Its official... The world hates us...

[induction]

G.W. Bush has had more successes in the last two years than his father ever did in four, including the Gulf War. Former President G.H.W. Bush is 78, a friend to his son, of course, but he is in no way is telling the 56-year-old President of the United States 'what to do'. That's rubbish and unless you can show some concrete evidence I'm wrong, please don't keep regurgitating that liberal-generated lie here.


G.H.W.Bush( there thats better) can't even remember where the hell his own socks are kept, let alone how to coach his son about leading a country!!

just a thought so Ill go away now....
lol

[Mr 5 0]

Originally posted by rbatson2

Good to see you again, Jim. To quote you "they always find thier way back". I was waiting to see you post again, heeh.

Hey Rick! I've been around from time to time and I lurk a lot but I don't post much here these days.

The George W. Bush (he's not a 'junior) back in the campaign of 2000 is a different man from the President you see now and I believe his actions have shown it. Bush has been able to mobilize the diminished U.S. military into a fighting force again and even if smaller, a lot more technically advanced than during the 1991 Gulf War He single-handedly shamed the U.N. into getting behind our invasion of Iraq and under Bushs' leadership we've managed to put a real crimp into the Al-Queida terrorist network. He got a much-needed tax cut through a Democrat Congress and helped win back the Senate and increase the Republican lead in the House. It wasn't luck, it was leadership. Bush is approved of by a good margin of Americans and admired by many world leaders who now know how to pronounce HIS name.

It's ironic how the media treat Republicans. Back when Ronald Reagan was President, he was very glib and gave great, inspiring speeches. The liberal media said he was just a good actor, reading other people's lines convincingly and that Reagan was 'a puppet' of James Baker and other behind-the-scenes advisors who 'really' ran the White House. Meanwhile, Reagan got the biggest tax-cut in 20 years through the Democrat-led Congress and the economy boomed. The Cold War ended, based primarily on the fact that the Soviet Union couldn't compete with the U.S. when Reagan got the funds approved from Congress to start a space-based missle defense system (SDI) and the Russians had to cut their slave-states loose to keep up. Reagan won re-election in 1984 with a 49-state plurality but because he spoke well, he was a 'puppet'. Right.

Now, fast-forward 20 years: President Bush is slightly inarticulate and less than glib but acheives much in a short time, against all odds. What does the liberal media say now? "He can't be too smart because he doesn't speak well". Right. Sadly, too many otherwise intelligent citizens buy it. Yup, yup, yup.

So, if a Republican President speaks well and is articulate, he's a phoney and just reading lines and if a Republican President doesn't speak as smoothly and isn't articulate, he's dumb. That sum it up? See anything slightly ironic here? I hope so. Meanwhile, every Democrat presidential-wannabe that comes along is praised by the media for being a genius or near-genius, like that weirdo, Al Gore. Almost too smart to be President but willing to stoop down and do us all a favor by using their infinite wisdom to 'help' us. God save us from these 'brilliant' Democrat presidents, like Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, who screw up almost everything they touch, leaving people like the less-than-glib but very effective George W. Bush to clean up their mess.

Not a personal flame, Rick. I'm just using yoir comments as a platform to rant here. Thanks for reading it.

[mustangII460]

George Sr. throws like a girl.

[rbatson2]

