
Also notice the biggest surges in the national debt on your graph. Notice the biggest surge of them all.
vidcc
12-09-2006, 08:25 PM
http://www.ppionline.org/upload_graphics/Performance_Index.jpg
Busyman™
12-09-2006, 08:38 PM
edit
I'm not surprised.
vidcc
12-09-2006, 08:39 PM
So tell me, how does the graph relate to the GDP?
In the edit..... My youngest daughter was sat on my lap and being the active little mischief maker that she is, managed to submit the post before I was finished by banging randomly on the keyboard.....:angel1:
Busyman™
12-09-2006, 08:56 PM
So tell me, how does the graph relate to the GDP?
In the edit..... My youngest daughter was sat on my lap and being the active little mischief maker that she is, managed to submit the post before I was finished by banging randomly on the keyboard.....:angel1:
I have no problem with busyedits.:smilie4:
I do wish you had let Skiz answer first though.:angry:
JPaul
12-10-2006, 12:26 AM
Funny, that.
If OPEC saw the Euro as the best bet, they'd go that way in a heartbeat, but then there's the simple matter of European disunity, isn't there?
It's a simple matter to rattle one's economic sabre, but it only works if "one" is truly "one".
Get back to us on that, will you?
In the meantime, OPEC has to trust something, and that's the U.S. dollar. :whistling
True if Europe was unified, it's economic might would rival the US easily.
The European Constitution went belly up.
When did that happen and why was I not informed.
Ava Estelle
12-10-2006, 06:13 AM
True if Europe was unified, it's economic might would rival the US easily.
The European Constitution went belly up.
When did that happen and why was I not informed.
As I recall JP, the French rejected it, maybe some other country too, there was some debate about whether the UK should go ahead with a referendum or not. I'll look it up ....
From Wikipedia ...
The Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe (TCE), commonly referred to as the European Constitution, was an international treaty intended to create a constitution for the European Union. It was signed in 2004 by representatives of the member states of the Union but was subject to ratification by all member states, two of which subsequently rejected it in referenda. Its main aims were to replace the overlapping set of existing treaties (see Treaties of the European Union) that comprise the Union's current constitution, to codify uniform human rights throughout the EU and to streamline decision-making in what is now a 25-member organisation.
The TCE was signed by representatives of the member states on October 29, 2004, and was in the process of ratification by the member states until, in 2005, French (May 29) and Dutch (June 1) voters rejected the treaty in referenda. The failure of the constitution to win popular support in these countries caused other countries to postpone or halt their ratification procedures, and the Constitution now has a highly uncertain future. Had it been ratified, the treaty would have come into force on November 1, 2006. As of December 2006, Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Slovakia, Slovenia and Spain had ratified the constitutional treaty.
Ava Estelle
12-10-2006, 06:18 AM
Name one president who left office with a lower deficit than when he begun.
Does the fact that you're from Texas have anything to do with your blind faith in Bush?
Ava Estelle
12-10-2006, 06:31 AM
...if OPEC decided to peg oil to the Euro, as some member states have recommended, the dollar would collapse completely...
Funny, that.
If OPEC saw the Euro as the best bet, they'd go that way in a heartbeat, but then there's the simple matter of European disunity, isn't there?
It's a simple matter to rattle one's economic sabre, but it only works if "one" is truly "one".
Get back to us on that, will you?
In the meantime, OPEC has to trust something, and that's the U.S. dollar. :whistling
You should try to keep up, the dollar is collapsing, the US is the highest debtor nation in the world, Russia, the world's second biggest oil producer, is already stockpiling Euros for the switch, when they do Iran will follow.
So don't get too cocky yet.
A little reading for you ... http://www.energybulletin.net/7707.html
Funny, that.
If OPEC saw the Euro as the best bet, they'd go that way in a heartbeat, but then there's the simple matter of European disunity, isn't there?
It's a simple matter to rattle one's economic sabre, but it only works if "one" is truly "one".
Get back to us on that, will you?
