why you hate bush

Puoltry · May 2005

Sure we can make our own oil from hemp.But it will NEVER happen.

The reality here is the detroit auto makers would actually lose money to fuel effecient cars and a alternative fuel source.By giving in to the hemp factor the govt has to achnowledge its not ALL bad right?

As long as they detroit auto makers build the damn SUV's there will be someone with a disease known as "affluence" that will buy them.Im not saying that they shouldnt be purchased but i think that a family of 5 is more suited to an SUV than a single person with 1 kid.

Puoltry · May 2005

Originally posted by terstax
Originally posted by Puoltry
Hell man im all for a war for oil.How could you NOT be for it?This is merely protecting our interests.For the most part its about keeping the economy rolling along so we all can provide for ourselves.

Just so long as you're not angry when the "enemy" fights back. If that's the game you're going to play, then know that you will need to take your lumps.

By the way, I do find your attitude sickening. It's not unlike that of a bully's. Or a kid throwing a temper tantrum because he can't get his way. It's a short sighted, immature belief system. You say we need oil so we can provide for ourselves. No, it's just one way we COULD provide for ourselves. Is your imagination so lacking that you can concieve of no other way to meet our needs? Does that mean I can come over to your house now and take something of yours just because I want it?

Also, you may be interested to know that gas prices are going up because China is importing record amounts of oil. That's the way the free market operates. Also, it would not surprise me that part of the reason is because now the oil companies Bush is in bed with now have more control of the market and can thus gouge you. Monopolies are almost never good for the consumer.

Did you read the REST of my original posting?

Probably not this is a typical liberal way of seeing the world.You only read and understood what you wanted.You COMPLETLY missed the point altogether.

I find YOUR attitude sickening as well.Its so typically liberal to point out how bad my attitude is and not offer up an alternative to what i pointed out.

How about it you got a better idea?How about an alternative energy source to OPEC?Nuclear energy?Solar energy?Hybrid automobiles?A tax break for those who purchase hybrids?

Nope didnt see any of that in your response just a lot of offensive posturing.Real constuctive posting there.

PizzaFarno · May 2005

We might be able to settle this topic with this-

BBC News

Bush budget seeks deep cutbacks
US budget papers
President Bush is looking to save money at home
President Bush has presented his 2006 budget, cutting domestic spending in a bid to lower a record deficit projected to peak at $427bn (£230bn) this year.

The $2.58 trillion (£1.38 trillion) budget submitted to Congress affects 150 domestic programmes from farming to the environment, education and health.

But foreign aid is due to rise by 10%, with more money to treat HIV/Aids and reward economic and political reform.

Military spending is also set to rise by 4.8%, to reach $419.3bn.

The budget does not include the cost of running military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, for which the administration is expected to seek an extra $80bn from Congress later this year.

Click here for estimates of the US budget deficit

Congress will spend several months debating George W Bush's proposal.

Reward for reform

The state department's planned budget would rise to just under $23bn - a fraction of the defence department's request - including almost $6bn to assist US allies in the "war on terror".

However, the administration is keen to highlight its global effort to tackle HIV/Aids, the BBC's Jonathan Beale reports, and planned spending would almost double to $3bn, with much of that money going to African nations.

Mr Bush also wants to increase the amount given to poorer countries through his Millennium Challenge Corporation.

The scheme has been set up to reward developing countries that embrace what the US considers to be good governance and sound policies.

Yet Mr Bush's proposed spending of $3bn on that project is well below his initial promise of $5bn.

Oil reserves

A key spending line missing from proposals is the cost of funding the administration's proposed radical overhaul of Social Security, the pensions programme on which many Americans rely for their retirement income.

To sustain our economic expansion, we must continue pro-growth policies and enforce even greater spending restraint across federal government
President George W Bush

Analysis: The 'ticking budget'

Some experts believe this could require borrowing of up to $4.5 trillion over a 20-year period.

Neither does the budget include any cash to purchase crude oil for the US emergency petroleum stockpile.

Concern over the level of the reserve, created in 1970s, has led to rises in oil prices over the past year.

The Bush administration will instead continue to fill the reserve by taking oil - rather than cash - from energy companies that drill under federal leases.

Spending restraint

The outline proposes reductions in budgets at 12 out of 23 government agencies including cuts of 9.6% at Agriculture and 5.6% at the Environmental Protection Agency.

The spending plan for the year beginning 1 October is banking on a healthy US economy to boost government income by 6.1% to $2.18 trillion. Spending is forecast to grow by 3.5% to $2.57 trillion.