Jim, I don't listen to the media and there are many others like me. You sound like a loyal listener of Rush Limbaugh(I hate that arrogant SOB, I can't even listen to him). Ok, lets not bring Carter into this arguement, ok?? LOL! Reagan was a great president, as I remember and if he needed some guidance.. hell, we all need guidance from time to time. He was an actor and a great president, as far as I can remember. He had backbone and I wish he could have lasted longer. Clinton was a womanizer and all round laid back mofo. Bush had some backbone but not enough. I don't think I know a person that thought we shouldn't have taken care of Suddam when all that crap was going down. Alot has happened since Bush Jr. came to office(around here its junior if he is named after his father). I think the tax cut was great and I really appreciated it! I think what George W. Bush did with the UN was something anyone of us could have done. Look, Iraq didn't live up the the agreement from 91 and if I was president I wouldn't be looking for the UN's approvement. The US is a machine and to think that the president makes it what it is.. makes no sense to me. Its a force to be reckoned with, no matter who is in command. I'm reminded of a statement from the movie Blackhawk Down, "Noone asks to be a hero, it just happens". I think that is what happened with Bush and also with Guliano(however you spell it). This country is a machine, we have it good and are the leaders. I don't think we should force our beliefs on others, but we do. I think we should let them sort it out and if we didn't keep backing Isreal, NY would have never been attacked to start with. Not only that but I believe Isreal would have already settled this problem long ago. As it stands, I'm with 2Fastlx, smoke them mothers out(Damn good idea).

[rbatson2]

Originally posted by Mr 5 0

Bush has been able to mobilize the diminished U.S. military into a fighting force again and even if smaller, a lot more technically advanced than during the 1991 Gulf War

Diminished?? I'm sorry, I don't follow you . More technically advanced? I hope the hell we are, that was 11-12 yrs ago!

No flame on you either Jim, we just won't agree.. one of the reasons I always stepped aside from the political discussions on this board.

[ultraflo]

I hate to see otherwise sensible people parrot the liberal lie...

I dislike seeing otherwise sensible people such as yourself, Jim, parrot the right-wing ultra-conservative jibberish just as much as I really hate to see individuals, as well as groups, parrot the liberal media. I would consider myself right of center, but judging by some of your comments, you stand just a bit further to the right than I, sir.

He single-handedly shamed the U.N. into getting behind our invasion of Iraq

I highly doubt 'W' accomplishes much, if any, of the Republican agena "single-handedly" Jim...

Meanwhile, every Democrat presidential-wannabe that comes along is praised by the media for being a genius or near-genius, like that weirdo, Al Gore.

You mean that guy that invented the internet? LOL!

[Mr 5 0]

Rick:

Yeah, we disagree, to put it politely.

Your contention that the United States government is a 'machine' and that 'anyone' can 'run it' is just not credible. Jimmy Carter 'ran it' into the ground. Reagan brought it back up again, militarily and economically. Clinton ran it back down again and made the Oval Office a bordello in the process, demeaning his office. The President matters and to find someone that believes he doesn't is just, well, incredible to behold. How do you get to that kind of thinking?

'Anyone' could have gotten the U.N. to act against Iraq? Really? Do you really believe that? The U.N. sat around for eleven long years and issued toothless resolution after resolution condemning Iraq for weapons violations (against the treaty he signed in 1991 after losing the Gulf war) and they did nothing. Neither did Clinton, for that matter. Finally, President Bush stood up in the United Nations and challenged them to act on their words, and they did, finally, supporting military action against Iraq for weapons violations. To attempt to diminish President Bush as if he did what 'anyone' could do is simply not valid. If 'anyone' could have done it, why didn't they? It's leadership, plain and simple, Rick. Something Clinton knew nothing about.

The only reason the U.S. is going the U.N.-approval route is because the Democrats insisted on it before they would give the approval for the money Bush needs to mount this kind of military engagement. Bush did what he had to do, and I think it was unnecessary too, from a military standpoint but it was politically necessary and Bush is a good politician.

To clarify: The U.S. military is smaller (diminished in manpower) than it was in 1991, at the time of the Gulf War but much more technically advanced, granted.

We are not 'imposing our beliefs' on anyone, that's simply a carnard some folks fall back on when they misunderstand what's happening in geopolitics. Iraq will not be a democracy, neither will Afghanistan. They simply will cease to be a threat to U.S. interests in the region. Israel cannot initate a nuclear war and won't. Nuking them may sound like a simple solution but it's really just frustration talking. Radioactive particles travel and nuking anyone is not a realistic option for any sane leadership, which precludes Iraq and North Korea, our next big problem.