In the meantime, OPEC has to trust something, and that's the U.S. dollar. :whistling
Cocky has naught to do with it.
Here's a thought for you:
If your wish comes to pass, you'll have a whole set of countries to bitch about, but the U.S. won't be one of them.
How 'bout that? :whistling
You should try to keep up, the dollar is collapsing, the US is the highest debtor nation in the world, Russia, the world's second biggest oil producer, is already stockpiling Euros for the switch, when they do Iran will follow.
So don't get too cocky yet.
A little reading for you ... http://www.energybulletin.net/7707.html
Ava Estelle
12-10-2006, 07:03 PM
If your wish comes to pass, you'll have a whole set of countries to bitch about, but the U.S. won't be one of them.
How 'bout that? :whistling
Don't worry, I'll find something to bitch about. :yup:
If your wish comes to pass, you'll have a whole set of countries to bitch about, but the U.S. won't be one of them.
How 'bout that? :whistling
Don't worry, I'll find something to bitch about. :yup:
Thanks for confirming that.
utunes
12-11-2006, 09:41 PM
he did alot during his presidency and the time to come. i support the republican views.
he did alot during his presidency and the time to come. i support the republican views.
Better get behind me, then. :dabs:
vidcc
12-11-2006, 10:53 PM
i support the republican views.
Which republican views?
The ones that agree with Bush or the ones that disagree?
Biggles
12-11-2006, 11:02 PM
he did alot during his presidency and the time to come. i support the republican views.
Curious turn of phrase.
Is he not still in his Presidency and surely what is to come is as yet unknown?
Or am I just being picky? :dabs:
clocker
12-12-2006, 12:06 AM
Or am I just being picky? :dabs:
You are but isn't that what makes you a god amongst accountants?
TYPE R
12-23-2006, 11:49 PM
simple yes
vidcc
12-29-2006, 06:25 PM
-tinPGVEjZg
Not a good sign for jnr. :unsure:
MagicNakor
12-29-2006, 07:06 PM
I totally voted for Satan.
:shuriken:
-tinPGVEjZg
Not a good sign for jnr. :unsure:
That's just silly. :dry:
vidcc
12-29-2006, 08:03 PM
That's just silly. :dry:
That Bush was chosen as the villain of 2006 or that some people actually believe in Satan?
thewizeard
12-29-2006, 09:03 PM
Erm...could you tell me where the US is on the map ..have we discovered it yet..?
sgt_kermit
12-29-2006, 09:19 PM
As an American Soldier I am proud to have President Bush as my Commander in Chief. I suppose if we weren't in Iraq and Afghanistan then all those terrorists would be farmers and not concerned with the US. WAKE UP! I would rather take the fight to them than have them bring it back to us. In case you hadn't noticed most of the Iraqi's are happy to have us there. The ones that aren't hate the US and the Freedom that we stand for. The Middle East has never been stable, and it won't be until the terrorists are gone. Even though I disagree with you I am proud to be serving in the worlds greatest military to defend your right to voice your opinion.
In case you hadn't noticed most of the Iraqi's are happy to have us there.
I can assure this has been overlooked, as the media are loathe to report it.
vidcc
12-29-2006, 10:48 PM
As an American Soldier I am proud to have President Bush as my Commander in Chief. I suppose if we weren't in Iraq and Afghanistan then all those terrorists would be farmers and not concerned with the US. WAKE UP! I would rather take the fight to them than have them bring it back to us. In case you hadn't noticed most of the Iraqi's are happy to have us there. The ones that aren't hate the US and the Freedom that we stand for. The Middle East has never been stable, and it won't be until the terrorists are gone. Even though I disagree with you I am proud to be serving in the worlds greatest military to defend your right to voice your opinion.
Why did the US troops go into Iraq? What Did Iraq have to do with those that attacked us?
