A question for Bush voters [Archive] - The Michelle Kwan Forum

ladybugs

June 10th, 2005, 08:05 AM

I am not saying your opinions are wrong. My opinion and it also happens to be what I believe is that what the media hopes to happen, happened in the way you are sounding. I don't hear you saying President Bush should be supported, simply because he is our president. The media wants you to think negatively towards Pres. Bush. I have news/reminder for you. When Pres. Bill Clinton was almost impeached, the reason I think he wasn't was because it would have been bad for our country. Mind you, these were also Republicans who felt that way. So we chose rather than impeach him, but to let him finish out his term for the better of our country. The president, any president, whether you voted for him, agree with him or not should have our country's support.

Whenever you say something that doesn't sound like you support the president (I am not saying you aren't free to speak what you think) (but if you constantly sound negative towards him), the other evil-doers/terrorists/enemies love to hear that and you are giving them an edge. Don't you get it?

Why do you think he got elected? That was a majority of the people not the poll numbers. Bush has courage to take a stand, but I'm afraid some of these others who think the poll numbers are the solid standard of proof, are not willing to put themselves out or speak up for our president for fear it is not the "cool thing to do". I don't care what people say about my view if I want to speak up for Pres. Bush.

The election was not very long ago, and do you think the people who voted for him are now suddenly going to say, no, I don't think he is good enough anymore. What do you think it takes to win a war? You can't have instant gratification just whenever you feel the need to have something done quick. Do you think we ever would've won World War II if President Roosevelt wasn't steadfast and what would it have been like if we had the media coverage we have now back then? It is a scary thought.

So, no the polls are just propaganda. And I'll say it again, I love President George W. Bush and I give him my whole-hearted support. :SE :D

moxie

June 10th, 2005, 03:24 PM

"The media wants you to think negatively towards Pres. Bush."

If that's the case, why did Bush have very high approval ratings for months? You still haven't answered that question. (Or is it that you think the polls are fair when they support your views, and biased when they don't?)

"When Pres. Bill Clinton was almost impeached, the reason I think he wasn't was because it would have been bad for our country."

Actually, Clinton WAS impeached; don't know how anyone could forget that ...

I guess those who voted to impeach didn't care that it was bad for the country and a colossal waste of time and money.

Sprampt

June 11th, 2005, 03:57 AM

Moxie, why do you think his approval ratings are down?

moxie

June 11th, 2005, 04:34 AM

I really don't know, especially since the weakness in the Bush support numbers is due mainly to domestic issues. And nothing really has changed there since the election.

That's why I started this thread, because I don't understand why significant numbers of people who approved of Bush & voted for him seven months ago have apparently changed their minds.

What's interesting is that most of these folks aren't switching to the Democrats ... they just disapprove of the federal government in general.

kwanfanatic2002

June 11th, 2005, 07:23 AM

Ladybugs, I agree with wholeheartedly too and support him about 95%.

I think the polls (as with most polls) questions are asked in a certain way so they can guarantee the answer that the poll taker is looking to get. I was never polled, as well as anyone in my family, friends. We all voted for Bush and support him still.

THe issue I have with Bush is the borders. I wish he would pay more attention to immigration. I am also concerned with healthcare.We need to do something to fix our healthcare system. I grew up with Socialist healthcare.(govt run) and we have it far better than they do in Canada. That is about to change though. A new law was passed that will allow for citizens to have private healthcare insurance that they themselves will pay for. They still need to address the issue of not enough doctors though first.

ladybugs

June 12th, 2005, 08:37 AM

The problem the Democrats have is they are not coming up with a plan on what to do with the borders' issue or social security. Pres. Bush has brought the problem of social security to the forefront. He is being gutsy to take a stand on it, even though he knows it is not a popular subject, but he knows it needs to be fixed.

The democrats waste their time and our country's precious time, to say bad things against Bush. There is a difference between saying constructive critical things about him then to say mean/nasty things about him just to make themselves sound "cool" and "smart".

I don't know how to fix the border problem and I need to honestly read up on it more. All I know is that has to be a hard job to fix, taking into account of how many miles the borders are, north and south. It would take many people to police these areas. Now, doesn't that just make you think what a great country we are that immigrants are willing to risk their lives to get in here. It is just that we have to worry about the bad ones getting in. How do you police all these people? I'd love to hear from Democrats and Republicans on their ideas.

:D :EOE

moxie

June 12th, 2005, 09:29 AM

"The problem the Democrats have is they are not coming up with a plan on what to do with the borders' issue or social security. Pres. Bush has brought the problem of social security to the forefront. He is being gutsy to take a stand on it, even though he knows it is not a popular subject, but he knows it needs to be fixed."

Bush is making an issue of Social Security, but hasn't as yet provided any details on exactly what his plan would be, other than pushing a private-investment setup that would cost us an additional $4 billion or so in setup fees, without doing anything to address the underlying funding issues. Plus, it would likely reduce benefits by 20-40% from what people are getting now (details again are sketchy on this), with the assumption that the private-investment portion would make up the difference (assuming the market doesn't tank again). People would be doing very well to break even.