Finally, you can forget the Rush Limbaugh comparisions. I was a conservative Republican long before Limbaugh ever came to popularity. Limbaugh simply echos what many, many people think about political issues. The mistaken idea that somehow he magically brainwashes millions is just liberal media nonsense on stilts. I like Rush but I sometimes disagree with him and certainly don't need a radio talker to give me my opinions. I am quite capable of forming political opinions on my own, thanks, just like you. Unfortunately, ours seem to differ but hey, that's America.

[rbatson2]

Originally posted by Mr 5 0
[B
'Anyone' could have gotten the U.N. to act against Iraq? Really? Do you really believe that? The U.N. sat around for eleven long years and issued toothless resolution after resolution condemning Iraq for weapons violations (against the treaty he signed in 1991 after losing the Gulf war) and they did [u]nothing[]/u]. Neither did Clinton, for that matter. Finally, President Bush stood up in the United Nations and challenged them to act on their words, and they did, finally, supporting military action against Iraq for weapons violations. To attempt to diminish President Bush as if he did what 'anyone' could do is simply not valid. If 'anyone' could have done it, why didn't they? It's leadership, plain and simple, Rick. Something Clinton knew nothing about.

[/B]

Jim, if New York wasn't attacked.. Bush Jr's 4 yrs would have been he same as Clinton's, minus the sex.

[Mr 5 0]

Rick:

Your contentions are over-simplistic, at best. We disagree. I'll leave it at that and let any interested readers of this thread decide where the truth lies.

[rbatson2]

Jim, I won't argue that you are more intelligent than I am.. you're better with words than I am as well. Maybe just more politically educated than I. It is very simple though.. had NY been attacked while Clinton was in office he would have been forced to take action. I honestly don't see George W. Bush as the savior of all and I honestly don't think it would take much to show the UN the problem... yes, I think I could have done that. I really don't think George is all that smart but I do believe he has backbone, which is what we need right now. I don't understand what is so difficult about it.

[Mr 5 0]

Originally posted by ultraflo

I dislike seeing otherwise sensible people such as yourself, Jim, parrot the right-wing ultra-conservative jibberish just as much as I really hate to see individuals, as well as groups, parrot the liberal media. I would consider myself right of center, but judging by some of your comments, you stand just a bit further to the right than I, sir.

I dislike seeing otherwise sensible people attempt to condemn both liberals and conservatives as a group, call sensible policy 'gibberish' and then assume that's somehow a reasoned position to take when in fact, it's a cheesy cop-out. Define Ultra-conservative gibberish, please and be precise; don't evade the question with some aloof blanket dismissal of conservative core beliefs. I'm quite interested to see what you have to offer here, as you made the charge. Now, back it up. Define Ultra-conservative gibberish and refute what I stated, with logic, facts and reason, not sheer emotion or bumper-sticker slogans. Go ahead, I can take it, I promise. If you don't choose to do this then please don't post sweeping and inaccurate generalizations about conservative positions without being prepared to defend what you so easily condemn. Fair enough?

Oh, and don't call me 'Sir'- it makes me feel old.

I highly doubt 'W' accomplishes much, if any, of the Republican agena "single-handedly" Jim...

Never said he did. I said George W. Bush has forced the U.N. to adopt an aggressive policy (backed by the U.S. military) against Iraq. Colin Powell helped but President Bush stood at the podium of the U.N. General Assembly and challenged the body to live up to it's charter. Bush did that, alone. He also convinced the Congress - not his friends by a long shot - to back him. Bush IS the Republican agenda. he sets it for the most part. Don't you get that? New to politics? I hope not.

The President is the head of the government and the head of his party. He is the front man and the leader. Does a General win the war by himself? No, his men do but he gets a lot of the glory. Same with a President. When the economy falters, Bush gets the blame for that, too. if we run into a snag in Iraq, who gets blamed? President Bush. It cuts both ways. Like it or not, as Bill Clinton was the leader of the U.S. from 1993-2001, George W. Bush is our leader now and he is doing a helluva job, which annoys and frustrates some people to no end. I love it.

