You know, it's amazing how much time and energy you people spend seething and spitting over rich white men. You need to look at how many rich, white, well connected males are on the liberal or left side of the fence. Look at how many high rollers are running our news media outlets and then tell me about the big, bad oil co. ceo's that you fear!!! Such hypocricy!!!

I don't hate Bush for exactly the same reason that NIGHTTIMER said "I don't hate George W. Bush. I don't think he hates me, so why should I waste time hating him if he's not going to do likewise?"

I judge people in government based on their actions, not their words, how they look, or where they come from, or even who their Daddy is. I base my opinion on Bush waging the war on terror on the facts that 1) Those who have been attacking us for the past several years (9/11 was just the latest and most violent of the many attacks) are doing so because they hate what we stand for, not so much for what we do in the world. Like us or hate us, we are still the freest people in the world. Our freedom of religion, speech, women, media,etc. is what they detest. Fact 2) is that we have not been attacked on the US mainland since 9/11. Do you think that is a fluke or that we're are just lucky? I'm not sure, but there has definitely been a rather large hole punched into the side of the terrorists world, those that are going after us.

I don't think this is a war on terror, I think this is a war of civilizations. One civilization has declared war on another, and the civilization that is being attacked (remeber 9/11?) doesn't really even know that some other civilization has declared war on it. Wow, how blind can one be? Well, if there is another domestic attack on the US (and the terrorists have said as much), it may make 9/11 dwarf in size. How about a nuclear device in a suitcase attack on the Eastern Seaboard of the US? Can you say "Wow, I guess these terrorists ARE serious about destroying us!". Can you say 200,000 to 300,000 dead and millions affected and the US and World economies in ruin?

If that scenario does not get your attention as to what we are in the middle of, you better get your pulse taken.

WAKE-UP PEOPLE. Quit focusing on the color of our leader's skin, their background or who their Daddys are, and work to do what we can do at this level to protect our country and the freedoms our country holds for the rest of humanity.

Well said T-Man. The only thing your statement is that you have to rely on people that are:

1) Sane and rational
2) Believe what they see not what they believe (hello conspirancy people)
3) Realize the gov'ts #1 job is to protect us and not be "Robin Hood"

had the government been doing what is supposed to be doing rather than trying to run our lives because Jane Doe doesn't like fur coats and her feelings are hurt...yada yada yada.....we wouldn't be in the pickle we are today.

cusbilla

Your post has many points, so I'll just narrow my reply to one of your assertions. Liberals like myself do not "hate the rich" any more than the next person. It's not a case of hating or disliking a person simply because they are a tax bracket or two above us individually. There is a difference between wealthy liberals and wealthy conservatives. Ted Turner has more money than I do. He donates large portions to the U.N. because he feels like he can play an important role in helping an organization smooth out world conflicts. He owns large tracts of land in my state for his bison ranch that supplies a series of restaurants that he owns. Turner donates to other civic and charitable groups as well. He doesn't use sweatshop labor overseas, he doesn't seek laws to milk the taxpayers(i.e.-what the pharmaceutical companies did by inserting a provision that medicare can't negotiate down the price of drugs) and he doesn't seek to prevent me from obtaining health care, a better wage for my friends, or that his tax bracket should get further tax breaks. Even Warren Buffet disagrees with tax cuts for him and others of his income bracket ilk. Ted also isn't engaging in war profiteering and making a killing income wise, off the blood and sacrifice of our soldiers oversease like Haliburton, Bechtel, and other companies currently are. Ted isn't like a few oil companies in Africa who are pushing people off their land and using government troops to intimidate villagers who disagree with their land being confiscated(Shell)It's not a person's wealth that is the problem, it is their creative or destructive actions that leads me to "hate" them. When I see George W. Bush, I see a person who has good intentions, but whose intentions hurt those whom he believes he cares for. People like him for his "regular guy" demeanor. I dislike him for his "forget the regular guy" policies.

Allow me to state my reasons. I want to say that I do not hate Dubya. Then I again, I most certainly do not respect him. His attitude is one of hypocrisy and lies. He is content to say one thing and then turn around and do another to further his own agenda, forgetting the moral repercussions that his actions might incur. I can go through a list of the things that bother me the most about him.

1.) His environmental policy. This one irks me to no end. He loves to give off the impression that he is all in favor of protecting the environment and then to turn around and do whatever the corporations want him to. He makes "voluntary" emissions controls,and to no surprise, no corporations volunteered. He has allowed the Superfund trust to slip to $100 million, hardly enough to clean up one site. If he would reinstate the Superfund tax, this would be no problem. The solution? Defund eight-nine Superfund sites. Good thinking. He also loves to hide his corporate handouts behind clever names like "Healthy Forests", which makes it look good. Of course, that ends when you begin to look at the bill itself, which allows companies to build roads in national forests and to chop down old-growth forest. Real good thinking.