No, the Democrats haven't come up with a single "Democratic plan," although many Democrats and some Republicans have offered their own alternate plans for strengthening Social Security.

The problem is that, at this point, it is counterproductive to spend a lot of time on "alternate plans" until we actually hear what Bush's plan is. It could be that once he finally gets it together enough to get it on the table, many Democrats will actually come on board and support it (much as they did with Bush's bankruptcy bill, the Patriot Act, etc., etc.).

Before people start criticizing Democrats, why not do some research on Bush's plan? Can you figure out what the heck it is? Do you like it or not like it? And why?

ladybugs

June 13th, 2005, 04:13 AM

Again, moxie, you are being repetitive. You are being honest in saying that there is no "good" plan as far as you can tell from either side, but again you can't state that without having to say something negative about Bush. You always have to get that "dig" in there. See, this is where I see alot of our problem today. The Democrats can't come together as a whole and just simply support our President. Can't you do that, or try, without being harsh on President Bush. You don't hate him or you do? Even if you do or don't can't you be grown up enough to say a kind word? Remember the saying, "If you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything at all?"

Can't wait to hear what you have to say to that? Do you like apples? How are them apples? :FL

kwanfanatic2002

June 13th, 2005, 06:07 AM

That was great labybugs. She and Mr.Pru could take that to heart.

tongueincheek

June 13th, 2005, 06:20 AM

Um, except that I can't see where Moxie said anything negative at all about anyone. Moxie stated facts objectively and invited others to present more facts. I am a non-partisan voter who also wants to know more facts about the President's Social Security plan. With all due respect to this President or any other, I really need to know all the facts before I can support or disagree with ANY plan. That's all Moxie has said. And I don't care if Moxie is a Dem, Rep, Independent, Whig or Tory, I just don't see any "digs" or negativity, I only see a genuine wish for more information.

JerryStopher

June 13th, 2005, 06:21 AM

Aside from MKF and Yahoo, I also have an account at Excite.Com, where I read news, participate in the Daily Poll, and other things.

Over the years, I have observed that when Excite asks about our political leanings, I am in a minority group, both as a Democrat and as a Liberal. I'm in the majority as a white male Christian.

So: most of those who self-select to respond to Excite's polls are white male Christian Republicans, who voted with gusto for Bush. On issue-oriented polls, for the most part, they have toed the Bush line. They are against gay marriage, abortion, welfare, and gun control. They strongly dislike Howard Dean, Hillary Clinton, Teresa Heinz Kerry, and Teddy Kennedy. They were early and enthusiastic supporters of the War Against Iraq.

This past week, Friday, the change in their views was obvious. Of 14,390 respondents, 2% were unsure if we're safer now because of the war; 35% believe that we are safer; and 61% are sure we're less safe.

Saturday, the question was whether the Excite users approve of the job Bush is doing. 12,532 responded:

Strongly approve 24% => 3,022 votes

Somewhat approve 15% => 1,961 votes

Somewhat disapprove 6% => 762 votes

Strongly disapprove 48% => 6,071 votes

Have mixed feelings 5% => 676 votes

I'm not sure 0% => 40 votes

So those who disapprove - somewhat or strongly - total 54% in a poll that is answered mainly by white male Christian Republicans who voted for Bush.

Thus, the question remains: why? What has happened that is leading Bush's supporters to turn against him?

Puce

June 13th, 2005, 08:09 AM

He does not look at which way the poll numbers are blowing and then go with whatever is popular just so he will look good, unlike Clinton.

why do people have to bash clinton just to make a point about bush? why tear someone you obviously don't like down just to prop another person up? it only makes your argument weak. this is not the only place in this thread that i see this. :rolleyes people need to get over it. clinton was so 5 years ago...:rolleyes

JerryStopher

June 13th, 2005, 11:11 AM

Y'all remember when President Chirac listened to the 96% of French who were adamantly opposed to joining the Americans and the Brits in the War Against Iraq?

Remember how Representative Walter Jones (R-North Carolina) was so upset, he joined Representative Bob Ney (R-Ohio), Chairman of the Committee on House Administration, in leaning on the congressional cafeterias to change the name of French Fries to Freedom Fries?

Pretty strong supporter of Bush's war policy, wasn't he?

To see what he's saying now, CLIQUEZ-VOUS ICI (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20050612/pl_afp/usiraqfrancepolitics)!

mr pru

June 13th, 2005, 02:26 PM

Much to kf's delight-I seem unable to post in the right wing thread.

My posts have ended up under the add reply option. I believe there are three now.

This is mostly a test.

moxie

June 13th, 2005, 02:27 PM

"Again, moxie, you are being repetitive. You are being honest in saying that there is no "good" plan as far as you can tell from either side, but again you can't state that without having to say something negative about Bush. You always have to get that "dig" in there."

