President Bush 60 replies

Please wait...

Mihail VIP Member

President of Novistrana

50 XP

19th January 2003

0 Uploads

15,509 Posts

0 Threads

#21 12 years ago
Don't any of you all think for one second that I will not lock this thread

"What is your view of President Bush", sorry but my comment as was everyone else right on topic.

Not only is President Bush my commander in chief but he is the president of any Americans on this forum

Only if you voted for him can he be considered your president, Was Saddam not the president of Iraq when the People freely voted for him? But you would say they did not support him, well exactly.

Mihail, did you know that if you actually said something like that on american soil you could get in a LOT of trouble for it.

Really? I guess you lack the freedom of speech on your soil shame, and if that was a threat from a civilian, you should have more respect for opinions, his cracked rib will help with that lesson.




Tango Protocol

Master of my own domain

50 XP

18th July 2003

0 Uploads

8,283 Posts

0 Threads

#22 12 years ago

Treason or suggestions of death is not protected by the freedom of speech. Even if it's obvious that you will not follow through with it.




RadioactiveLobster Forum Admin

Jeff is a mean boss

566,774 XP

28th July 2002

0 Uploads

53,190 Posts

1,338 Threads

#23 12 years ago

Mihail, regardless of the fact you seem to be anti........well, everything.

There is a difference between stating your opinion and backing it with reason, than just saying "he should be shot"


If there is no image, Mikey broke something...



Tango Protocol

Master of my own domain

50 XP

18th July 2003

0 Uploads

8,283 Posts

0 Threads

#24 12 years ago

Hey, it's obvious that I am republican and I support bush.

But let me remind you that my moderative decision is non-biased. If you say something that is considered treasonous, it will be deleted. Also if you say anything pro bush OR anti bush without any type of textual support either from further explanation or a citation, it will be deleted. Plain and simple.




Mihail VIP Member

President of Novistrana

50 XP

19th January 2003

0 Uploads

15,509 Posts

0 Threads

#25 12 years ago
Treason or suggestions of death is not protected by the freedom of speech.

Treason Or threats of death? Why are these not held against the Your president?

Mihail, regardless of the fact you seem to be anti........well, everything. There is a difference between stating your opinion and backing it with reason, than just saying "he should be shot"

My view was stated, reason behind it is well known, this is not 2003, I do not feel as if I need to declare such things anymore, since it's a awfully long record which I chime more then enough as it is.

Hey, it's obvious that I am republican and I support bush.

Fantastic, I do not declare parties, as they tie down the political process with interferring politics.

But let me remind you that my moderative decision is non-biased.

I'm glad to hear, keep it that way, it's the only reason I still come on every once in awhile, the good moderation, :mihailhatesu:

If you say something that is considered treasonous, it will be deleted.

Since when does my opinion become that of a American Citizen? that can be considered treason? And if you do delete these so called "treansonous" posts, these would be the first I have seen or heard of.

Also if you say anything pro bush OR anti bush without any type of textual support either from further explanation or a citation, it will be deleted. Plain and simple.

I give you the history of President Bush 2001 to 2007 George W. Bush - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, wiki dictionary, These are mostly baised opinions, as it is a public dictionary, but I will refer to this link each and everytime I speak of bush to satisfy your Fetish.




Jeff Über Admin

I am a mean boss ⬆️⬆️⬇️⬇️⬅️➡️⬅️➡️??

184,643 XP

6th April 2000

0 Uploads

14,592 Posts

1,534 Threads

#26 12 years ago

dirty deeds;3667493In all fairness to Bush, he really doesn't deserve the hatred that many on the left keep throwing at him. Comparison's to Hitler and charicaturizations of him as a bafoon really are unnecessary. He has certainly made some mistakes, but instead of trying to find a solution that is practical, most democratic lawmakers are simply "posing for the camera" when it comes to Iraq (the main issue on people's minds). I would rather take the time money and resources now to fix this situation while we're already there, rather than have to go back in 10 years like we had to do in Afghanistan after we helped them beat the Soviets and then left them high and dry.