Busyman™
12-30-2006, 01:58 AM
As an American Soldier I am proud to have President Bush as my Commander in Chief. I suppose if we weren't in Iraq and Afghanistan then all those terrorists would be farmers and not concerned with the US. WAKE UP! I would rather take the fight to them than have them bring it back to us. In case you hadn't noticed most of the Iraqi's are happy to have us there. The ones that aren't hate the US and the Freedom that we stand for. The Middle East has never been stable, and it won't be until the terrorists are gone. Even though I disagree with you I am proud to be serving in the worlds greatest military to defend your right to voice your opinion.
Fair enough. You serve as our decoys then.
Just by showing up in Iraq you believe you have most of the terrorist preoccupied. Good show.
It seems everyone fighting you in Iraq is not from Iraq then. Tell me, if America were divided in following Bush and he committed some atrocities, would those loyal to Bush fight against foreign "liberators"?
I imagine there'd be some that welcome the foreigners and those that wouldn't. You would call those against the foreigners, terrorists.
Both sides seem to want serve up those up to camera that are either waving the American flag or cursing it.
I figure you don't have the slightest idea what would make an Iraqi take up arms against coalition soldiers. There probably isn't one reason for all.
If some foreigners came in my country and for whatever reason killed my wife and kids, I'd wanna fuck them up too.
I talked to friend of mine from high school who just got back from Iraq and asked him how he feels about the reasons we went to war.
He said he has never thought about it and just wants to get the job done (whatever he does). I even pressed him on it and he pretty much said the same thing. Typical military which is not a bad thing.
I also asked him if he knew anyone that died over there.
He said no. Who knows, that might make a difference in how he thinks.
Cheese
12-30-2006, 02:12 AM
-tinPGVEjZg
Not a good sign for jnr. :unsure:
That's just silly. :dry:
Yeah, where the fuck is Cristiano Ronaldo in that list?
vidcc
12-30-2006, 03:13 AM
Yeah, where the fuck is Cristiano Ronaldo in that list?
He seems pretty villainous........I googled his name to find out who he is and got this when I tried to open the link :unsure:
http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/8252/huhxg1.jpg
Ava Estelle
12-30-2006, 03:34 AM
As an American Soldier I am proud to have President Bush as my Commander in Chief.
People like you aren't the solution to the problem ... you ARE the problem, and you talk a load of bollocks.
vidcc
12-30-2006, 05:47 PM
http://www.militarycity.com/polls/2006_main.php
Biggles
12-30-2006, 09:26 PM
That's just silly. :dry:
That Bush was chosen as the villain of 2006 or that some people actually believe in Satan?
:lol:
Hardly surprising though. Saddam spent all of 2006 in jail and we are not even sure if OBL is still alive. Rumsfeld must be a tad disappointed he didn't make a showing though. :shifty:
vidcc
12-31-2006, 03:28 AM
That Bush was chosen as the villain of 2006 or that some people actually believe in Satan?
:lol:
Hardly surprising though. Saddam spent all of 2006 in jail and we are not even sure if OBL is still alive. Rumsfeld must be a tad disappointed he didn't make a showing though. :shifty:
Rumsfeld got 2%, which even though a low number, at least makes him more villainous than Satan, so he doesn't feel totally dejected ;)
Here's a couple of runners up congratulating each other on the effort
http://www.awolbush.com/rumsfeld_saddam.jpg
The one with the mustache has decided not to enter next years competition.:shifty:
3RA1N1AC
01-02-2007, 06:41 PM
worst ever... hmm. that's a tough one. if not worst ever, GWB should at least rate alongside the worst. there's plenty others that share one fault or another with him. but it's a relatively short list of u.s. presidents who've managed to be so wrong in every aspect. not only visibly corrupt, not only ineffective, not only bumbling, not only ignorant, not only chronically unprepared for emergencies, not only self-righteous & stubborn to the point of complete foolishness... but ALL of those things. that's a very tall order to fill.
i mean, there are some redeeming values one could mention about a lot of the controversial presidents. lincoln preserved the union, jimmy carter was altruistic and as straight an arrow as you're likely to find among the 43 we've had so far, LBJ did some alright work on the domestic side, nixon eventually pulled out of vietnam & got onto speaking terms with the people's republic, etc etc. one needs to look back at least several decades and even to the 19th century, to find presidents who are just so wrong, wrong, stupendously bad at leading/speaking/snacking (http://www.google.com/search?&q=%22george+w+bush%22+pretzel), and all-around wrong.
sgt_kermit
01-06-2007, 11:41 AM
As an American Soldier I am proud to have President Bush as my Commander in Chief.