2.) His economic policy. There are a lot of ways to end a recession I'm sure; I don't claim to know any of them. I do, however, know that giving tax cuts which basically benefit the top 1% of the population won't solve the problem. Maybe Dubya doesn't realize that you generally boost the economy by giving money to people who actually spend it (which is why Welfare works so well). When you give money to the poor who can't afford to spend it on extravagant luxuries, it goes right out of their hands towards paying rent or buying food. But we "misunderestimate" Dubya, he is a fairly bright man. I'm sure he realizes that it isn't going to do that much good. I suppose after his friend Mr. Lay was forced to resign as chair of Enron, he figured that a little tax break would cheer him up. I'm not exactly sure what Dubya will do with the $55,000 he'll be receiving as part of his tax cut, but I'm pretty sure he isn't going to give it to the people who actually need it.

3.) His cabinet. Dubya has done a spectacular job of filling his cabinet with people who scare the bejeezus out of me. John Ashcroft, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Karl Rove give me nightmares. You have to give it to me here, John Ashcroft is one scary dude.

4.) His smirk. Someone else mentioned this one. I had to reiterate. It has to be the single most annoying thing about him: he always looks so smug. It gives off the impression that he is always up to something; he looks so conniving. Maybe he could stand to ditch the smirk.

5.) His civil liberties record. Like I said, John Ashcroft is one scary dude. The fact that he was able to pull off the PATRIOT Act just shows how good he is. Some people claim that it is merely an extension of existing powers, but that really is far from the truth. The fact is, it is a blatant violation of our civil liberties and an affront to our freedom. It's also sort of scary when people within our country have to think about being picked up off the street, held in prison for an indeterminate amount of time without any charges ever being filed, and then shipped off to another country.

6.) His education record. Let's face it, "No Child Left Behind" leaves plenty of children behind by laving plenty of schools behind. By holding grants over schools' heads and then making them force their students to perform well on a test simply does not work. Period. This is a boon for Dubya's friends at the testing company McGraw-Hill. He somehow thinks that special education students will be able to ace tests prepared for their actual age, not their chronological (or "mental") age. This hurts the students of our schools because teachers now have to teach to the test. I can attest to this. I'm in AP English II at my high school in Tennessee, and we have to take an end of semester Gateway exam. This is a test used to gauge whether or not we graduate. It is also used to decide if our school receives NCLB money. The test is prepared for a sixth grader, so none of us have any chance of failing, yet the school requires us to spend a week on "Gateway coaching". In a class that is only eighteen weeks long, that is a week we can't afford to lose. NCLB is an asinine bill and one which shows Dubya's clear lack of understanding when it comes to education.

7.) His foreign policy. I'm not even going to go into the whole Iraq war; it was a bad idea to begin with and it remains a bad idea. He also seems to love to withdraw from treaties. Kyoto, START II, ABMT, among others. He also loves to send delegates to important summits, despite the fact that the delegates have no experience in the field. Instead of sending people who have experience, he sends career idealogues who merely try to get their way no matter what. At the UN Special Session on Children, the US sided with such illustrious nations as Iran, Syria, Sudan, and Iraq to object to sex education for adolescents, restrict information on STDs and contraception, and battled to redefine "reproductive-heal services" to exclude abortion. Way to go. But that wasn't all that our delegation did, oh no. We further objected to a section allowing for services to children in "post-conflict situations" (children injured and traumatized by war), because they were afraid that that might include girls who were raped and might be given an abortion or emergency contraception. Then we decided to withhold money from the UN Population Fund and the WHO's Human Reproduction Program. The UN estimates that these cuts will result in 800,000 additional worldwide abortions. Sorry Dubya, your little plan backfired. I could go on here, but I will move on.

8.) His appeals court nominations. Priscilla Owens. Enough said.

These are just a few of the things that I find to be majorly wrong. A few. I could go on, but for the sake of already-sacrificed brevity, I will leave it here. These reasons are just a few explaining why I do not respect him. I don't respect him now, and I never will. He may have done some good (and I'm not saying that he hasn't), but the good definitely outweighs the bad.

I hate bush for so many reasons - but Really, its like several people have stated previously, its hard to hate bush because I think most of his failings are basic willful ignorance and stupidity... I mean, if Hitler had actually ruled through a trained monkey, its hard to hate the monkey.

But, seriously, Bush's policies mostly are for temporary gain (and quite often for those in the highest economic tier) that seriously jepardizes the countries future...

His environmental policies are the biggest joke since the beginning of the industrial age when people had the excuse of actually not knowing about the intricacies of the ecosystem in which we live. Clear Skies initiatives that allow companies to emit whatever they want, unless they volunteer to upgrade the factories at significant cost to themselves.... well, gee, why hasn't any been lining up to do this? As far as the global warming debate goes, Global Warming has been shown by Science fact - I don't mean the theories of what causes it, etc, but the actual fact that the temperature of the Earth's surface has risen in the past twenty years - the Ocean's temperature has risen and the amount of energy it takes to do that is incredible (since this isn't a debate about global warming you can do your own google search - look at NOAA's home page too - http://www.noaa.gov/). Of course, greenhouse gases may not be the only cause - but gee, it couldn't hurt to try and limit their possible contribution? But then, Bush doesn't believe in prevention - well, not unless it involves protection of oil.