But the budget is still the tightest yet under Mr Bush's presidency.

"In order to sustain our economic expansion, we must continue pro-growth policies and enforce even greater spending restraint across federal government," Mr Bush said in his budget message to Congress.

Mr Bush has promised to halve the US's massive budget deficit within five years.

The deficit, partly the result of massive tax cuts early in Mr Bush's presidency, has been a key factor in pushing the US dollar lower.

The independent Congressional Budget Office estimates that the shortfall could shrink to little more than $200bn by 2009, returning to the surpluses seen in the late 1990s by 2012.

But its estimates depend on the tax cuts not being made permanent, in line with the promise when they were passed that they would "sunset", or disappear, in 2010.

Most Republicans, however, want them to stay in place.

And the figures also rely on the "Social Security trust fund" - the money set aside to cover the swelling costs of retirement pensions - being offset against the main budget deficit. BBC NEWSBBC NEWSBBC NEWS

rathma · May 2005

It's not right to invade a country, and completely take out their government and then make a "new" government for Iraq.

Do you think the new government is going to be more beneficial for America or Iraq? That's a no brainer, America.

But I seem to remember someone else invading a country and then changing their ways and government... Hmm.. Let's see.... Oh yeah, Hitler. The Bush administration made plans for war, and for Iraq's oil before the 9/11 attacks, 9/11 was just a reason for citizens to approve of the war.

PizzaFarno · May 2005

Originally posted by rathma
It's not right to invade a country, and completely take out their government and then make a "new" government for Iraq. Do you think the new government is going to be more beneficial for America or Iraq? That's a no brainer, America. But I seem to remember someone else invading a country and then changing their ways and government... Hmm.. Let's see.... Oh yeah, Hitler. The Bush administration made plans for war, and for Iraq's oil before the 9/11 attacks, 9/11 was just a reason for citizens to approve of the war.

The problem is-They dont want democracy.Thats why the do their 'terrorist attacks'But I agree with You Rathma ::::28::

terstax · May 2005

Originally posted by Puoltry
Originally posted by terstax
Originally posted by Puoltry
Hell man im all for a war for oil.How could you NOT be for it?This is merely protecting our interests.For the most part its about keeping the economy rolling along so we all can provide for ourselves.

Just so long as you're not angry when the "enemy" fights back. If that's the game you're going to play, then know that you will need to take your lumps.

By the way, I do find your attitude sickening. It's not unlike that of a bully's. Or a kid throwing a temper tantrum because he can't get his way. It's a short sighted, immature belief system. You say we need oil so we can provide for ourselves. No, it's just one way we COULD provide for ourselves. Is your imagination so lacking that you can concieve of no other way to meet our needs? Does that mean I can come over to your house now and take something of yours just because I want it?

Also, you may be interested to know that gas prices are going up because China is importing record amounts of oil. That's the way the free market operates. Also, it would not surprise me that part of the reason is because now the oil companies Bush is in bed with now have more control of the market and can thus gouge you. Monopolies are almost never good for the consumer.

Did you read the REST of my original posting?

Probably not this is a typical liberal way of seeing the world.You only read and understood what you wanted.You COMPLETLY missed the point altogether.

I find YOUR attitude sickening as well.Its so typically liberal to point out how bad my attitude is and not offer up an alternative to what i pointed out.

How about it you got a better idea?How about an alternative energy source to OPEC?Nuclear energy?Solar energy?Hybrid automobiles?A tax break for those who purchase hybrids?

Nope didnt see any of that in your response just a lot of offensive posturing.Real constuctive posting there.

I'm an anarchist, which is often considered right wing. I have nothing to do with liberalism. And you did say we should attack for the oil. How's that "less offensive" than anything I said?

terstax · May 2005

Originally posted by direct20up
Let me say one thing, Bush is fighting a war becuase we were attacked!
Do you not remember September 11? Over a million people died. They messed with us first. You other country's are jelous of America!

I remember Sep 11th. I don't remember Iraq having anything to do with it however. Also, bad men trick people like you into war.

PizzaFarno · May 2005

Originally posted by terstax
Originally posted by direct20up
Let me say one thing, Bush is fighting a war becuase we were attacked!
Do you not remember September 11? Over a million people died. They messed with us first. You other country's are jelous of America!

I remember Sep 11th. I don't remember Iraq having anything to do with it however. Also, bad men trick people like you into war.

Wow, that shows how you think terstax.

Puoltry · May 2005

OMG now your a anarchist?

A anarchist that plays computer games?

