A detailed list of the bad things Bush did while in presidency

[Lorizael]

Re: A detailed list of the bad things Bush did while in presidency

Originally posted by johncmcleod
Yeah, like a deer is going to attack a wolf.

I'm no Bush supporter, but I have to argue against this statement. Most deer don't murder thousands of people with horrible, inhumane weapons.

But the number of things Bush has ****ed up are just too many to list, so I don't really feel like participating in this thread.

[Chris 62]

If that porno chick losses to Arnold, can we get her to run for president?

[MattH]

>Originally posted by Dissident
>Bush hasn't legalized public nudity and marijuana

Well that's it, he lost my vote.

and now Pr0n too, be cause we're all sinners

[MattH]

Sorry, that was a bit of an overstatement.

[MrFun]

** response to thread's title **

He publicly denounced unions of love between two people of the same gender.

[Joseph]

Re: A detailed list of the bad things Bush did while in presidency

Originally posted by johncmcleod
How about we make a list of all the bad things Bush did, but describe each thing well. Then I can send it to all the conservatives that live in my state. Well, I won't do that but next time someone says 'Bush is a great president' I will swat them down. The main problem when I argue about that topic is that I don't know where to start.

I'll start out with this list. He violated international law and invaded Iraq merely to gain voters (he sent 200,000 troops over there before he started negotiating with Iraq, so whatever happened Iraq would be invaded). He told the public that Iraq wasn't letting inspectors in so it would be invaded, and then Iraq did let them in, but he still invaded. He convinced the public that Iraq would attack us, so we had to get Iraq. Yeah, like a deer is going to attack a wolf. All by doing this he severely hurt America's reputation throughout the world.

I am leaving out anything for this particular decision Bush made?

What part of getting rid of Saddam that you don't like?

[Sava]

What part of getting rid of Saddam that you don't like?

This hasn't been shown to be a good thing, yet. Time will tell. If some fundamentalist government comes to power and thousands of Americans die in terrorist attacks for the next 20 years, marching into Iraq, unilaterally, will be one of the worst moves EVER!

[johncmcleod]

Most deer don't murder thousands of people with horrible, inhumane weapons.

I wonder why that for 20 years of being in power, Saddam never attacked us once with these horrible weapons. The reason? He would be immediately kicked out of power. If he actually attacked us, the whole world would be against him. It would be the perfect excuse for America to invade him.

Come on, this thread is going crazy.

How about this. He cut taxes right when we were in a huge deficit.

Getting rid of Saddam isn't bad, it's the way it was done. You don't go in unilaterally. Just because we have the biggest military doesn't give us the right to decide what is right and wrong and what other nations can and can't do. If our forefathers saw what was happening now they'd be ashamed of our country.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ming
. . . and the "he can do nothing wrong" crowd raise to the bait and contribute their own silly nonsense.

Now Ming, no need to drag Slowwy and MTG into the fray.

[Japher]

You don't go in unilaterally. Just because we have the biggest military doesn't give us the right to decide what is right and wrong and what other nations can and can't do.

When your country is attacked, you, as a president, do everything you can to ensure that it doesn't happen again. If this means that you usurp a ruler who is known to support those who attacked you and is supplying them with weapons and is rumored of developing even greater weapons for those without a country to attack you... Then yes you attack, unilateraly if need be... especially if you have the biggest military.

If our forefathers saw what was happening now they'd be ashamed of our country.

No, what an awfully inane and stupid thing to say. Our forefathers would be right on the frontline, fighting beside their people ensuring that the US remains the haven that is for those who seek freedoms and opportunities offered nowhere else in the world. They would also be a little tickled pink that we kick so much butt...

[Spiffor]

I will only list one thing: his stubbornness completely destroyed the Kyoto agreements, and pushed back any planetary effort to fight against pollution for a decade, or maybe several.

We are experiencing the consequencences of global warming right now, but Bush and his cronies only think of their short term wins.

Even worse, despite the existence of technologies to reduce the production of greenhouse gases (hybrid or fuel efficient cars, nuclear or hydro energy, efficient mass transit systems), and despite the urge to reduce dependancy to foreign oil, Bush didn't do anything significant to raise the environmental standards of the US.

Bush will be remembered as partly responsible of the climatic catastrophes that await our planet

[Japher]

As a Bush supporter I do hate how he "gave" all the "rebuild" Iraq contracts to his friends instead of the lowest bidder... Budget problem?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Bush will be remembered as partly responsible of the climatic catastrophes that await our planet

Ok, you certaintly cannot include me in the pro-Bush camp, but even this statement I have to seriously question.



I happen to think that any environmental change that is occuring due to human exploitation of the environment, is happening from the previous two centuries of accumulated pollution -- not because of today's pollution.

In another century or so, maybe the pollution of today and onward, will have accumulated significantly to affect the global atmosphere, climate, etc.

Doesn't it take a long period of time before pollution begins to have an impact?
Isn't today's greenhouse effect due to the previous two centuries of increasing pollution?

[Ming]

Originally posted by Sava
I can't name a good thing Ming.

Thanks for proving my point.

When it comes to the rabid foaming at the mouth bush bashers... real discussion is a waste of time.

And the same holds true for bush is god bunch.

[Sava]

so Ming, you are proving us true by not being able to even name ONE DAMN THING! Even I named more good Bush things than you.