The search for viable alternative fuel sources should have been started in earnest back in the 70s, and every administration has pretty much failed in this area, and Bush just likes to make it worse. Lets give 1.2 billion to develop hydrogen fueled cars - but the research this money actually benefits is methods of getting the hydrogen from coal and natural gas - the old fuels that pollute. Of course, whats 1.2 billion compared to the 55 billion big oil gets in federal subsidies every year? And meanwhile, lets be sure anyone who buys an SUV or big expensive HUMMER gets their tax break, while those who buy the fuel efficient hybrids don't. So, I just don't know why an American car company doesn't want to put effort into building hybrids?

And superfund sites?? How about lets stop going after pollution violators (though, its hard to imagine someone in violation of the laxest pollution laws in nearly 15 years) - so we don't have money to pay for cleanup of these sites that have been polluted by pollution violators of the past... I guess we'll have to use tax payer money to do it. Of course, we don't have much of that anymore, so lets just slow cleanup of these sites... you know, cleanup one or two sites at the most in the course of the Bush presidency. Nevermind that 25% of the American population lives near one of these sites (though, most don't know).

And, well, you know, Bush isn't particularly fond of those dolphins - annoying creatures I'm sure - so lets rewrite the definition of Dolphin Safe tuna to include the fishing practices that kill dolphins - because heck, as long as we say its so, it must be so right? Or at least, no one will ask, because that would be unamerican and unpatriotic... and then someone would be supporting the terrorists...
And while we're at it - obviously everything Bush has done in office is working to curb terrorism because there have been no attacks on mainland America since 9/11... Nevermind this is not proof of anything!! I mean, gee, Clinton must have cracked down on foreign terrorism too, since there were no terrorist attacks on american soil after the WTC bombing in 93... well, for 9 years anyway. And of course, if Bush's success rate is the same, he'll be out of office by then so it won't matter to him!

And the PATRIOT ACT! This was the scariest piece of legislation I have ever heard! When I first heard about it, I thought it was surely a joke. I mean, every president gets in there long enough and starts to want to quell naysayers - but then the sensible American people rise up and demand their representative vote whatever bill it is down - Surely the patriot act would have a similar fate.... Of course, it neatly avoids checks and balances since no case will reach an open court in which to challenge the law!

I didn't hate Bush after he was installed... I was annoyed like many democrats. I didn't hate Bush when he started escalating the commonplace bombings in Iraq back in March (I may be off a month) 2001 - I was just annoyed he was trying to pick a fight. I was annoyed on Sep 11 as I was trying to find out if all my loved ones were alive or not that Pres Bush didn't come on TV or even address the public by phone. I was scared when I heard his speech in Oct 2001 that outlined his plan to go after anyone we don't like, all in the guise of retribution for 9/11. I HATED Bush when he began twisting a terrible tragedy into an excuse for him to do whatever the heck he wanted without public scrutiny, because to scrutinize him would be unamerican. I HATED him when he began to escalate tensions in Iraq with no intention of avoiding conflict... I HATED him when he declared war on Iraq - I HATED him when his military plan left the army without adequate supplies and soldiers lost their lives as a result. I HATED him when he took his field trip to the destroyer to hastily to declare an end to hostilities. And I will hate him if he insists on withdrawing from Iraq too soon, before we properly finish what we started. And thats just my list with regards to one small part of his foreign policy... it barely scratches the surface... its really just the most raw part I suppose.

And whats worse, is I don't really hate Bush the man. If I met him in person, I really think I would just feel sorry for him because I feel even I have a better understanding of many of his policies than he does. What I hate is what Bush represents - the entire group of figures (Dick, Karl, Donald, etc) who are using him and his willfull ignorance to further what I see as some truly evil ideas. I mean, how can the idea of lets stick our children with the problems not be thought of as evil?? I mean, afterall, these people want to do everything they can to assure that every possible child get born, so why do they want to be sure they are born to a gray world with few true resources left and a country in massive debt? Well, go USA

What really gets me, is the people who think its so great the president doesn't actually try to get information from any other source than his advisors who obviously have slanted agendas (they're in politics, they have agendas), or that this president goes to bed early - because obviously the world must stop at 9pm when the pres gets sleepy. Oh, but he prays, doesn't he.... he must be chosen by God, or some other pile of stink.... I guess the worst part is, I hate him because he uses the guise of what I once considered my faith to do things that are obviously in direct violation of that faith - but everyone just accepts the doublespeak terms without asking - how can a healthy forests initiative involve getting rid of the forests? Can a forest that is destroyed be healthy? Well, it must be since its called healthy forests....

Ugh... That feels a little better
Now I am going to have to go find my punching bag so I can get rid of this anger

Starting out by comparing George Bush to a monkey doesn't speak well for you. I would hardly compare a graduate of Yale AND Havard to a monkey. Its also a giant reach to consider him "stupid" or ignorant. The man majored in History at Yale and recieved his masters in business administration from Harvard. I don't know what you educational backround is but G.W. has the backround necessary to understand the choices he makes.

