A Controversial Thread on Bush -1 reply

  • 1
  • 2

Please wait...

emonkies

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

16th July 2003

0 Uploads

15,096 Posts

0 Threads

#11 17 years ago

I think that G.W. Bush will set new records for the amount of political corruption and "you rub my back and I will run yours" mentality. His entire political history in the White House has been a series of "Im in the big House now, I can line my pockets and use my political power to make my self richer and to make sure that all of my rich friends benefit as well.

And I dont beieve Clinton crashed the economy. It takes a year or so for economic reforms to take effect. I didnt notice everything going to crap till spring of 2002.

I live in Indiana and when Clinton was in Office things were good and life was great. Since Bush has taken office the economy has plummeted, Indiana was recently #1 out of all 50 states in Unemployement, bank loan foreclosures, home mortgage foreclosures, and bankruptcies. The industrial parks around here look like ghost towns. The landscape around central Indiana is dotted with failed businesses and closed factories.

I was laid off from work over a year ago and cant get a job. My friend who is a Union journeyman electrician cant get a regular job, all that is available is shutdowns, where he and others go in and disconnect all of the electricity and other utilities and close down the factories. Almost all new commerical construction has been cancelled or been put on hold. And to top it off, the law was changed to allow credit checks to be included for a job interview. So now when I go and put in an application I have to consent to a credit check as part of my job. I have an excellent work record up til when I was laid off. But with no money incoming cant pay bills regularly, cant pay bills, credit history becomes bad, bad credit history means no job, no job means no money to pay bills, etc. and the cycle continues. Since Bush has taken office most of my friends and family have been laid off or forced to take a job making a lot less than they did. The only one semployeed are my mom whio works in a hospital and her job is in peril, and my sister who is a professor at a local College.

And despite all this Bush has been extremely blatant in making sure he and all his buddies are getting their pockets lined. And Cheney and Haliburton? the Company is accused of and admits to price gouging the US taxpayer and gets off with just repaying the money AND STILL GETS THE CONTRACTS FOR IRAQ!!! Tell me somebody isnt getting rich off of this. Sure isnt me. If the average taxpayer did what Haliburton had done not only would we have not been rewarded with new contracts, we would have been in a 8 x 10 cell with Big Bubba asking us if we want to be the man or the wife.

I dont think there has been a darker time for the little man. I dont think there has been a US president who has been so blatantly obvious about his opinions of how the litle man doesnt matter.

I am pro gun and anti-Bush. I didnt vote for Bush and when he was elected, I told all of my friends and relatives and posted on every websaite that I frequent that "Within a year we will be at war with someone" and look where we are, in 2 wars. Afghanistan and Iraq. Now I do realize that Osama had his 9-11 plans in the works long before Bush came to power but I cant refute the irony of my predictions. Every time I look at Bush my mind plays a flashback of the scene from the "Deadzone" movie where the guy has a premonition of the President starting WW3.

And the crap of Bush posing for pictures in a flightsuit after the carrier landing? He acted like he personally flew the plane out to the carrier and landed it there. WRONG he got to handle the controls for a short amount of time on the way out. And yes I am aware that G.W. was a military pilot.

And the sad part is the sharks that are circling to replace Bush arent any better. I havent seen a single candidate Republican or Democrat that I would endorse.

And how many pretzels does G.W. need? As many as it takes.




Artie Bucco

Guey>Tio(a)

50 XP

27th April 2003

0 Uploads

3,682 Posts

0 Threads

#12 17 years ago

Another weakness of American politics is the lack of a Third party. I know it sounds dumb but it is true to some extent. The Liberatarians have potential but everyone from Tree-Huggers to Backwoods militamen call themselves Liberatarian.




emonkies

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

16th July 2003

0 Uploads

15,096 Posts

0 Threads

#13 17 years ago
Artie BuccoAnother weakness of American politics is the lack of a Third party. I know it sounds dumb but it is true to some extent. The Liberatarians have potential but everyone from Tree-Huggers to Backwoods militamen call themselves Liberatarian.

I agree. Americans are politically comatose compared to the French. IIRC the French have a dozen parties and if they think they are getting shafted by the Goverment they strike or protest. Americans by comparison will complain but do very little about it. Must be something they put in the water here. :uhm:

I thought it was great when Ross Perot ran for President, just not his choice for running mate. Many people attitude was "How worse could he do than the present system?

It was a shake up to the American two party system. It was a message saying "Hey you guys suck and your cheap shots at each other come election time is annoying. If you dont get your act together there are alternatives"

And I feel that the US politicians have taken steps to ensure a two party system. The Dems and Rep have a understanding that if there are more than their two parties they could loose their powerbase so as much as they disagree they work together to eliminate any outside threat. Even if a 3rd party president was electd, all youhave to do is look at how much in fighting is done as Democrats work to undermine a Republican President and vice versa. A 3rd party president would have a hard time getting anything done.