I doubt you even know what a true anarchist is.I cant beleive ive wasted my time with a college student know it all.

2 things i dont have time for:

1.Anyone who claims to be a anarchist

2.Anyone who claims to be an atheist

These are 2 things not imbedded in the reality that most hardworking people are in.These 2 socalled belief systems are nothing more than copouts and living in a extreme form of denial.

Define anarchism for me without looking it up on the internet.Id like to hear what you think an anarchist is based upon your actions in society.(playing underground computer games doesnt count btw)

metalfoxus · May 2005

Originally posted by direct20up

Let me say one thing, Bush is fighting a war becuase we were attacked!
Do you not remember September 11? Over a million people died. They messed with us first. You other country's are jelous of America!

How the crap did they fit over a million people in those two towers?

Puoltry · May 2005

Gotta be a world record there.

Aldaron · May 2005

Originally posted by Puoltry

Define anarchism for me without looking it up on the internet.Id like to hear what you think an anarchist is based upon your actions in society.(playing underground computer games doesnt count btw)

Watch out. If he's what he pretends to be, you may recieve a package that goes to the rhythm of "tick tock, tick tock...kaboom!"

Puoltry · May 2005

LoL i doubt it hes playing computer games.

Kiamde · May 2005

Originally posted by direct20up
Let me say one thing, Bush is fighting a war becuase we were attacked!
Do you not remember September 11? Over a million people died. They messed with us first. You other country's are jelous of America!

One million people...

You sir, are a meathead.

Serien · May 2005

lol --another one of these threads?

Pretty sure everyone here knows I'm a conservative republican, and why I'm a conservative republican. And I've already listed my reasons numerous times as to why I support Bush (and love America)

Pizzafarno - currently you're making me laugh...hard, it's pretty funny to see one of you guys to pop up again with your ignorant posts not backed by facts, but basically opinions. Oh, and just for your future information, we live in a REPRESENTIVE REPUBLIC, nowhere in the Constitution does it say "Democracy".

terstax · May 2005

Originally posted by PizzaFarno
Originally posted by terstax
Originally posted by direct20up
Let me say one thing, Bush is fighting a war becuase we were attacked!
Do you not remember September 11? Over a million people died. They messed with us first. You other country's are jelous of America!

I remember Sep 11th. I don't remember Iraq having anything to do with it however. Also, bad men trick people like you into war.

Wow, that shows how you think terstax.

Is that good or bad?

terstax · May 2005

Originally posted by Puoltry
OMG now your a anarchist?A anarchist that plays computer games?I doubt you even know what a true anarchist is.I cant beleive ive wasted my time with a college student know it all.2 things i dont have time for:1.Anyone who claims to be a anarchist2.Anyone who claims to be an atheistThese are 2 things not imbedded in the reality that most hardworking people are in.These 2 socalled belief systems are nothing more than copouts and living in a extreme form of denial.Define anarchism for me without looking it up on the internet.Id like to hear what you think an anarchist is based upon your actions in society.(playing underground computer games doesnt count btw)

I doubt you do is the real issue. At its core, it's the dissolution of all government. It has nothing to do with chaos and violence. It has to do with freedom of the individual, something most governments are more than happy to get rid of.

Vampir · May 2005

anarchy doesnt work just because people dont have good enough morals. it works with select communities but this is very very very very rare. This is rare because every member of that community has to have absolutely perfect willpower, and morals.

this is why anarchism is bad because most people are representations of some kind of failure or another whether it be cleptomania, the irrestible urge to lie, greed, violence.

so your ideas can never work.

anarchy is fun to play around but then you relealize there is no recourse if some commits what would now be called a crime. it just doesnt work.

Puoltry · May 2005

Like i said i got no time for ideas that are just forms of denial.You call yourself a anarchist so you tell me what you do to be one.I seriously doubt you are anywhere near being one and suspect you just like the way it sounds.

BTW im a card carrying libertarian and believe fully in individual rights.You still have not told me what it is YOU do to be a socalled "anarchist"?

All you did was quote me once again and try to make it look like i have a wrong attitude.

I too can go to the internet and look it up heres a link:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=anarchism

So what?Im still waiting to hear what is YOU do to be a anarchist?

Ive a feeling here your not much more than a wannabe at least i had my own point of view.So far all ive seen you do terstax is quote me repeatedly and come up with snide little remarks.