You are obviously very much in favor of doing everything possible to help the environment. I don't necessarily disagree that the environment is important but in reference to global warming there is NO scientific proof that "greenhouse" gases are to blame. In fact many scientists point out that CO2 is beneficial to the earth. Why should we sink millions of dollars into an unproven theory. When scientists prove that we are warming the earth with our expulsion of gases then come talk to me, but until that time there are more pressing needs for federal money.

Global Warming is not Scientific



UN Global Warming Claims Discredited by True Scientific Evidence



How has your life been adversly affected by the Patriot Act? Did you know that Clinton wanted to put a similar plan in place? This is necessary to help law enforcement prevent another 9/11. We can't sit back and wait days to get warrents when presented with evidence that points to terrorism. The time wasted in that process could be disasterous. If this Act is taken advantage of then fine, but its not, it specifically states its objectives are to prevent "terrorism". Have you been grabbed off the street and thrown in a cell? Has anyone you known had that happen to them?



Was Clinton "trying to pick a fight" in 1998?



#1 The man was in Florida and not in a place to give an address. #2 he did address the country that evening. I think you are overreacting. Don't you think he had briefings, meetings, etc that needed to happen instead so that he knew what was happening?



So do you support other governments that harbor terrorists and even fund them to come over here and kill innocent Americans, or others around the world?



You know what I HATE? I hate that people think we should listen to whatever the UN says because they "represent the international community." Do you think the UN represented the millions of Muslims and Croats that were killed in the atrocities in the former Yugoslavia? Do you think the UN represented the thousands of dead Iraqi's found in mass graves? Do you think the UN represents the millions of people that are dying in slaughter in Africa? Do you think the UN represents the millions of oppressed people in North Korea, and Iran? The UN does not act in the ways its was created to act. It is meant to protect life on this planet. It was UN "peacekeepers" that stood by and watched people being slaughtered in Kosovo, Srebencia, etc. NATO defied the UN and preformed bombing campaigns to stop the Serbs. Was that wrong? I mean they went against the UN they must have been wrong.

May I remind you Kate that its some of the Democrats that want to pull out of Iraq not President Bush. It is the democrats that want the great UN to come in and take our place.



Thats are pretty bold statement and I would like to see that meeting. I wish you would have backed up your hate speech with sources and facts. I refer you to the Bush is a puppet thread and ask you to post some evidence that he doesn't understand the policies he backs and that he just does what hes told.



I don't think hes a "great" president. I disagree with him on some issues, however I see him as a good leader and the people that are running for the democratic nomination scare the hell out of me. I personally don't care if he prays. I'm not a religious person. Why that may impress some it doesn't me. I ask you this, does your faith support standing by while a tyrant murders and oppresses his own people. Does your faith support allowing terrorists to run around unchallenged to carry out their diabolical plans?

To your healthy forests jab I only need to point to Southern California. If people were allowed to remove dead forestry not only would lives have been saved, homes been saved, ANIMALS been saved (including endangered animals), but there wouldn't have been all those "greenhouse" gases released into the atmosphere and our climate would have been saved.

[quote]Starting out by comparing George Bush to a monkey doesn't speak well for you. I would hardly compare a graduate of Yale AND Havard to a monkey.[/quote]

Right, I'm sorry... that was wrong of me... a monkey probably would have gotten higher than a 69 in astronomy.

From the harvard MBA program Dean, explaining to potential applicants what they look for -
[quote]Our selection process emphasizes leadership potential, strong academic ability, and personal qualities and characteristics. [/quote]
of course, I will admit this is the 2003 selection process... perhaps things were different back in the 60s...

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15007
[quote]The average SAT scores for freshmen entering Yale in Mr. Bush's class, the Class of 1968, were 670 Verbal, 705 Math. Mr. Bush scored 566 on the Verbal and 640 on the Math, scores which placed him in the 84% percentile. Barring the unlikely possibility that young Bush wrote an essay of National Book Award quality, SAT scores in the top 16% would not have gained him admission to Yale on his own merit.[/quote]
Oh, but then maybe not.

My point here is that admission to and even graduation from yale and harvard may not be the biggest accomplishment, considering there are many things that don't quite fit there - like how someone with such low college grades (avg 77) gets into the Harvard MBA program anyway - especially since Harvard is supposedly such an exclusive school for the "most intelligent".
Of course, I haven't quite finished my MD/PHD yet, so I probably shouldn't be talking about academics and grades...