People like you aren't the solution to the problem ... you ARE the problem, and you talk a load of bollocks.
I noticed your avatar says "Manchester United" so I am guessing that you are not an American anyway. President Bush is not your problem if this is the case. I suppose that you dislike Tony Blair as well since he is allies with President Bush. I may be part of the problem as you see it, but at least I have put myself in a position to make positive change instead of just criticizing the actions of the leaders. I was not happy with some of the choices that Bill Clinton made, but I still did my duty to the best of my ability and supported him as well, because if you don't support your leaders you send a message to the world and open yourself up to attackers. The decision to go into Iraq was made by President Bush and the members of Congress (Democrats and Republicans) who had the same intelligence that President Bush had, so I wish people would quit blaming Bush solely for this.
Ava Estelle
01-06-2007, 12:07 PM
Doing you duty? Wasn't that the excuse given by the guards at Abu Ghraib?
The soldiers I have respect for are those who, when they see their country and their president are wrong, refuse to take part. It's the sheep of this world that allow arseholes like Bush and his cohorts, including Blair, to ride roughshod over people's human rights in the name of US imperialism.
Oh, and by the way, what Bush does to your rights and freedoms is your problem, as soon as he steps outside the borders of the US he's everyone's problem. He's made the whole world unsafe, and killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people in the process.
Busyman™
01-06-2007, 04:34 PM
People like you aren't the solution to the problem ... you ARE the problem, and you talk a load of bollocks.
I noticed your avatar says "Manchester United" so I am guessing that you are not an American anyway. President Bush is not your problem if this is the case. I suppose that you dislike Tony Blair as well since he is allies with President Bush. I may be part of the problem as you see it, but at least I have put myself in a position to make positive change instead of just criticizing the actions of the leaders. I was not happy with some of the choices that Bill Clinton made, but I still did my duty to the best of my ability and supported him as well, because if you don't support your leaders you send a message to the world and open yourself up to attackers. The decision to go into Iraq was made by President Bush and the members of Congress (Democrats and Republicans) who had the same intelligence that President Bush had, so I wish people would quit blaming Bush solely for this.
Okay now you sound like a brainless automaton. You do not blindly support your leaders. Don't get me wrong. I understand you must do your duty as a soldier but your thought process independent of that is another story.
Bush is the leader of our country so he gets blame just as Clinton would have.
I thought Clinton was shit for doing what it seemed was attacking Iraq when he was in the hot seat.
I will not blindly support a leader in an action that I think is wrong.
Busyman™
01-06-2007, 04:38 PM
Doing you duty? Wasn't that the excuse given by the guards at Abu Ghraib?
The soldiers I have respect for are those who, when they see their country and their president are wrong, refuse to take part. It's the sheep of this world that allow arseholes like Bush and his cohorts, including Blair, to ride roughshod over people's human rights in the name of US imperialism.
Oh, and by the way, what Bush does to your rights and freedoms is your problem, as soon as he steps outside the borders of the US he's everyone's problem. He's made the whole world unsafe, and killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people in the process.
Soldiers are not that high up on the food chain to simply say know. The Iraq action is not erroneous. It's not like Bush ordered soldiers to rape and kill a bunch of women.:dry:
Even with my views now, if I was a soldier in Iraq, I'd be following orders unless they were erroneously wrong.
if I was a soldier in Iraq, I'd be following orders unless they were erroneously wrong.
Parse this, please?
sgt_kermit
01-06-2007, 05:06 PM
Doing you duty? Wasn't that the excuse given by the guards at Abu Ghraib?