Not once have i seen you come up with an original thought other than to claim you are a anarchist.

terstax · May 2005

Originally posted by Puoltry
Like i said i got no time for ideas that are just forms of denial.You call yourself a anarchist so you tell me what you do to be one.I seriously doubt you are anywhere near being one and suspect you just like the way it sounds.BTW im a card carrying libertarian and believe fully in individual rights.You still have not told me what it is YOU do to be a socalled "anarchist"?All you did was quote me once again and try to make it look like i have a wrong attitude.
I too can go to the internet and look it up heres a link:http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=anarchismSo what?Im still waiting to hear what is YOU do to be a anarchist?
Ive a feeling here your not much more than a wannabe at least i had my own point of view.So far all ive seen you do terstax is quote me repeatedly and come up with snide little remarks.Not once have i seen you come up with an original thought other than to claim you are a anarchist.

The bottom is line is that I cannot convince you of the sincerity of my actions. I do not recall being snide to you. I do not recall qouting you and twisting your words. Despite what you may believe about me, I am what I am. Anarchy is a belief system I believe in. Christianity is a belief sytem, but not one I subscribe to. I'm 33 and not some high schooler who just wants to sound cool. I am what I am. I do not need to fit your rigid definition of what an anarchist is. I am who I am. It's just that simple. No matter how much you challenge me, I still stand by my beliefs. That seems to be the thing that set you off. That I believe.

Puoltry · May 2005

Once again you prove that you are nothing more than a wannabe.You have requoted me and reqouted me and not shown any of us an idea you may have to prove any of your points.

You dont believe in religion or govt?

This just means to me that you are devoid of an morals or ethics.To claim to be an anarchist just means that you dont want to have any personal responsibilty for your actions.By not having a govt or religion to answer to you would have the power to do whatever you want.

Pathetic is what i call it.Get a job and move out of your parent's basement already.To say that you beleive in something is just laughable.You have already stated that you dont beleive in "christianity"and are a "anarchist".

Both are devoid of any socalled beleifs.

I see that your xfire signature box has guild wars in it.Where did you buy that?Bestbuy or ebgames?Way to hold up those anarchist beliefs!!!

terstax · May 2005

Originally posted by Puoltry
Once again you prove that you are nothing more than a wannabe.You have requoted me and reqouted me and not shown any of us an idea you may have to prove any of your points.
You dont believe in religion or govt?This just means to me that you are devoid of an morals or ethics.To claim to be an anarchist just means that you dont want to have any personal responsibilty for your actions.By not having a govt or religion to answer to you would have the power to do whatever you want.
Pathetic is what i call it.Get a job and move out of your parent's basement already.To say that you beleive in something is just laughable.You have already stated that you dont beleive in "christianity"and are a "anarchist".Both are devoid of any socalled beleifs.I see that your xfire signature box has guild wars in it.Where did you buy that?Bestbuy or ebgames?Way to hold up those anarchist beliefs!!!

Just what did I do to offend you? Let me ask a question if I may. Is it no longer honorable to want to just be left alone by society? Am I required to live by your standards or not live at all? What would you have me do? How does where I purchased GW fit into all of this? The funny thing, you and I are both on the same side of the political fence, yet you seek to attack me. Why? I have a job. Is that not good enough for you? What would make me successful in your eyes? So are morals and ethics only gotten by government or religion? I cannot achieve them in any other fashion? If that's the case, why am I anti-war? Or is being pro-war having the morals you think I lack? You say christianity and anarchy are devoid of any beliefs. Then you accuse me of not having the morals you say religion provides. Which is it? Where do you gather I do not want to be responsible just because I consider myself an anarchist? Let's get this back to a rational discussion. You are making a fair amount of assumptions and we have never talked before this thread. Be mature, or is that not possible?

MarkWalt · May 2005

I could be wrong, but I think it was Mark Twain who warned against arguing with a idiots and zealots. He said that you'll never get anywhere, and the observing crowd might not know the difference.

And I gotta tell you... if there's one thing I can't stand, it's intolerance. ::::07::

Elowyn · May 2005

Originally posted by terstax

Originally posted by Bama1267

Originally posted by terstax

Originally posted by tummblerHey, I know this is post is a bit random. Especially considering its nowhere near election time or whatever. But I am really annoyed about how so many people take a hating towards president Bush. I can honestly say that I think he has been a pretty good president. Alot of people state their flames against President Bush but do not share their reasons.
so, please. Share your reason. I will respectfully acknowledge your reply.
p.s. feel free to say why you like him if you do