[quote]Because of the large and still uncertain level of natural variability inherent in the climate record and the uncertainties in the time histories of the various forcing agents (and particularly aerosols), a causal linkage between the build-up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the observed 
climate changes during the 20th century cannot be unequivocally established. The fact that the magnitude of the observed warming is large in comparison to natural variability as simulated in climate models is suggestive of such a linkage, but it does not constitute proof of one because the model simulations could be deficient in natural variability on the decadal to century time scale.[/quote]

This from the National Academy of Sciences report on the IPCC... yes, it states that there are many variables we do not know, there is natural variability in the climate, and there is a possibility for error... but then, in the conclusion of any responsible scientific study and/or review, the persons involved have to assess their room for error. In chemotherapy research, researchers always end with some assessment of the room for statistical error, etc - stating essentially that the results could have been the result of chance, etc. But, we still use chemotherapy as a treatment in certain cancers b/c there is a multitude of evidence showing that after its use, there is a remission of the cancer. Of course, for years insurance companies siezed on the necessary degree of uncertainty that comes out of ANY scientific research and used it as a basis to deny payment for chemotherapy patients.

Honestly, I have yet to read a peer-reviewed journal article that either disproves or supports the hypothesis that greenhouse gases cause or contribute to global warming. But this is because both sides of the issue have become very politicized - and those simply seeking to test this hypothesis are often met with great difficulty when it comes to getting proper funding. NASA's EOS satellites are step in the right direction.
I however, like the idea that we could find ways to reduce greenhouse gases simply to avoid possible problems they might cause - but this is not how people think I suppose...

Then, again, there are definite health risks caused by the pollution. I know my last post focused a lot on the environment - and I do care deeply for it - but its more the people in the environment I worry about. Pollution exacerbates, and likely even causes, severe health problems in people of all ages - asthma, emphysema, environmental allergies (increased CO2 levels cause increased amounts of many pollens), and the list goes on. When the amount of air pollutant particles (measured excluding natural pollutants like pollen) are increased only moderately, there is a significant increase in mortality risk associated with heat stress from a rise of only 1 degree C. In other words, if the temp is high (so, lets say the earth is just naturally going to get hotter) then the presence of the greenhouse gas pollutants will increase the morbidity and mortality from the heat! Gee, so, lets just say greenhouse gases aren't CAUSING the rise in the heat, but the heat is rising and people are affected by increased heat - so maybe we should get rid of as much of the pollutants as possible just to avoid having more unneccessary death from the Heat. (there is some interesting french research about the role of pollution in the high number of deaths in the summer heat wave)

(Oh, and you can find just one article on the pollution/heat stress connection in the Journal "Environmental Research" vol 93, issue 1 - p 9 -19 - sept 2003 issue)

[quote]Did you know that Clinton wanted to put a similar plan in place?[/quote]

I made an allusion to that if you read my post - but I was trying not to mention Clinton since this is not about Clinton... Of course, many in the current adminstration were very vocal critics against Clinton's plan, and this is where I thought the sanity of the American people would come into play once again and stop its passing.

[quote]This is necessary to help law enforcement prevent another 9/11. We can't sit back and wait days to get warrents when presented with evidence that points to terrorism. [/quote]

If they have the evidence, there is always a judge on call to sign pesky things like warrants... I don't see how this takes days?? Unless you are referring to that pesky process of actually gathering the EVIDENCE to support the claim.... hmmm....

[quote]Has anyone you known had that happen to them?[/quote]
Yes - an old classmate of mine is a US citizen but he was born in Afghanistan. He made some unfortunate decisions regarding smoking marijuana - but instead of facing charges like anyone else, he was siezed in spring 2002 and his parents are now going through a battle just to find out where he is being held.

Now, honestly, I have no major problem with stricter provisions to screen incoming aliens, and to seek out illegal aliens and have them put in INS custody - but there is a distinct difference between illegal aliens, legal aliens and US citizens.

[quote]Was Clinton "trying to pick a fight" in 1998? [/quote]

Let me remind you, this is NOT about Clinton. My criticism (yes, I criticized him) of Clinton and Bush are entirely separate issues.

[quote]#1 The man was in Florida and not in a place to give an address.[/quote]

I was unaware that Florida had no tv crews or means of sending an image or even an audio clip to the rest of the country. I'm sorry, I should have realized...
Like I said, I was annoyed there was no communication from pres for most of the day - the first attack occurs at 930 in the morning, and we don't hear from him until 830pm? Couldn't he at least have said as he gets on the plane "I'm going to meet with my advisors and assess the situation?" Well... whatever... like I said, this was just a minor annoyance to me at the time.


[quote]So do you support other governments that harbor terrorists and even fund them to come over here and kill innocent Americans, or others around the world?[/quote]

Sure, why not. I must since I don't like the idea of any country thinking they have the right to go in and destabilize a region because we have some exaggerated intelligence information that says they may be trying to do some of the same things we do - you know, build nukes like us.
Being against the non-sequitor war in Iraq does not mean I support terrorists. What I am against is the US thinking we are the only victims of terrorist attacks in recent history. Lets talk to the Euros who have been trying to deal with this issue for sometime. I mean, could it have possibly been that hard to keep them on our side (and keep their help) considering they HAVE been dealing with terrorists attacks on their own soil for sometime? So they should understand the same fear and desire to "Make the world safe" that the US feels?
But my area of expertise is not foreign policy, so maybe its normal to want to alienate long time allies.

