Author Topic: President Bush - Just Not The Man I Once Thought He Was.... (Read 1505 times)

BamBams · « **on:** October 19, 2005, 02:03:30 PM »

No border control.

No fuel relief.

No privacy.

And now THIS!

"The Bush administration opposes a House-passed bill that would require mandatory cuts in the U.S. dues payment to the United Nations if it fails to adopt more than three dozen specific reforms in the next few years."

Full story below....

http://www.washtimes.com/world/20051018-114900-1796r.htm

Leverdude · « **Reply #1 on:** October 19, 2005, 02:12:15 PM »

Just my opinion but I think the UN is the biggest oxymoron going. Oughtta just disband the whole thing. Might be a group of nations but we sure aint united & as far as I'm concerened thats just fine. We did a whole lot better when we took care of our own selves.

ironglow · « **Reply #2 on:** October 20, 2005, 12:57:46 AM »

Not crazy about any of those things either...but imagine if we ad ANY democrat administration instead...
Now, rejoice for the small blessings we do enjoy !

magooch · « **Reply #3 on:** October 20, 2005, 04:14:28 AM »

Yup, you're right--ifin we had a Dumbycrat for pres. and the Dumbycrats controlled the congress, we wouldn't be haven all these terrible storms, terrorism would be gone, gas would be just about free and the world would be just wonderful.

Leverdude · « **Reply #4 on:** October 20, 2005, 12:49:52 PM »

I'll agree we're sure better off than we would be with a Democrat but its sure sad that we need to think that way at all. I voted for Bush in 2000 & against Kerry in 2004 myself but sure wish there were someone up on the ticket that had some real genuine morals & cared more about the country than the polls.

Sourdough · « **Reply #5 on:** October 22, 2005, 10:12:16 AM »

I also voted for Bush in 2000, and against Kerry in 2004.

Bush's first big mistake was disbanding the iraqi army. Only the top leaders of that army had any allegiance to Sadam. The rest were draftees. If he had kept the army intact, replaced the leaders, all the munitions would not have disappeared along with the troops to be used against us. They would now have taken control of their country, and we would not have to train a whole new force from scratch.

Second, our borders need to be sealed! Bush needs to do something about the Mexician government encouraging the illegials to cross the border. When the Mexician government gives their citizens pointers on how to slip across without getting caught, that's going too far.

Third: The foreign countries dumping their government subsidized products over here. I want to buy Americian, but it's almost impossible to find anything made in Americia anymore. Even ordering clothes from Cabela's, they are made in foreign countries, usually China or Viet-Nam, but you don't know that till you get them. At least my guns (Ruger, T/C, and Handi) are made in the USA.

rockbilly · « **Reply #6 on:** October 23, 2005, 05:13:15 AM »

:roll: :roll: Gentleman we have not had a "real" President in the White House for many years. Jorge Boosh was elected solely because he was the lessor of two evils. His record as governor of Texas and business experience clearly indicated he is a failure, and now he has put this country in such a state that we will never live to see it recover.

For the sake of all, pray that there is an effective and efficient individual out there that would like to be responsible for leading this country back to the glory days.

Mauser · « **Reply #7 on:** October 24, 2005, 04:40:42 AM »

The worst thing Bush has done-and there are several things to chose from- is make it more likely that we're going to have a Democrat Congress and White House by 2008. Bush has made it hard for any future Republican Pres. candidate to say he is from the party of small govt, having spent more than anyone (even adjusted for inflation) since LBJ.

Bush, like his father, is a person who thinks the solutions to all problems lie with government-except, of course, with respect to the Mex border where he doesn't want any solution. This is hardly surprising if you consider where the Bushies have been employed most of the time.

The only Republican who I think is consistently worth a d_ _n is Ron Paul of Texas, who is a good libertarian.

williamlayton · « **Reply #8 on:** October 24, 2005, 03:57:22 PM »

I told you so--I also told ya'll I would tell you I told you.
Blessings

PS-
When you vote Republican you are voting for a party whose leadership we do not know and who have a very private agenda.
I am not suggesting a Democrat---I am suggesting not a Republican.