I hate Bush because he represents, and indeed is proud to represent, everything that is so middle ages. For a political party that "prides" itself on its reasoning abilities, they must not think very hard. Case in point is their belief in God. Anyone who even remotely used the faculties they were born with would know that their can be no such thing as God. My proof is that if God could make himself known to the minds of men, men throughout history would only believe in a single God, the one who is the centerpiece of the Christian, Muslim, and Hebrew faiths. This is all evading the real point however. Bad men will always hide behind a facade of greatness and rightousness to further their goals. He's against stem cell research and cloning. So like the liberals he seeks to destroy, he too only seeks to hold humanity back. They are both one side of the same coin. Even if I knew nothing else about him, the one line he uttered in Fahrenheit 9/11 says it all. He said something like "Some call you the rich and powerful. I call you my base." The man is not about you. He will only protect himself and his buddies, and even then they are disposable. Lastly, in my ever so humble opinion, he was directly involved in 9/11 at worst or allowed it to happen at best. At a time when a supposedly unknown number of planes were flying through the sky, and with his attendance at the school announced days ahead of time, just how did the secret service know he was safe sitting there reading about goats? There was an airport 4 miles from the school he was at. It would be a quick and deadly strike against him. Are we so arrogant to believe that evil people can only be elected to office in countries other than ours? It's now a proven fact that Roosevelt steered the Japanese into attacking our fleet when they did. He even knew days ahead of time that they were going to. He did not act because he needed the attack to sell the United States into war. What's the price of humanity to get your way? Apparently a few thousand is an acceptable cost for a president, despite the fact its not his kids dying.
Just remember, political power attracts the very people who should not have it. Then we act surprised when they do anything to keep it.

For someone of obvious intelligence, Its hard to believe you can actually think Bush knew anything of 9/11 plans. You can discard God because obviously he does not exist. But dream up or follow a 9/11 conspiracy? It doesnt make sense at all.
So your telling us that he and his advisors felt it would be a good idea to have planes hit the towers and pentagon killing and injuring many people. Just so we could declare war on Afghanastan? Then that would open up the opportunity to charge Iraq with WMD and then in turn attack them also. All the while watching our economy go down the crapper. That sounds about as believable as well.......god.

Even posting something as ludicrous as that would make me disregard any comment you ever have. Only proves two things though....some people are too smart for there own good and the worsed kind of idiot is an idiot who thinks hes a genious.

I'm gonna steal a line from Rentantilus for this. Your failure to be informed does not constitute my crisis.

In all truth, I don't think he was involved, but I also KNOW he was not even remotely interested in investigating the facts of the case. I am of the belief that it was an Isreali orchestrated attack upon us. The day before the attacks, on September 10th, the Washington Times ran a story about an Army study of Isreali intelligence and in it, it said "ruthless and cunning," "a wildcard" that "has [the] capability to target U.S. forces and make it look like a Palestinian/Arab act." Here is a link to more information.

lol, you sound like that dude in conspiracy theory...........only nothing you say here is true or accurate. They are nothing more than stories. You retracted your first comment about Bush only to move on to a different story about Israel. So......Israel had these KNOWN terrorists trained? I mean seriously some of those guys were allready well known for other terrorist acts but are now working for Israel n some BIG scheme?

Yeah it all sounds good and yes Israel would benefit in some way. But then you have to use common sense and look at ALL the facts. Then you realize this would only be good for a movie.

No doubt our government is as corrupt as the next but these stories hold no water what so ever. And like the above poster said...for someone of obvious intelligence---what are you thinking?

MarkWalt · May 2005

.. And since I'm here... I'd just like to point out that even though I voted "no"... I really don't dislike Bush. I assume that the poll is really about whether you like his presidency, not the man himself.

I hate his administration, I don't agree with his politics, and I disapprove of his choices. But I don't know him well enough to know whether I like him or not. From what I've heard, he's a pretty nice guy, so I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and presume that I would probably like him if I met him in a social situation. Whether he'd like me is another matter entirely.

And, one thing I can say about President Bush, even though I'm a fairly left-leaning liberal... I don't think he's bad, not as such. I think he's an "ends justify the means" kind of guy. I'm like that myself, but my ends would be different, and so would my means.

I think he really believes he's doing the right thing for his country, his God, and himself. And, given that he's been able to achieve his goals, or at least give them a good try, you could call him a fairly successful President. I don't believe there are any campaign promises that he's made that he hasn't tried really hard to make true, which is more than can be said for many other presidents.

Having said that, I hope the Democrats field someone who's electable next time, because I want him out of office. Even if he's nice.

Edit: Duh, of course he's out of office after two terms. I should have said I want the Republicans out.

Howdy, Stranger!

why you hate bush

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

why you hate bush

Comments