Can't see anywhere that I criticized Bush, other than to say that he still hasn't given us a detailed Social Security plan. All we know, six months down the line, is that he's in favor of private accounts. If that's a
"dig," so be it.

manskater

June 13th, 2005, 04:38 PM

Puce Princess - those who always wish to bring up Clinton which is probably only one poster on this board, refuse to have this administration accept any responsibility for anything it has done to this country and its image abroad. From the first day Bush was "appointed" by the Supreme Court he has always sought to steer any accountability for failures away from him and one of the more ridiculous excuses has been well Clinton left a mess or Clinton did not do this or that. Take North Korea...maybe the agreement the US and N Korea did not work out as intended but at least Clinton kept the communications open as he did with the Middle East. What did Bush do, he virtually ignored both N Korea and the Middle East in the first 2 years of his first administration until both situations became so volatile that he had to be coaxed into doing something. He has ignored the volatile situations going on in Latin America, specifically Venezuela where now we are demonized. Of course Bush and his cronies will never accept accountability for the lack of communications and volatile rhetoric they create... they just blame someone or something else. JMO.

madison

June 13th, 2005, 07:42 PM

Jerry wrote:<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Thus, the question remains: why? What has happened that is leading Bush's supporters to turn against him?<hr></blockquote>

IMO, the 2006 elections are approaching, and the Congress who are up for election are not particularly pleased with either the non-stop, poor planning and endless killings in Iraq, nor the cost to the country, currently said to be 1 billion a week.

A few repubs seeking elections have voiced their desire to have the troops home now.
I don't have a link since I watched this story on ABC's THIS WEEK with George Stephanopolus.

Yankees Suck 01

June 14th, 2005, 05:07 PM

The problem with your "spin" theory is that the very same CNN/Gallup/USA Today poll had very high approval numbers for Bush just a few months ago.

You can't tear someone down if you don't build them up first.

The media has a not so hidden agenda, to sell their product and controversy is the biggest seller.

EigthAv

June 14th, 2005, 07:04 PM

I'm hanging in here.Let the bandwagon jumpers jump.The man is in his 2nd term.I got a good look at the Kerry/Edwards bandwagon and decided to just keep my seat where I was.

moxie

June 15th, 2005, 02:45 AM

"The media has a not so hidden agenda, to sell their product and controversy is the biggest seller."

Since most media outlets are for-profit corporations, why would the wish to sell their product ever be thought of as a hidden agenda?

If you worked for a media outlet or had money invested in a media stock (as do most people who own mutual funds), wouldn't you want that outlet to be as successful as possible?

The problem is that many people view commercial media outlets as "public servants" who must serve everyone equally. The actuality is that media outlets choose the specific audience that they wish to serve (generally based on the advertisers they wish to attract), and tailor their "product" to fit that audience, much as a store or restaurant or automaker would do. If people don't like the "product," they will choose another TV show or magazine or web outlet.

It's just another instance of good ol' American capitalism.

kwanfanatic2002

June 15th, 2005, 06:08 AM

If the media is picking their audience, they are picking the dems then. They are so biased it it pathetic.

Kerry is still blaming others for his loss. He is actually beginning to sound like a sore loser now.I would stick with the Repbls also. I would rather give upmy right to vote forever than to stand by him.

mr pru

June 15th, 2005, 07:24 AM

Of course, Georgie and his cronies would NEVER think of only allowing supporters to a public "forum".

This has happened too many times to count.

Here in Kentucky-it just happened a couple of weeks ago in the city of Hopkinsville.

Anyone not kissing his "ring" was kept FIVE miles from the meeting site. This is not an exaggeration.

Perhaps he didn't want anyone to see him keep reading or talking for SEVEN MINUTES in case the USA was attacked again-like he did on 9/11.

EigthAv

June 15th, 2005, 09:09 AM

Pru,I think you are a closet Bush fan. ........wanna buy sum wood???

mr pru

June 15th, 2005, 10:22 AM

8th-I have nothing against the Republican party in general. It's just that George, like many, many other children of privilege has not earned the position he is now in.

Nor is he qualified-like other children of privilege.

John Fogerty's Senator's Son rings in my head every time I see George's goofy facial expressions when he attempts to speak publicly.

Clinton had PLENTY of faults-however the man was a Rhodes Scholar. He didn't make a fool out of himself when he spoke. (except: "I did not have sexual relations with that girl, Monica Lewinsky" :lol ) He did come across as presidential up at the podium.

Not being qualified has led him down many wrong paths. His cowboy diplomacy typifies the attitudes of people who are used to getting their way, and not having to answer to anybody.