Gunsmoke · « **Reply #9 on:** November 03, 2005, 06:36:30 PM »

Sure don't agree with everything he has done. or not done. but I am thankful he's in office and not the Demorats. They've never done anything except tax and spend us into oblivion. and badmouth America, can't believe what JimmY Carter just did , writing the UN a letter bad mouthing America, totally inexcusable, borders on treason. I agree totally with the letters above, the UN is a waste of time and money. GET THE U.S. OUT OF THE UN AND THE UN OUT OF THE U. S. We don't need them, they are just a bunch of one=worlders that want to control us and especially control the right of gun ownership.
I still think he's a good man and I still support our President.
Just my thoughts.

jh45gun · « **Reply #10 on:** November 03, 2005, 06:56:14 PM »

Carter is a senile old fart who since he got the Nobel Prize actually thinks he knows something. :roll: He was a piss poor president and now a piss poor self appointed diplomat. No matter how you may dislike the Republicans they are head over heels better than the liberal Democrats. Even in his worst day Bush and his daddy before him are better than any Democrap Since JFK and a better than any one that may be running in 2008 (Hillary, Kerry, Dean, ect)

williamlayton · « **Reply #11 on:** November 04, 2005, 12:21:55 AM »

Better will be determined by history, a future generation. Our judgement is limited too judging by the past.
You boys, not me-I will be passed on- are gonna be in for a rude awakening.
Blessings

magooch · « **Reply #12 on:** November 04, 2005, 04:08:43 AM »

Just consider this: everything that President Bush has done, or not done would be reviled by about half of the people--even if he had done it the other way around. He is never going to get any credit or cuddos for what he does from about 90 per cent of the media, because they hate him. It's as simple as that.

Everything of what goes on, is filtered through the lying liberal press and talking heads on the tube. Fox is the only network that even makes an effort to give both sides--well, actually MSNBC does do both sides, but you've got to be selective about the programs. The point is that when you've got 90 per cent of the media against you, you're going to have a tough time of it. Jesus Christ himself wouldn't stand a chance against the onslought of negativity that comes from our media.

FWiedner · « **Reply #13 on:** November 04, 2005, 04:53:26 AM »

Why assume that people are misinformed just because "the media" chums out any particular flavor of propaganda?

Is is an easy task to determine which side of the coin any particular source of information places their money is on.

Just because the statistics don't favor your opinion doesn't mean that "the media" is in command of any informed person's evaluation of Mr. Bush's job performance.

Many people are capable of weighing the evidence and making up their own minds.

The current bulk of evidence does not reflect a positive image of Mr. Bush. Posterity may see it differently.

Personally, I think that America is substantially less free than when Mr. Bush was elected into office, and I think history will be written to reflect that, without regard to whatever his good intentions may once have been.

:?

spraynpray · « **Reply #14 on:** November 04, 2005, 05:03:33 AM »

I think a Libertarian would do a very good job running the country, :grin:

ShadowMover · « **Reply #15 on:** November 04, 2005, 05:31:43 AM »

Quote from: spraynpray

I think a Libertarian would do a very good job running the country, :grin:

What is the Libertarian platform on illegal immigrants? I may have gotten the wrong impression, but IIRC they don't have any problems with the porous border policy we have right now.
The last presidential candidate's platform I agreed with was the Populist Party when Pat Buchanan ran. If anyone is interested I'll post it.

rockbilly · « **Reply #16 on:** November 04, 2005, 03:08:02 PM »

I don't vote for anyone solely on party. I vote for the individual that I think will be best for this country. I voted for Boosh, not because he was best for the country, but because he wasn't as bad as Kerry would have been.

Bad mouth Clinton all you like, but had he kept his hardware in he pants, most likely he would have gone down in history as one of the great presidents. The economy was good under his lead, the national debt was totally eliminated, and there was a 7 billion dollar surplus. As a result of the over zealous Boosh bunch we will never see this country in that position again, maybe our grandkids will, if lucky.