The soldiers I have respect for are those who, when they see their country and their president are wrong, refuse to take part. It's the sheep of this world that allow arseholes like Bush and his cohorts, including Blair, to ride roughshod over people's human rights in the name of US imperialism.
Oh, and by the way, what Bush does to your rights and freedoms is your problem, as soon as he steps outside the borders of the US he's everyone's problem. He's made the whole world unsafe, and killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people in the process.
Based on your response I can plainly see that you have never served anything greater than yourself. The so called soldiers that refuse to take part if they feel the president is wrong are not soldiers. As long as the order is not breaking the law or violating the UCMJ then as a Soldier you are obligated to follow it, regardless of what you personally think. If President Bush is such a problem to you, then what are you doing about it, rather than just complaining on this forum?
Ava Estelle
01-06-2007, 05:35 PM
As long as the order is not breaking the law or violating the UCMJ then as a Soldier you are obligated to follow it, regardless of what you personally think.
Baaa, baaa!
As long as the order is not breaking the law or violating the UCMJ then as a Soldier you are obligated to follow it, regardless of what you personally think.
Baaa, baaa!
Hmmm.
I have to admit I had not thought from the sheep's perspective.
Well stated by an obviously well-experienced shepherd. :naughty:
sgt_kermit
01-06-2007, 07:51 PM
As long as the order is not breaking the law or violating the UCMJ then as a Soldier you are obligated to follow it, regardless of what you personally think.
Baaa, baaa!
What an eloquent response. Isn't it also typical that you only quote part of my previous response to suit your needs.
Mr JP Fugley
01-06-2007, 08:16 PM
Baaa, baaa!
What an eloquent response. Isn't it also typical that you only quote part of my previous response to suit your needs.
I have to confess I sometimes do that as well, however it's more to make obvious the part I'm replying to than for any disingenuous reason. I see no point in quoting a whole post if I only wish to respond to part of it.
I couldn't possibly comment on why anyone else does it.
I find the whole taking orders thing confusing. My simplistic view is that a Soldier, or a Police Officer should follow an order given to them. That is what they joined to do. If something is so against their principles that they cannot do it, then they should present themselves to a superior and say something like "Sir, I cannot carry out your order and with regret must disobey it. As such I offer myself for arrest on a charge of disobeying an order lawfully given".
Thats seems reasonable to me. However it would only be so if the actions (or inaction) ordered were against a deeply held principle, as opposed to just not agreeing with something.
sgt_kermit
01-06-2007, 08:45 PM
What an eloquent response. Isn't it also typical that you only quote part of my previous response to suit your needs.
I have to confess I sometimes do that as well, however it's more to make obvious the part I'm replying to than for any disingenuous reason. I see no point in quoting a whole post if I only wish to respond to part of it.
I couldn't possibly comment on why anyone else does it.
I find the whole taking orders thing confusing. My simplistic view is that a Soldier, or a Police Officer should follow an order given to them. That is what they joined to do. If something is so against their principles that they cannot do it, then they should present themselves to a superior and say something like "Sir, I cannot carry out your order and with regret must disobey it. As such I offer myself for arrest on a charge of disobeying an order lawfully given".
Thats seems reasonable to me. However it would only be so if the actions (or inaction) ordered were against a deeply held principle, as opposed to just not agreeing with something.
I see your point about just quoting part of the post. As far as the rest of the reply it is well put and I could agree with that to a point. That would be the correct way not to follow an order, but the person would have to be willing to face the consequences. The military requires good order and discipline and if we have a bunch of Soldiers saying they cannot follow a lawful order because they disagree or don't believe in the order would cause havoc. Sometimes there is not time to figure out whether you agree or disagree with something, you must follow the order or a terrorist puts a bullet in you. In America we are an all volunteer force and anyone that joins with an illusion that they will never have to fight in a war is living in the clouds.
I have to confess I sometimes do that as well, however it's more to make obvious the part I'm replying to than for any disingenuous reason. I see no point in quoting a whole post if I only wish to respond to part of it.