The President of the United States of America cannot behave in such a manner.

ladybugs

June 15th, 2005, 10:55 AM

The question first brought up, "Why isn't Bush's poll numbers up?" has still not been answered to satisfaction and you know why? Because nobody will. It is just propaganda on the media's part. They want that question to just "hang in the wind" and no one has anyway to back it up. That's all it is, is just a "throw it in the wind" question like the media does all the time. They want you to wonder about it and then think, "Gee, if the question was asked, Pres. Bush has probably not been popular anymore for doing something bad." So they let you who don't have faith in Pres. Bush, question him and think this way and you fall for it all the time. To me it is a form of communisim. They are almost trying to make you think a certain way.

What scares me is how much hatred for Pres. Bush I hear. Thank God, he was elected a second term. Thank God, the majority of Americans have faith and believe in him.

Do you like apples? How are them apples? Gotcha!!!! :rollin :rollin 8)

Sparks

June 15th, 2005, 01:09 PM

Well, not only are Bush's numbers down, the Congress' numbers are quite low as well. Also, about 60% of the American people think the country is going in the wrong direction.
My sense is that people are weary of the war - especially since there are no WMD's, there is the Downing Street memo scandal, and Bush has not outlined ANY exit strategy. The prison abuse scandal is only making the Muslim world hate us more, the economy is NOT robust, and a majority of voters do not want Social Security privatized in any way. I think certain right-wing extremists are now feared because of the Terri Shiavo case (among other issues). Maybe people are finally seeing that Bush's tax cuts only help the rich and the average American citizen is working harder and harder for less money.
The MSM (which are corporately owned) do have a $$$ stake in politics these days. The corporate controlled media (think General Electric) joined the Bush Administration in their drum-beat for war with Iraq because their defense contracts depend on Bush...why would they now shoot themselves in the foot by knocking Bush down? I think the recent poll numbers are fairly accurate because these numbers come from a variety of sources. Just because you don't like what the polls indicate doesn't mean they're fixed in some way. :rolleyes
Ladybugs, may I suggest that you do some more research and reading about Communism...Communism doesn't just mean 'making people think a certain way'. If it did, then Karl Rove is the biggest Communist of them all...and I would not say that about him. ;)

grammapam

June 15th, 2005, 08:57 PM

His ratings are down because people are finally seeing the negative impact his presidency is having on the United States reputation. People all around the world hate us for what was done in Iraq. Saddam didn't attack us Bin Laden did.

moxie

June 15th, 2005, 09:22 PM

"If the media is picking their audience, they are picking the dems then. They are so biased it it pathetic."

"The media" is also FoxNews, the Washington Times, the Wall Street Journal, radio stations that carry Sean and Laura, etc., etc., etc. They have a target audience, and it certainly isn't Democrats. And they do have a product that they are selling very effectively to their audience.

Speaking of radio, I happened to be listening to Bill O'Reilly tonight, and he was actually rather critical of Bush's current handling of the war. I wonder if that will cause his popularity numbers to go down, too. Or perhaps Bill is one of the influences that have caused Bush's numbers to drop. At any rate, very interesting.

Krista

June 16th, 2005, 03:50 AM

What has changed my mind is that I actually believed what Bush was saying, two years ago. Im having a harder time believing that now. I don't necessarily side with the democratic side, but I hardly identify at all with the republicans anymore. Bush promised he'd get Osama. Do we even HAVE anyone working on that anymore? Bush went and got Saddam, IMO, hoping to mask that he couldn't get Osama. At first I thought "oh great, well at least we have Saddam" but honestly its thrown everything into such a chaos over there, that I think it could have waited until we had Osama. He was the priority. And I am also a huge animal rights person, and enviroment person, and thats just come into play more in my life these days, and I dont see Bush representing any of that.

Sparks

June 16th, 2005, 08:01 AM

DMB - you make some great points. I think some middle of the road people voted for Bush because of the security issue. I now know that many American's do not feel safer. We have thrown a brick into a nest of sleeping hornets...Bush squandered all of the world's good will that was evident after 9/11. Where is Osama?
As for the environment, the extreme right-wing believe that the earth is there for man to rape...simple as that.

ladybugs

June 16th, 2005, 07:20 PM

You mention that we have thrown a brick in the nest of sleeping hornets? Are you serious? They didn't seem to be SLEEPING on September 11th!!!! What the heck are you talking about anyway? Do you hear yourself? The terrorists are not sleeping, they hate us and want to see us dead. Yes, you and me. They want us dead. So you'd rather WE just go to sleep and keep things neat and tidy and tied up with a pretty little bow and ignore the threats? Give me a break. I wouldn't want you outside my door protecting my family. You may fall asleep. I wouldn't want you driving my taxi, you probably will be asleep. So yes, wake UP and smell the coffee! If we ignore the terrorists, act like they're twirling their thumbs (at least they have thumbs, hands for that matter) perhaps they're sewing or knitting? Yea, that's it. Don't throw a brick at them because they're knitting us a blankie. Oooooooohhhhh, so thoughtful! As far as blankies go, President George W. Bush is giving our country a great big blankie, a blanket of security. Why do you have such a hang up about that?