[quote]You know what I HATE? I hate that people think we should listen to whatever the UN says because they "represent the international community." [/quote]

I did not mention the UN... you started that. I don't think we should follow the UN blindly... we are a powerful nation and should not roll over everytime the UN says too - but we do need to recognize that the UN is a valid forum for discussing and dealing with differences between countries and determining courses of action that do not involve inflicting a skewed world view on a country/countries that has very different values from our own. (and yes, the American world view IS skewed, just as the world view from any one country is skewed! You should hear what the Germans think about the Turkish for example!) So, while we should never follow blindly behind the UN, we should not be so actively working to undermine it.

[quote]May I remind you Kate that its some of the Democrats that want to pull out of Iraq not President Bush. It is the democrats that want the great UN to come in and take our place. [/quote]

Thanks... I might have forgotten that... But then, thats one of the major reasons I think the democrat choices really suck and I'm mad at the democrats. To me, the democrats have been acting like a bunch of sniveling lapdogs to Bush, afraid to contradict him b/c they may not get reelected... and now that they see its a little more popular to speak against Bush - they just seem to want to say mindless and senseless things that are simply opposite of Bush - and not approach the issues with a real world view. But this belongs on another strand - "WHy I hate the democrat choices"

Plus, Bush initially thinks it will be years before power is transferred, and now its going to happen in June? hmmm.... How could the increasing number of attacks tell us this is feasible? THough I suppose the main goal is to get most of our troops out of there so we can send them elsewhere and meanwhile the American public will forget about those left behind.

And as far as the UN in Iraq - it would be nice if we weren't the majority of troops and money in Iraq - I mean, the italians suffer a few casualties and are ready to leave!

[quote]I ask you this, does your faith support standing by while a tyrant murders and oppresses his own people. Does your faith support allowing terrorists to run around unchallenged to carry out their diabolical plans? [/quote]

No. It does not. So why haven't we been looking to any of the African nations with similar problems?

[quote]To your healthy forests jab I only need to point to Southern California. If people were allowed to remove dead forestry not only would lives have been saved, homes been saved, ANIMALS been saved (including endangered animals)[/quote]

It wasn't just dead forestry burning... If that much of the California forestry was dead, there are obviously other problems. And a lot of the land was not in an area protected from logging or cutting down dead forestry - I don't know of a lot of protection for dead foests, but loggers don't really like to use long dead forestry anyway. This area was just forests that haven't been cut down yet for whatever reason (some people like living in woody areas). Forest fires are also a big part of the natural cycle of the Earth that you liked to talk about out. So, if we aren't doing anything to attempt to curb global warming, why should we do anything to try and prevent forest fires? Both cause deaths...

And as far as ANIMALS are concerned - I don't give two figs about the animals... except to the extent that an animal's survival impacts human survival. Seriously, I like elephants and whales - but the basis of our ecosystem are much smaller animals like the plankton that contains most of the biological energy in the ocean. The amount of plankton is decreasing as the coral reefs and other ocean habitats disseappear and no one cares. Its the same with so many insects. Everyone figures, cockroaches will be here forever, so who cares if another insect dissappears. Never mind that without the plankton, the rest of the fish in the ocean would die as the only real animals capable of converting the energy from the sun to a useful form is gone. Nevermind that as certain insects dissappear, plants abilities to reproduce are reduced (or entirely eliminated) and thus some animals can't eat - and yes, if we don't have plants and animals, there is not much left for we humans to eat. I know that the bleak world w/o plants and animals is far away, but I personally don't want it to happen at all. All these people going on about saving elephants - by the time an animal is present in small enough numbers to reach the endangered species list, their impact on the ecosystem is so minimal that their dissappearance would cause few ripples, if any!
So, don't think b/c I care about the environment I'm some treehugging idiot ready to kill a person just to save some "helpless, innocent" animal. I care about the environment b/c it affects Human Beings - and if people have trouble with that idea, well... I think that most people focusing on the endangered species are just trying to treat a symptom of eco-problems, instead of trying to look for the root cause - whatever that may be!

Anyway, someone I'm sure will say this was all off topic - but it all goes towards deeper reasons why I dislike Bush and the current adminstration so much.

Personally I dislike him, truth is I dont hate him. frankly he is really a victem for being placed in this position of power. I am not saying Bush is an idiot (frankly you can not make it this far bieng one). However, being smart and bieng smart enough to be president are to entirely diffrent things.

My first problem with him bieng president is merely the lack of effort his life has been. He may be educated Yale(granted he failed entrance exams, but got in anyway). He is very wealthy becuase he was born that way. However he has never fought for anything. Granted Its not his fault, its the way it is.

Other issues: War on Terrosim was garunteed to fail misserably the day he said "this is a crusade". Not only does that show his religous views greatly affect his judgement, but according to history every crusade has failed... alot. And Gee, what a surprise so far he has managed to simultainously, *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** off the world, destroyed 2 countries, sent american troops to die (as with all wars it happens), and ironically has not found the two figure heads (Osama/Saddam).