I couldn't possibly comment on why anyone else does it.
I find the whole taking orders thing confusing. My simplistic view is that a Soldier, or a Police Officer should follow an order given to them. That is what they joined to do. If something is so against their principles that they cannot do it, then they should present themselves to a superior and say something like "Sir, I cannot carry out your order and with regret must disobey it. As such I offer myself for arrest on a charge of disobeying an order lawfully given".
Thats seems reasonable to me. However it would only be so if the actions (or inaction) ordered were against a deeply held principle, as opposed to just not agreeing with something.
I see your point about just quoting part of the post. As far as the rest of the reply it is well put and I could agree with that to a point. That would be the correct way not to follow an order, but the person would have to be willing to face the consequences. The military requires good order and discipline and if we have a bunch of Soldiers saying they cannot follow a lawful order because they disagree or don't believe in the order would cause havoc. Sometimes there is not time to figure out whether you agree or disagree with something, you must follow the order or a terrorist puts a bullet in you. In America we are an all volunteer force and anyone that joins with an illusion that they will never have to fight in a war is living in the clouds.
Fugs' post also does us the favor of recognizing that the choice to ignore an order does not occur in a vacuum, and that there are consequences to certain actions.
Anyone with a lick of sense knows the armed service is not where one goes to refine one's anarchic tendencies.
Square pegs need not apply, besides, somebody has to stay home and protest war and such.
Busyman™
01-06-2007, 09:44 PM
if I was a soldier in Iraq, I'd be following orders unless they were erroneously wrong.
Parse this, please?
Parse what? I love leaving stuff for you.:lol: :lol:
"He used erroneously with wrong. OMG!":lol:
Parse this, please?
Parse what? I love leaving stuff for you.:lol: :lol:
Oh, bullshit.
You leave "stuff" for everyone, everywhere.
Mr JP Fugley
01-06-2007, 11:22 PM
:busyrod: in The Drawing Room ftw.
Mr JP Fugley
01-06-2007, 11:28 PM
I have to confess I sometimes do that as well, however it's more to make obvious the part I'm replying to than for any disingenuous reason. I see no point in quoting a whole post if I only wish to respond to part of it.
I couldn't possibly comment on why anyone else does it.
I find the whole taking orders thing confusing. My simplistic view is that a Soldier, or a Police Officer should follow an order given to them. That is what they joined to do. If something is so against their principles that they cannot do it, then they should present themselves to a superior and say something like "Sir, I cannot carry out your order and with regret must disobey it. As such I offer myself for arrest on a charge of disobeying an order lawfully given".
Thats seems reasonable to me. However it would only be so if the actions (or inaction) ordered were against a deeply held principle, as opposed to just not agreeing with something.
I see your point about just quoting part of the post. As far as the rest of the reply it is well put and I could agree with that to a point. That would be the correct way not to follow an order, but the person would have to be willing to face the consequences. The military requires good order and discipline and if we have a bunch of Soldiers saying they cannot follow a lawful order because they disagree or don't believe in the order would cause havoc. Sometimes there is not time to figure out whether you agree or disagree with something, you must follow the order or a terrorist puts a bullet in you. In America we are an all volunteer force and anyone that joins with an illusion that they will never have to fight in a war is living in the clouds.
Good points, well presented.
Like I said, sometimes when I am confused about an issue I like to approach it in simplistic terms. Black and white if you will. We can then work on the grey areas and consider them in light of the parts with which we agree.
Busyman™
01-07-2007, 02:06 AM
Parse what? I love leaving stuff for you.:lol: :lol:
Oh, bullshit.
You leave "stuff" for everyone, everywhere.
Naw some are jus mistakes. Some aren't.
It all depends on my attention span.
Ava Estelle
01-07-2007, 07:21 AM
Isn't it also typical that you only quote part of my previous response to suit your needs.
Of course, why would I wish to confuse you by quoting something that has no relevance to my reply?
I see no point in quoting a whole post if I only wish to respond to part of it.
I'm surprised that needed pointing out.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.