:TOS

GinnySmith

June 16th, 2005, 10:30 PM

On 9/11, Bush and his administration were asleep. And therein, lies the problem.

moxie

June 17th, 2005, 01:26 AM

"The terrorists are not sleeping, they hate us and want to see us dead."

Yes, but the terrorists who attacked us were not from Iraq. We failed to find the original hornets' nest (Osama Bin Laden) and our ill-conceived invasion of Iraq has created a new one.

Puce

June 17th, 2005, 06:19 AM

Yes, but the terrorists who attacked us were not from Iraq. We failed to find the original hornets' nest (Osama Bin Laden) and our ill-conceived invasion of Iraq has created a new one

THANK YOU!!! i get so tired of people thinking that iraq was all about september 11th. :rolleyes

manskater

June 17th, 2005, 07:01 AM

Yes it was Osama who attacked us. Of course Bush and Karl Rove have run this campaign of lies and fear to scare the American population to think that Iraq attacked us. Some republicans can rant about Dean but what he said after Saddam was captured is true. We are not any safer now than before his capture. Osama is still out there. Ask this president where he is and he has no clue.:rolleyes

Sparks

June 17th, 2005, 08:41 AM

Ginny, Puce, Moxie, Manskater - thank you. I guess I should learn my lesson and not write in metaphors any more. :rolleyes

Puce

June 17th, 2005, 11:56 AM

not sure why you mention me sparks. my comment is in NO WAY directed towards you, which i think is pretty obvious with what i quoted and what the person I quoted had quoted. perhaps you shoudn't take everything so personally.:rolleyes

Sparks

June 17th, 2005, 12:13 PM

Puce-
I was merely thanking you for clearly stating what I not-so-effectively tried to.

ladybugs

June 17th, 2005, 02:43 PM

I have read GinnySmith, manskater, moxie and Puce. Okay. I think there's some explaining to do around here, since I don't think you get it.

Was President Bush asleep when he captured Saddam Hussein and his cronies? Was Bush asleep when the Taliban were defeated in Afghanistan? Was Bush asleep when the Iraqi people were free to choose whether to vote or not, knowing how dangerous it could be? Was Bush asleep while, yes, the Iraqis did vote?

Why do you continually fabricate stories about President George W. Bush? Have you no respect for him? Do you have respect for Clinton? Wow, he might as well have been asleep, after all he had Monica not too far from him. Wow! Now that was an achievement. Who knows what he overlooked while performing that service to our country. Now that makes me feel really secure.

You can use that same argument about President Roosevelt. Was he ASLEEP when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. So you are saying it is always our Presidents' faults if some evil-doer hurts us. Hmmm.... now to me that would be very simple... if an evil-doer harmed me or my family, seems logical that it is the EVIL-DOER's fault!!!! Why don't you be bigger than that and come clean, grow up and for God's sake, stop knocking your President. You are looking at life with blinders on, it would seem to me. You can't see the whole picture.

mr pru

June 17th, 2005, 03:05 PM

Does anyone want to bother and take care of the light work?

manskater

June 17th, 2005, 03:10 PM

ladybug -- Why do you think we don't get it? Because we don't agree with you?

The FACT is that Osama attacked us not Saddam. There were no WMDs and maybe if Bush was not so trigger happy and did not force the UN Inspectors to get out because we were launching an attack on Iraq the truth would have come out. It is a fact that "humanitarian" purposes were not the reasons for going into Iraq. It was given as the reason only after every other reason fell apart and by that time it was too late to get out. If humanitarian reasons was valid we should have been in several African nations but alas, those countries have no oil.:rolleyes

I love it when some republicans and conservatives bring out the OLD Clinton card. You love to state "get over it" in regards to the 200 election. Well using Clinton as an excuse for this Presidents lack of ability to make a decent decision is old and maybe you should get over it. :rolleyes I would love Ken Starr to spend the millions of dollars he spent on investigating a "personal" matter of two consenting adults and spend it on impeaching a president who has misled this country into a war which was illegal and has killed over 1700 American soldiers and god knows how many innocent Iraqui civilians.

Bush did not capture Saddam, the US military did and even with that I certainly do not feel any safer. In fact Iraq has become a haven for terrorists as many of my fellow posters have stated or have you not noticed?.The Taliban has not been thwarted but not defeated in Afghanistan otherwise it would be safe in the areas outside of Kabul and Karzai would not be asking to have more control of how the US military is running things. US soldiers are still being killed in Afghanistan. One would think that if the Taliban and there supporters were defeated that our military would be safe. Obviously not.

As far as fabrication Pru and moxie have continuously presented FACTS to you and others but it seems that if the facts don't gel with your way of thinking they are just imaginative stories.:x

mr pru

June 17th, 2005, 03:14 PM

Great post!!!

Looking forward to the wacko response.

Puce

June 17th, 2005, 04:26 PM

Puce-
I was merely thanking you for clearly stating what I not-so-effectively tried to.