[bri32zz]

Unless another country does things to us, I say let's ignore them. We should put all that money into helping all of these children who are starving or abused. Being a father for the past 13 yrs I have a soft spot for kids. I do believe we should get Bin Laden and have a public stoning of course. Let the other countries handle their own problems and let us focus on the good ole USA.

[Mr 5 0]

Originally posted by bri32zz

Unless another country does things to us, I say let's ignore them. We should put all that money into helping all of these children who are starving or abused. Being a father for the past 13 yrs I have a soft spot for kids. I do believe we should get Bin Laden and have a public stoning of course. Let the other countries handle their own problems and let us focus on the good ole USA.

That's called 'Isolationism' and it doesn't work. It didn't work at all in keeping us out of World War 2 (we tried it, then) and it certainly won't work now, in 2003. The idea that we can act like a turtle, pull our heads in our shell and everyone will simply go away is touching but naive and not possible as we are the the world's only superpower. America has worldwide interests and the big pond doesn't protect us any more in this age of instant communication and missles that can travel 6,000 miles in a matter of minutes.

America does feed tens of thousands of children around the world thru both government and private charities. We just don't brag about it. Our new enemy, North korea, gets most of it's foodstuffs from the U.S. Ironic, isn't it? We feed them and they want to nuke us. So much for the liberal theory that if the U.S. just acts nice other mean countries won't bother us. Only in liberal fantasies. Our power is our strength and while America is the most generous nation on earth in real terms, we are also the most powerful and must exercise that power wisely but effectively at times. Now is one of those times.

[bri32zz]

Originally posted by Mr 5 0
Originally posted by bri32zz

[i]

That's called 'Isolationism' and it doesn't work. It didn't work at all in keeping us out of World War 2 (we tried it, then) and it certainly won't work now, in 2003. The idea that we can act like a turtle, pull our heads in our shell and everyone will simply go away is touching but naive and not possible as we are the the world's only superpower. America has worldwide interests and the big pond doesn't protect us any more in this age of instant communication and missles that can travel 6,000 miles in a matter of minutes.

America does feed tens of thousands of children around the world thru both government and private charities. We just don't brag about it. Our new enemy, North korea, gets most of it's foodstuffs from the U.S. Ironic, isn't it? We feed them and they want to nuke us. So much for the liberal theory that if the U.S. just acts nice other mean countries won't bother us. Only in liberal fantasies. Our power is our strength and while America is the most generous nation on earth in real terms, we are also the most powerful and must exercise that power wisely but effectively at times. Now is one of those times.

I did leave out some thoughts. If we are in any relative danger we need to act out. I am not too much up to speed on modern polotics but I am entitled to my opinion in what I think could work in my own head. But MR 5.0 you are probaly correct in evry aspect of the situation. I like to dream of a peace liberated World. Be good my friend.

[2FastLX]

I have no idea what a liberal is, or a right wing for that matter. I've always assumed a guy is either gay or straight, which I am married and very much straight. I am also an American through and through. I didn't mean to start a political arguement. I was just merely stating that I feel the Jr. is being influenced by his father. If you were President you would to. Don't tell me you wouldn't. I personally feel both of them have done a good job as our President. I just think with the technology we have it's becoming more of a Political battle than a "Go out and KILL that mother" battle.

[rbatson2]

Originally posted by Mr 5 0
Our power is our strength and while America is the most generous nation on earth in real terms, we are also the most powerful and must exercise that power wisely but effectively at times. Now is one of those times. [/B]

Well, atleast we agree on something.

[ultraflo]

Originally posted by Mr 5 0
The George W. Bush (he's not a 'junior) back in the campaign of 2000 is a different man from the President you see now and I believe his actions have shown it. Bush has been able to mobilize the diminished U.S. military into a fighting force again and even if smaller, a lot more technically advanced than during the 1991 Gulf War He single-handedly shamed the U.N. into getting behind our invasion of Iraq and under Bushs' leadership we've managed to put a real crimp into the Al-Queida terrorist network. He got a much-needed tax cut through a Democrat Congress and helped win back the Senate and increase the Republican lead in the House. It wasn't luck, it was leadership. Bush is approved of by a good margin of Americans and admired by many world leaders who now know how to pronounce HIS name.
[/B]

ultraflo:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I highly doubt 'W' accomplishes much, if any, of the Republican agena "single-handedly" Jim...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Mr 5 0
Never said he did.