Econemy

I would love to see links to all of these horrible, awful things all you liberals attribute to GWB.

One person says "environment" and 5 others jump on board, and say whatever they have conjured up from obscure little sites, or even in their own heads..

You do know that if you allow companies into manage forests, and remove the dead growth, hundred-thousand+ acre forest fires will be much more in frequent. I just got back from Thanksgiving in San Diego, and I saw the fire damage from their recent fires first hand.



I took this picture myself.

Plus, by allowing companies in to manage forests, even if that means removing live trees, it allows the rest to flourish, and grow healthier. Plus, trees grow back. I live in Oregon, and there's puh-lenty of trees here, and they do, honestly and truly grow back. Preventing companies from putting roads in here or there is just plain silly. What are they going to do.. Put roads in everywhere, and never manage them? Not grow more trees so they have a resource for their businesses?

Do you people honestly think that companies exist just to destroy the environment? Companies exist to make money! How incredibly short sighted would it be to go into the forest, chop down a bunch of trees, and then not replenish the source? Give me a break.

I'm not surprised no one here mentioned the fact that he signed into law the largest growth of government since FDR. Remember hearing how much money the $78 BILLION dollars was we needed for Iraq? The Prescription Drug Bill is over 5 times BIGGER!!

How about the fact that we liberated over 50 Million oppressed people in two different countries? No one complained when Clinton bombed Milosevic into the Stone Age.. Accomplishing much the same thing. Remember when he said our troops would be home by Christmas? That was 7 YEARS AGO!! and they're still THERE!!

Boy, talk about Presidential *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. ***!!

There was this incredibly brilliant man who is known for his wise proverbs.. No, I'm not talking about Solomon.

This guy is much more recent. His name is Eric Hoffer.

He has a quote, I believe is very appropo for the liberals on this board.

The truth seems to be that propaganda on its own cannot force its way into unwilling minds; neither can it inculcate something wholly new; nor can it keep people persuaded once they have ceased to believe. It penetrates into minds already open, and rather than instill opinion it articulates and justifies opinions already present in the minds of its recipients.

have a nice day.

On his connection to the religious right, he came to my nieghborhood (famous in my city for being pretty run-down to give money to churches. It was his new idea to give tons of money to religious centers (it just so happens that almost all of this went to christian churches). After he came within 40 miles of me, I felt dirty. But I completely agree. The people he associates himself with are most assuredly a disease to America. These people, including Dubya, are pretty close to being considered (by me) to be bent on world domination. He's not waging war against terrorism. He's waging war against a religion. He's waging war against anyone who does not support his war on a religion. He's waging war on any American that doesn't have blind faith that everything the rich say is good and right. He's waging war against real freedom. I believe Bush and his cronies are a disease because of their need to conquer things that are different, Guantanamo and the Patriot Act ("They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security..." - Benjamin Franklin). I dislike Bush because of his taking away Vet's benefits and the benefits of the working class while increasing the benefits of himself and the wealthy right that pays him back through campaign contributions. Everyone doesn't hear all of this repeatedly because it's rhetoric. They hear it over and over because it's right.

I don't hate Bush. The things I dislike about him are:
1. Trampling our civil liberties,
2. His spending,
3. Rumsfeld (I also believe he should never be allowed to speak publicly). A diplomat he is not!,
4. His refusal to take responsibilities for mistakes of his administration. One example, the whole fiasco with the CIA and his State of the Union Speech. Leaders are responsible for the actions of those that work under them. If they made a mistake then he made a mistake. Accept responsibility, learn from it and move on., and
5. The unlawful detention of the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. They should be allowed a trial.

I can't stand Bush, and here are some of the reasons why I think that is a justified statement.

1) He squandered the world's goodwill in the days following 9/11. I believe that the military action in Afghanistan was justified, but I disagree with what happened in Iraq. Instead of using the sense of goodwill that existed post 9/11 to build alliances, make further moves toward peace or making attempts at strengthing organizations such as the UN and Nato we engaged in a pointless and expensive war that has all but cost us most of our core allies.

2) He is not so much a leader as a collection of special interests. The religious right whispers in his ears that homosexuals are evil and he talks of "codifying" that constitutionally. He has all but rolled back every single environment initiative created during the Clinton era for no good reason that I can see other than to benefit his big business constituents. The man does not appear to have a vision of where America should be going, he is merely acting upon the varied interests of his staff and those that bank roll him.

3) He has frequently used his foreign policy agenda to ensure that domestic decisions are either ignored all together or get very little ink. To me that just reeks of deception. Take a story that appeared today, Bush to Increase Nuclear Wepon production, with little to no debate or public attention. Hello! How many nunclear non-proliferation treaties have we signed with Russia? How many years and how many millions of dollars have we spent dismantling and disposing of our nuclear arsenal? How many other nations have we scolded for creating nuclear arms? I can't think of a single good reason for upping the production of nukes unless maybe Bush plans to bring on WWIII or at the very least just help his defense contractor buddies.