LOL! sorry, i thought that the rolling eyes was meant for those you mentioned. i thought you didn't understand that we KNEW what you were saying! my bad...:o

EigthAv

June 17th, 2005, 06:12 PM

Lady Bug,hello,Mike here.My apologies for not already greeting you.You and the Fabulous KwanFantic aren't alone. Clinton had a higher approval rating in his 2nd term because he was mostly chasing his girlfriends around our Whitehouse,defending allegations of chasing them and dumping expensive cruise missiles in deserts or on already ravaged portions of Africa.......I credit wise investors,Mr.Greenspan and and Republican congress people with most of that good stuff like the DOW and a decent economy.In other words,he let the good times roll.If Hillary takes over in 2009,I hope she will be a good master.No,they don't get it,don't want to get and probably never will get it.We are all paying a price now for the 50's "let the good times roll" and make as many babies as we can daze.Live like there is no tomorrow.So what if your grandchildren have to pay for it? Bush could have taken easier options.Let Saddam alone.........better yet,pretend he is a friend and do business with him like some people we know..Keep on looking the other way and pretending.It was the Bush administration who pushed through a bill to make it possible to prosecute Americans who travel abroad and buy children for sexual purposes. "They" make him sound like a monster who only cares about his rich friends. Hello? Who do you think has the money to spend their vacations in the Phillipines and other places looking to buy children? I doubt the kids get paid much if anything,but can imagine the peddlers are charging bundles.How come the all-caring media doesn't do more to expose these sort of sins? The leftists pretend that FOX News channel is a puppet of the right.Wrong.FOX News cuts through the crap and doesn't eat cheese from the hands of either party.MSNBC and CNN have become a bit too touchy-feely for my taste.I've never tried to say every lil ole thing Bush/Cheney does is cool.Imo,they are a better alternative to the demos they have ran against in the 2 elections.Gore would probably make megabucks as a televangelist and Kerry would be an excellent bartender,but neither of them could pay me to vote for them as Prez.I love liberals.Sometimes I am one.They make good artists,musicians,performance artists,writers,head shrinkers......and etc,etc.But give me a strong conservartive on "that wall"!

moxie

June 17th, 2005, 08:10 PM

"We are all paying a price now for the 50's "let the good times roll" and make as many babies as we can daze.Live like there is no tomorrow."

Yes, the 50s ... when there was a baby boom because so many thousands of couples who couldn't get married and start families in the '40s (because of World War II and its aftermath) all started having them at once, along with younger couples who in more normal times would have been the only ones having babies then.

This was also the era of birth control being discouraged ... and of course there was no abortion.
And it was considered wise back then for parents to have many babies, because the childhood death rate was so high. They had 5 or 6, hoping 2 or 3 would make it to adulthood. But the '50s was also an era of great advances in health care, and so more large families survived than in the past.

But, somehow, you make the Baby Boom sound like some sort of immoral liberal plot.

Let's not forget that for most of the '50s, the "family values" of the time were a product of the Eisenhower administration.

Yes, Republicans. And they did encourage the making of a lot of babies. How very shameful of them.

LipinskiForPresident

June 17th, 2005, 09:30 PM

Moxie,you are correct.It was "under Eisenhower's watch".Over-population is the most serious problem and is also one of most under-publisized problems. We are steadily creating new ways to reproduce our species,make ourselves live longer and not facing the "where will we put all the people and how to feed all them" questions.I had a young biology teacher in 10th grade who did hip us on the overpopulation threat.He had us do bacteria in a jar lid projects to drive his message home about how you can literally over populate yourselves out of existance.He warned us that as the quantity increases,the quality decreases.Mr.Pebworth.Our current SS system requires large doses of population expansion because it is based on the pyramid.This is a good reason to change it and the sooner the better.I've never claimed to be a big fan of Ike.Yes,the 50s produced many good things.Was it Ike or was it scientists? Eisenhower did advise Kennedy to stay out of Nam.Like Bush was with Iraq,Kennedy couldn't resist. Ike believed more in letting the good times roll and taking care of us/U.S. first...........he had a brilliant VP :D editing just for you Moxie........I mentioned Kennedy.The man did make some mistakes.He also faced down Kruschev who was one of the scariest USSR potentates in my life and he did initiate proper funding for very logical NASA missions.He challenged us to stop taking so much and to give back all we could give.I loved Bobby too and no,he wasn't perfect either.Teddy? Nah.Not my type. Just wanted you to know this,so you know I'm not anti JFK.The scum that killed Abraham,Martin and John robbed all of us.

moxie

June 18th, 2005, 06:28 AM

"Just wanted you to know this,so you know I'm not anti JFK."

I think all of our presidents have had strong and weak points. There is not one who was either perfect or without fault.

Yankees Suck 01

June 18th, 2005, 11:53 AM

On 9/11, Bush and his administration were asleep. And therein, lies the problem.