Are you sure? The above "single-handedly" remark is the only one I felt compelled to refute, as you say. I agree with the majority of points you've made.

Ultra-conservative: one that is too conservative.
gibberish: Highly technical or esoteric language.

Ultra-conservative gibberish: one that is too conservative while using highly technical or esoteric language.

I have nothing else to contribute Jim, as I lack the capacity and the initiative to hold an intelligent, logical, coherent debate with you. I will however, throw my $.02 in whenever I see fit, just as you do. Fair enough? I hope so...

Keep this up fellas and we won't have to worry about enemies...Fellas..We live a country that allows a plentitude of opinions...You all are respected for yours; however, this kind of discussion will not have either side change fundamentally 100s of years of development into different philosophical political views.

With that said, we need to be a UNITED nation to get through our conflicts with the fewest amount of casualties...

So, everyone is respected for your individual opinion, this is what our nation is founded on, you are entitled to think what you want and discuss it openly, but if I was the enemy reading some of this stuff I'd just sit back and have a beer. You fellas will do each other in, in no time... LOL

TRUCE.... We have ladies and gentlemen being deployed to fullfil a duty not many of us would like to have. We sit here and enjoy our cars and houses and children, arguing goverment structure and opinion while people are going to die. For you, to say what you like....

Humble yourselves.... ~Jenn~

[ultraflo]

Jenn, you make some very good assertions. For the record, I voted for and support The Honorable President Bush; and, I respect and admire Mr 5 0's contributions/comments.

That being said, I grow tired of each of the extreme sides of the political spectrum's continuous finger-pointing and shift-of-blame. Which is an over-simplistic explanation of how I feel, at best.

[HotRoddin]

Originally posted by bri32zz
Unless another country does things to us, I say let's ignore them.

I gotta tell ya bri32zz, that attitude baffles me completely. Sadam is a brutal dictator. The man releases poison gas on his own people. Gases whole villages full of women and children. Has palaces with almost obscene opulence spread all over his country while huge numbers of his people go hungry. He tortures and executes people in mass, including his own family members, then watches video tapes of it for pleasure. Oh and lets not forget he despises Americans because we stand in the way of him gaining ever more power and wealth. Add to all that, if we lift the sanctions he'll have billions of dollars in oil revenues to spend on weapons that can incenerate everything in milliseconds (if you're lucky), or put you on the ground within 20 seconds, shaking, drooling, unable to breathe, dead within minutes. Diseases that cause slow agonizing death over weeks, especially in the the old and sick and the young. Many of these weapons he already has, the rest he's trying desperately to aquire. It's scary as hell when civilized nations have these weapons, but in the hands of a power hungry dictator it's worse than scary, its terrifying !
Sadam is a Hitler a Stalin a Pol Pot ... a man with out compassion or conscience. I see nothing historical or otherwise to support the idea that if we turn our backs and ignore him, he'll just fade away ?

While i'm ranting, let me put my 2 cents worth in on another subject. Debate .... debate is not a bad thing ! Our founding fathers wrote the constitution after days and days of intense almost fist swinging debate. It forces you to confront other points of view. It forces compromise to extreme positions. It forces you to think about the issues. What if our founding fathers would have sat back in a chair sippin whiskey and said "Hell, write what ever you want in that thing, i don't want to get involved, and i don't want to get in an argument." Debate is a good thing ! Perhaps this forum isn't the place for it but we need to take the time to debate right now. The free flow of differing ideas is what has made this country what it is. In plain talk, stirrin up a little sh** once in awhile is a good thing. IMHO