4) Finally, he believes that civil rights must and should be sacrificed in the name of security. If that is the case then I'll take my chance against the terrorists and keep my civil rights thank you very much. We have the patriot act, we have people sitting in Guantanamo Bay that have not been given due process of the law and in some case have been sitting in jail without being charged for months or even years. This is America we live in right?

My biggest problem with Bush is that fact that I cant believe you have a former coke addict and alcoholic at your helm

Those addicted to drugs are usually looked down upon, yet you voted him in. (or arguably didnt )

He introducetd a peice of legislation, that stipulated if anyone was caught with with minor drug offence with cannibas is not illegible for university funding. That is very hypocritical, and if anything you would think he would understand the position of those who have a special relationaship with drugs.

One thing to say to the <insult removed> post that 'Bush is a coke addict':

"I did not inhale."

As for Bush being a drug addict and alchoholic, so what? That was decades ago. The man then is a far cry from the man today. It's this sort of rhetoric that will win Bush the office next year.

As for do I hate Bush?

No, I do not hate him. I personally have no issue with much he has done in his term. What I do hate is the constant vitriol being spewed by his opponents. For the record, I voted Gore last election and Clinton the time before but this time I will probally vote Bush. Why? Because as I said, all I hear from his opponents is hate-laced vitriol and such rhetoric is only drawing the far-leftists and dissuading the moderates that make up this country from the Democrat's side.

I think his drug use and alcohol abuse is a credit to his campaign. For one thing it shows that he wasn't a follower to the "drugs are bad" philosophy. He tried it out recreational and avoided addiction. I would rather a president actually know what the drug users are facing, then a president that looks a various reports and then makes a decision how to handle the drug problem with out emotion.

I think you are forgetting the fact that he was addicated and wasnt just a recreational user.

Both of you ignored the fact that he introduced the legislation that I mentioned. If you are to claim that he is a exmaple that we can overcome our personal problems and still achieve great things, then surely that legislation is hypocritical since it makes it much harder for people to get them seem back on track?

Well then he it seems he has seen the destructive side of drug use and impose strict laws to serve as a deterrence so that others will not follow in his foot steps. My point is that he atleast has something to base his decisions on rather then a second hand account of the benefits and consequences of drug use.
He also has expirence running a buisness, even though it failed, it serves as insight for decisions that can help other ones.

You clearly have little experience with addicts or addiction. If George W. Bush was a cocaine addict "years ago", he still is. If George W. Bush was an alcoholic "years ago", he still is.

If he is in recovery, good for him - I wish him continued success (for the sake of us all). But most of the effects of addiction - and an addictive personality - are permanent. The man then is exactly the same man today: he is an addict.

I do not hold this against him, except insofar as it makes him a hypocrite on yet another further different level.

To the question: I do not hate George W. Bush. There's not enough substance there (and the addiction may have a lot to do with that) to merit hatred. I hate most of his policies and deeply mistrust most of those he has chosen as his "advisors" - and I'm sure that, if I met him in person, I would dislike that smug, smirking personality and sophomoric sensibility intensely - but, no, I don't hate him.

Yes, I think it is a waste of time to hate or even mistrust GW. He is just the rattle at the tail of the snake. There is greater evil worthy of our hate in our government and it isn't even one of the parties: It is both of them.

The two party system enabled GW to get voted into office becasue Americans (including many people who post on this board) assume that if they can't vote fomr one of the Dems then they have to vote for the Republican. THAT is what put us in the present, miserable situation. We are represented internationally by a buffoon. I would probably love to go out and have a drink with good ole Dubya. I don't hate him, I pity him because I wouldn't want to be in his shoes. Every time he speaks publicly it is a nightmare. The coaching sessions and his memorization strategy are palpable when he speaks....it's embarrassing.

I think the accusations that Bush was a cocaine addict have no basis in fact. The claims he was an alcoholic are unproven. I doubt if there is a single living President I would not mind spending time with. Well except Reagan, I hate watching grown people drool.

This, at least, shows that to George W. Bush his drinking had become a problem.

As far as a cocaine addiction, I have not suggested that he was addicted.
He just doesn't even want to admit that he used the substance, especially since the giant brouhaha that erupted when another Presidential candidate had said he tried marijuana but "didn't inhale."

Again, George W. Bush (with the exception of another President's extracurricular activities with a White House intern) has not demonstrated greater character. None of the Presidents, except maybe Ford or Carter, came to the White House with an absolutely clean slate, certainly not George W. Bush.

But that's not to say that these guys aren't nice fellows up close and personal. It's how they affect the nation that concerns me.

And I don't hate Bush.

I would respond, but I fear it would take us too far off topic. Instead, I have created a new thread:

I'd prefer to stay out of his personal life, that stuff is very relative and hard to gain somewhat of a consensus on. Despite my disagreements with his views, I'm glad that he chose to redirect his life in a positive manner. The cocaine and alcohol stuff is old news, plus, it doesn't take lives like the conflict in Iraq is. Nor is it affecting every day citizens like his domestic politices are.