This is not exactly true. Do you really think Osama was only planning this atack on the US during the time Bush was President? It takes more then nine months to plan something like that so if anyone was asleep it was most likely Clinton.

colinmom71

June 18th, 2005, 10:09 PM

Those of you who proclaim that Clinton ignored the threat of terrorism are dead wrong. In fact, during his second term, he felt that the greatest threat to American interests and safety was terrorism, specifically that from Al Qaida and Osama bin Laden.

Clinton's administration oversaw the hunt, trial, and conviction of the terrorists who blew up the bomb in the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center. Ironically, the week of 9/11, two of those convicted were due to be sentenced in the Federal court house destroyed during the 9/11 attack on the WTC. They were later sentenced to life in a federal facility with no possibility of parole... But it would be during the trials and evidentiary discoveries that the name Al-Qaida would grasp Clinton's attention...

In the aftermath of the fisrt WTC bombing, Clinton would order an increase of over 400% for the FBI's counterterrorism budget throughout his two terms in office. He would also order the numbers of FBI agents devoted to counterterrorism study to be almost tripled by 1999.

In 1998, Clinton ordered the formation of a bi-partisan committee to study and make recommendations on how to change our then security measures and communications between relevent departments on international terrorism. The Hart-Rudman Report was finalized before the 2000 elections and released to President Bush as he entered office January 2001. The report included *urgent* recommendations and warnings on what areas of our security policy needed swift change and also strongly warned of the possibilty of a domestic terrorist threat in the very near future. That report was ignored in the current administrations' efforts to distance itself as far as possible from the previous Democrat administration. In essence, they threw away the baby *and* the tub along with the bath water...

It was also after the embassy bombings in Africa in 1998 that Clinton secretly ordered an illegal assassination order against bin Laden. Bounties were offered and some attempts were made (by CIA or foreign allies) but failed.

In 2000, after the bombing of the US warship Cole, "the plan to take the counter-terrorist battle to al-Qaida was drafted after the attack on the warship the USS Cole in Yemen in October 2000. Mr Clinton's terrorism expert, Richard Clarke, presented it to senior officials in December, but it was decided that the decision should be taken by the new administration." (Source: www.guardian.co.uk/afghan...98,00.html (http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,1284,769398,00.html) ) As we all know, this administration did virtually *nothing* with this recommendation, until we lost over 2800 souls on 9/11!

I'm not a "Clinton apologist" and I didn't always agree with some of his policy decisions or compromises. But he diligently worked towards increasing security measures and addressing terrorism as the great threat it is...

mr pru

June 19th, 2005, 01:10 AM

More FACTS that will be ignored because they don't jibe with what some wish to believe.

Excellent post!

ladybugs

June 19th, 2005, 11:48 AM

Manskater: The fact is that "terrorists" attacked us, the USA. Osama is the terrorists' leader, you might say. Under Osama (top of category) fall into place other terrorists who spread to other "safe havens" (actually they hide) - one of which is Iraq, which was under Saddam Hussein's dictatorship. So you have some facts correct, but you didn't COMPLETE your dots!

Go back and connect your Osama dots to terrorists, then safe haven, finally to Saddam. You're getting there? I've given you some clues. Good job, so far!

There were WMDs. Saddam used them on his own people. He probably had time to hide them because the United Nations was taking its "sweet, little ole' time" and not helping President George W. Bush so he could get ASSISTANCE from other countries and get into that nasty hornets' nest developing in Iraq. Mind you, this was where innocent, good Iraqi people were and suffering under the brutality of Saddam. They were not living happy lives then. Today they are free to vote! Now how did that come about?

President George W. Bush is not "trigger happy". That is a joke on your part that is not too funny. You are trying to grab onto straws to come up with something.

You say, "humanitarian" purposes were not the reason to go into Iraq? What happened to our people in the WTC towers on 9/11? What was happening in torture chambers in Iraq? If that is not a call for humanitarian help, then you better look the word up in a dictionary. You're lucky it wasn't you (and I say this sincerely because it could have been any one of us on that day - I know people who died that day or came very close to dying). If one of us was being tortured in Iraq (just picture that for a minute) wouldn't you pray to God that America would come to your aid/rescue? Under your definition of humanitarian aid it wouldn't work. No one would come to your rescue.

What happened in Rwanda was under Pres. Clinton's adminstration. So why didn't we hear from our country then? Why do you plead your case now under President George W. Bush's leadership, but not Pres. Clinton's? Why do we wait until we are not happy with a President and then take "jabs" at him for bad things happening? And why are all these jabs directed at our President and not the evil-doers? Say something bad about THEM!

We are giving aid to other countries. It is happening everyday. Sometimes food/aid doesn't get to all the people because criminals get to it before it can get to the people in need (e.g. airplanes dropping bags of aid on the ground). Sometimes these criminals make a profit out of it, for themselves. By the way Saddam was keeping stuff for himself too and not letting it get to his people.