On a side note When Hillary Clinton says that she will pull the troops out her very first day in office, and Mr. Reid says that the war is lost, my question to them is, why the hell aren't you cutting off the funds now, instead of waiting another 20 months for more troops to die. Isn't it illogical to just sit back and allow people to die when you don't even believe they are serving a purpose. At least Bush thinks they can still win and that's why he's keeping them there. The dems are just playing politics.

Forget the division between republicans and democrats for a while. That seems to be clouding the issue.

He simply has that Texan stubbornness that's costing American lives. He constantly says "Mission Accomplished" and "We're going to stay over there and win this"

I'm sorry, we lost . We're over there now protecting the interests of his oil owning buddies and doing so in the middle of a civil war of another nation. He refuses to pull out our troops where, as they're fighting bravely, they're not fighting for the reasons they should have been.

Bush is a self righteous arrogant egotistical twit that I can't wait see gone from office in 2008 (I so wish it was sooner and wish it was done in disgrace)

Iraq turned into Vietnam. Plain and simple.


Product Manager | GameFront.com




Deimos

Pierce the Heavens

50 XP

27th January 2003

0 Uploads

9,197 Posts

0 Threads

#27 12 years ago
'Knippschild'Treason or suggestions of death is not protected by the freedom of speech. Even if it's obvious that you will not follow through with it.

I'm pretty sure that simply saying someone should be shot is protected speech. Some people might look at it like a treasonous statement, but the statement itself is not treason. It's not the same as saying, "Oh, this guy needs a belly full of lead from my sawed off shotty, here's how I plan to do it, everyone meet me at 'x' and we're going to do 'y'."

Two entirely different scenarios, I know, but I'm quite sure that my first example is protected under the first.




RadioactiveLobster Forum Admin

Jeff is a mean boss

566,774 XP

28th July 2002

0 Uploads

53,190 Posts

1,338 Threads

#28 12 years ago

n0e;3667886Forget the division between republicans and democrats for a while. That seems to be clouding the issue.

He simply has that Texan stubbornness that's costing American lives. He constantly says "Mission Accomplished" and "We're going to stay over there and win this"

I'm sorry, we lost . We're over there now protecting the interests of his oil owning buddies and doing so in the middle of a civil war of another nation. He refuses to pull out our troops where, as they're fighting bravely, they're not fighting for the reasons they should have been.

Iraq turned into Vietnam. Plain and simple.

Ok, lets forget parties for a while, i can agree with you there.

People have been misstating the "Mission Accomplished" thing for a while, the "mission" he was referring to was the removal of Saddam from power, not the complete winning of the war.

I will pose the same question to you, if we have lost, then who has won? Are you admitting to the terrorists and insurgence victory over American forces? Are you referring to a military or political loss? Would you rather have them fighting on our own soil, or fighting over there to prevent it from ever coming here?

Exactly how is Iraq a new Vietnam? Is it because of the people at home losing faith? Is it because of our "we want it now", "instant gratification" society that we are not willing to let the military do its job. If you do not remember, we were winning in Vietnam from a purely militaristic standpoint, we won every single major conflict or battle. We lost, and yes we did lose, because the US finally decided to throw it all away and pull out to early. They let the North Vietcong Army win, they damn near handed it to them on a silver platter.


If there is no image, Mikey broke something...



Jeff Über Admin

I am a mean boss ⬆️⬆️⬇️⬇️⬅️➡️⬅️➡️??

184,643 XP

6th April 2000

0 Uploads

14,592 Posts

1,534 Threads

#29 12 years ago

S.T.A.L.K.E.R.;3667924Ok, lets forget parties for a while, i can agree with you there.

People have been misstating the "Mission Accomplished" thing for a while, the "mission" he was referring to was the removal of Saddam from power, not the complete winning of the war.