I would love to see a viable and capable 3rd party shake up the system. their are the Libertarians but they never do well.




FireSphere

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

13th February 2004

0 Uploads

1,646 Posts

0 Threads

#14 17 years ago

Thank you Anlushac and KillorLive. I somehow had the impression that KillorLive was too adamant in his convictions to accept evidence against Bush, but it's nice to know I was wrong. I am from Massachusetts (actually from a small town about 4,000 people in southeastern MA named Berkley) and things are not good around here either. I can't find a job, even though I am highly-educated for my age (I go to Xaverian Brothers High School, one of the top 50 high schools in the country) and highly-motivated. The only place they will higher me is McDonald's where they refuse to give me any hours and instead give hours to Colombian immigrants and other minorities. First of all, Boo McDonald's! And Ronald McDonald sucks ass! Long Live the Hamburgler! On the MMN (MiniMe) clan's website, I posted basically the same thing as I did here, about the CBS censorship thing. I did not receive nearly as good a welcoming as I did here. Instead, the moderator, GeneralMiniMe, deleted my post and called my a "fucking asshole tree hugging liberal" and continued to taunt me. The URL of the MMN clan forum topic is http://generalminime.proboards19.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&num=1075532066&start=15 in case you would like to migrate over there and send messages in support of my ideas. He gave me a bogus news story from usatoday.com, the URL is http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/usatoday/20040127/cm_usatoday/candidatescriticalofbushsbudgetsofferlittlerelief, trying to use the obvious Unfair and Unbalanced news story to discredit me and anyone who opposes Bush's disastrous economic plan. He also called me "Chicken Little" (because I'm 17) repetitively, accusive the Democrats and Liberals of not being able to use anyone but me to further their message. That is simply untrue. I am trying to spread ideas of a better democracy and of a better country that has a better economy, healthcare, environment, etc. I replied with:

GeneralMiniMe,

Your post is HEAVILY pro-Bush. I cannot believe that you would take it so seriously, given that it is highly critical of everyone else BUT Bush. You can't tell the difference between fair and balanced and UNfair and UNbalanced, can you?

What it says about certain Democratic candidates is untrue. It says that the Democrats give little specifics on what they intend to do about the economy. The article contradicts itself when it talks does about SPECIFICS about what the Democratic candidates would do!

I believe Bush has dug himself into a hole by his performance the past 3 years. Before 9/11 he was considered a "lame" president, but suddenly, as soon as he had something to roo-rah about he received MUCH MORE power, most of which is unchecked by other branches of government under his habit of keeping information secret under the impression that it represents a national security risk. Please! The Executive Branch needs some sort of oversight from time to time, not unchecked power that is free to receive massive amounts of money from lobbying parties in return for positive media coverage.

After 9/11, 1200 Arab immigrants were detained by the Bush Administration. The FBI and CIA have cleared them ALL on any connection to terrorism, but not after allegations that they were tortured and not after they were deported to other countries so that they could not tell the truth to the American people! The immigrants were also not given a speedy and fair trial, and were not given ANY legal counsel, being held for over 6 months in prisons.

By contrast, a military court under the Bush Administration only admitted that some guards had called the detainees names and one had thrown the Koran of one of the detainees into a trash can.

And the Bush Administration will not disclose the names of the detainees, even though they are deported, to any media or any other branch of American government. Why the secrecy, if they were cleared of any connection to terrorism? Why?

As to the comment about the $130 billion raised so far by the Bush-Cheney ticket...how can the Democrats raise any money for a ticket that has not been settled yet? Both parties have a PRIMARY SYSTEM that allows adherents to either party to decide which candidate they will throw at the other party's candidate. Bush has had a huge 3-year headstart because he knew he would be running for re-election. Unfortunately, the Democrats did not. But you will see a grass-roots effort to elect a Democratic candidate to the White House anyway!

I, in fact, see no real weaknesses in the Democratic candidate I intend to vote for (i.e., John Kerry). He has the support of labor unions, veterans' unions, endorsements from key gubernatorial figures (i.e., the Governor of Oklahoma last night), and his message is clear and sound.

On the other hand, I see MANY weaknesses in the Bush rhetoric, mainly the corruption of his henchmen Cheney, Ashcroft, and others, and his lack of any answers in the issues of the economy, jobs, healthcare, the envronment, etc. The Bush Re-election campaign stays away from those issues AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE because it knows it cannot compete. Instead, it sticks to the Rhetoric of Fear, the War against Terror, as its stepping stone of re-election.

The idea that Bush is the only one that can save us from terrorists is completely false! The infrastructure (the military, the agencies, the ability to gather intelligence) was ALREADY THERE! Just because he happened to be the President at the time does not mean that he is the only one that can fight terrorism! Argh!

Please support me in my pursuit of truth and accountability in the Federal Government.




  • 1
  • 2