Looking back, neither of the Bush boys were worth a darn, Reagan wasn't much better, just a good actor, Clinton left a lot to be desired, and the only good thing I can say about Carter, He was honest, but I can't say that about any of the others.

What this country needs is a third party, someone or a group that is not in big money's back pocket, can make a decision on their own and is not influenced by what the party will say/do when they act on an issue. At one time I thought Ross Perot was the man, but in the end he crawfished and left a bunch of us stranded. Is there someone out there that can fill this void and lead a third party to the White House?

spraynpray · « **Reply #17 on:** November 04, 2005, 04:30:58 PM »

Quote from: ShadowMover

Quote from: spraynpray
I think a Libertarian would do a very good job running the country, :grin:

What is the Libertarian platform on illegal immigrants? I may have gotten the wrong impression, but IIRC they don't have any problems with the porous border policy we have right now.
The last presidential candidate's platform I agreed with was the Populist Party when Pat Buchanan ran. If anyone is interested I'll post it.

My idea of the border is a closed border, only allowing those who want to come here legaly.
But, the Libertarian Party dos not share the same belief, its just one of a few things I disagree with though. :grin:

jh45gun · « **Reply #18 on:** November 05, 2005, 08:03:00 AM »

Carter, He was honest,

Sometimes honesty equals stupidity too. This was the clown that made the infamous statement he lusted in his heart. What a buffon. Carter's term as President was ho hum at best he was a piss poor leader and he has no right to criticise any one else. Getting the Nobel Peace Prize by a bunch of UN lackeys is no big deal as far as I am concerned.

Haywire Haywood · « **Reply #19 on:** November 05, 2005, 02:26:55 PM »

My Dad said that Carter (I was a little young during his admin) was too honest to make a good president. He said that in order to get anything done, you have to be willing to make backdoor deals and Carter wouldn't do that.

As for Bush, I too voted for him in 2000 and against Kerry in 2004. He just plain disappointed me. He appears as if he is an idiot even if he isn't. I'd be up for a third party candidate if they had a snowball's chance in Heck of winning, but I fear that a 3d party vote is a just a waste of time. I voted for Ross Perot. He split the republican vote back in the 90s and we got Clinton. I won't contribute to something like that happening again. I don't tow the party line, there's plenty I don't agree on but I don't think I'll have to worry about big brother making me turn in my guns if the Republicans are in charge.

Ian

spraynpray · « **Reply #20 on:** November 11, 2005, 04:08:11 PM »

If Bush would push away from neoconservatism I would like him a lot more. Neoconservatives aren't really conservatives, just as neoliberals (modern liberals) really aren't liberals. Both give the real liberals and conservatives a bad name.

nomosendero · « **Reply #21 on:** November 11, 2005, 05:28:46 PM »

I will try to reword this a little, but was Carter honest when he sold us out
on the Panama Canal? Is it right that we just don't need it?
When he said he needed to tax me more to help the Economy, was he
being honest.
Oh, I love this one!! When he weakened our Military & said we were in
good shape, was he honest?
When he overstated his economic numbers in one of his debates with Pres.
Reagan, was he being honest or did he have stupid numbers?

OH, PLEASE!

mrlizzzard · « **Reply #22 on:** November 11, 2005, 05:43:23 PM »

How can we put all this faith in a man who went bankrupt in his only business(oil company) with $100 million loan from the saudi's$$$.Kerry was a dork.

nomosendero · « **Reply #23 on:** November 12, 2005, 07:13:26 AM »

mrlizzzard

I would say that you have been sold a bill of goods, not that he could not
have gone bankrupt, but rather because his enemies (Liberal Media & the
Socialist Democrapts) would have found out & destroyed his chances of
being ellected. If your info is right, then let's see the numbers & I will help
you broadcast it. And if he went bankrupt, we can get those records, &
please don't say the Gov. hid the records, because again, the Democraps
would have dug it up.

It's funny how some people will say this, I don't mean you because I have
heard this a few times before & then turn around and say that Pres. Bush
manipulated the Oil Prices, if he did that, he could have done the same
thing to save his business. Hmmmm.