I will pose the same question to you, if we have lost, then who has won? Are you admitting to the terrorists and insurgence victory over American forces? Are you referring to a military or political loss? Would you rather have them fighting on our own soil, or fighting over there to prevent it from ever coming here?

In a word, yes. This war has been mis managed and so terribly prepared that I cannot imagine us getting out of there in the next decade. It's been terrible decision after terrible decision. Just when a bill was introduced that would give GWB the funds and power to get the troops everything they need, he veto'd it because it also stated about starting to pull troops out and bring them home. Why? Because the moron won't admit he was wrong. Yes, he was wrong. He lied to the population, and now he just won't admit to anything he does. He places blame on everyone but himself. He's a piss-poor administrator and he's about as smart as a box of rocks.

The Military are fighting for their lives.. their LIVES. They're over there being killed so the oil tycoons can line their pockets and post record profits every year for as long as they can.

I laugh at the statement that 'they'll follow us home.' It's not because you said it, but because Bush said it. Sorry, they won't. They aren't some centralized government he's worried about, it's a network of terrorist cells. They aren't basing operations out of one area, they do it out of several.

You think that just because we're off in Iraq that it will stop any attacks? HAH! I'm surprised (and very happy) that they haven't attacked us since then. Before you start saying something like, it's because of the preventative measures that we have in place now, let me stop you there. None of that, nothing can prevent someone from doing something if they're determined enough. The more walls we put up, the more creative they'll be to get around them. Currently, they're just an inconvenience to people and give them a false sense of security about the world around them.

If you really believe that it's helping, then here, I have a rock. This rock will stop Tigers from eating you if you where ever you go. I mean, when you hold that rock, you don't see tigers eating you, do you?

Exactly how is Iraq a new Vietnam? Is it because of the people at home losing faith? Is it because of our "we want it now", "instant gratification" society that we are not willing to let the military do its job. If you do not remember, we were winning in Vietnam from a purely militaristic standpoint, we won every single major conflict or battle. We lost, and yes we did lose, because the US finally decided to throw it all away and pull out to early. They let the North Vietcong Army win, they damn near handed it to them on a silver platter.

7 years of fighting with nothing to show for it but a small victory that was not the intention given to the people of the United States is instant gratification? Hardly. We went in there because GWB said there were WMD's. He ADMITTED he lied so we would go in there and attack Saddam. I said this before and I'll say it again. Jr. is just looking to make his daddy proud, and using American lives to do it. Did Saddam deserve to be removed, you have my vote. However that's a soverign nation we attacked, and we should have damned well had the UN do it. That's what they're there for. They have peacekeeping forces and the nations in the middle east, while don't have love for the UN sure as hell respect them a lot more than they respect the USA.

How is this war like Vietnam? Simple. It's a war we cannot win. There is nothing on the other end that will be anything beneficial to the US, nor to Iraq. It's going to be an unstable nation at best and until it gets to that point, the people there will be fighting civil wars. More troops isn't always the answer. That kind of strategy is how the US Civil War was fought, and look what kind of bloody terrible mess that was.


Product Manager | GameFront.com




Hawkeye18z

livE raW doG

50 XP

6th August 2005

0 Uploads

1,134 Posts

0 Threads

#30 12 years ago

Relander;3667324 Good attitude in trying to actually affect into things and also nice simplication & generalization of all politicians.

When do people learn that things aren't black & white? When the hell freezes I presume.

I've worked for those whores from Jimmy Carter to George II. In US politics you get what you can buy. The power brokers in the congress and senate are all for sale. The one's that don't toe the party line get left out in the cold, just like Liebermann did. The common man can't get access to any politician. Access is granted by how much money you donate or how many votes you carry in your pocket.

The slight differences in social ideology between the 2 parties is what they use to keep the rabble enthralled. After the elections, they mean nothing and nothing really changes. The only real change is 1 party spends more on the military and the other spends more on social programs.

Sometimes things are black and white. Over complicating issues is what they do best. If all politicians would simply go by the right and wrong standard, instead of democrat or republican party lines, the people would fare a lot better.