We have aid going to the tsunami victims. Why don't you help them if you say you are right. I help. I support my church, I give to charities and adopted children from an impoverished third-world country. So don't tell me I don't get it.

You want the facts? Well the Clinton so-called "card" is not an excuse. It's the truth. Oh, and I am over it, by the way. I was over it a long time ago when Clinton was close to impeachment. I lost respect for him. You say they were "2 consenting adults"? You got that right, so why didn't they act adult later when they were found out and not look for a simple "pat on the hand"? That's ridiculous :rollin We really need that kind of leadership/character running our country, huh? If they were "consenting adults" why were they so ashamed - it was okay at the time they were doing it, as you say, right? I mean, after all, they were "consenting". So why didn't they own up to it, after the fact?

Your statement "Bush did not capture Saddam" is not correct. President George W. Bush captured Saddam Hussein. Face it, it will be in the history books one day. Sorry, you have to face that fact. Stop being so politically correct! President George W. Bush is our military's Commander-in-Chief. You are reaching for "straws" once again to make up more fabrication - and you know I am right!

EighthAve: You're Great! Kuddos! Exactly Right On! Finally, intelligence is spoken! I agree with you 100% on just about everything you said. I watch FOX News often so I can make sense from (MSNBC and CNN) nonsense!

But. . .I am a Republican and. . .also an artist - so you cannot categorize liberals only as artists.

YankeesSuck01: You make a good point when you explain that President George W. Bush was not asleep on 9/11 and that it took probably more than 9 months to plan an attack. Very sharp point! I like that.

P. S. I happen to think Derek Jeter is cute and like him very much. He hit a couple of grand slams over the weekend too!

Colinmom71: So you are saying basically that Clinton's administration tried to get Osama also, but FAILED? You said this, correct? Well, if you are correct, no one is saying that wasn't a good effort on Pres. Clinton's part, but then why do some (maybe not you, per se) say then why hasn't President George W. Bush captured Osama? They make it sound as a failure on his part, they make him sound dopey, but they don't apply that same illogical point of view when it comes to Clinton. Do you see my point? Why is it kuddos for Clinton and negative criticism of President George W. Bush if HE is doing exactly the same thing? Doesn't make sense now, does it?

So why don't we all come together, stop making up nonsense (at whose expense) and make some sense out of it all? We can do better than that. :SE

mr pru

June 19th, 2005, 01:09 PM

Georgie Porgie has done nothing to stop the atrocities in the Sudan.

That is comparable to the Rawanda situation.

I'll bet every dollar I'll earn rest of my life that certain people don't see it that way.

There's no oil to be had or millions of dollars in contracts for Halliburton (so they overcharge the US government again) to be awarded on a no-bid basis, so why would this administration want to stop the genocide?

kwanfanatic2002

June 19th, 2005, 01:12 PM

Eightv ave and ladybugs, you are both 100% correct, right on!!!!!!!!. You are both taking away anything the left has left. They have no argument or plan and they are still tryiing to defend the indefensible. I think it is pretty sad when someone can candone everything Clinton did ( the multiple lies and the sex- the the WH oval office no doubt). the man has no respect for the office he was holding). They cannot blame him any of his actions. He could have done more to get SH and UBL and stop the 9/11 attacks. You cannot honestly believe that kind of attack takes less than 9 months to plan. The terrorists had to be trained to fly planes. That takes a long time alone to do and coordinate. Those plans most likely took years to plan. Clinton is not blame free here. He was too busy taking care of his intern than his own country and his "legacy" to protect the people he is suppposed to be governing over.
He was a sad excuse for a President.

moxie

June 19th, 2005, 01:26 PM

OK, since Bush has now been in office for five years & yet we are still harping on Clinton and blaming him for everything that's gone wrong with this country since he left office ... I decree that in the year 2010, we can blame Bush for anything bad that's going on then.

mr pru

June 19th, 2005, 02:52 PM

"...pretty sad when someone can candone..."

Please define "candone".

As usual-no FACTS. Just more emotional blabbering, along with gross generalizations.

mr pru

June 19th, 2005, 02:57 PM

I also notice the FACTS I've presented in this and other threads have not been disputed.

There were just ignored like an ostrich sticking its head in the sand (or somewhere else) and hoping no one else will notice and things will just disappear.

By the way: Derek Jeter hit one grand slam this weekend-not "a couple".

Makes one wonder if someone knows what a grand slam really consists of.

manskater

June 19th, 2005, 03:03 PM

Mr Pru - you know that the Bush followers do not want to listen to the FACTS. They will listen to the facts spewed out by Karl Rove pr machine to save his buddies in the White House... oh yes and Faux news.:rolleyes

Ladybug -- you can say I'm grabbing at straws all you want but the facts are there in black and white and more is coming out that will totally discredit what this government has done in its plan to become another empire. If Bush wants to be a king maybe he should move to England. :rolleyes
And please stop connecting Iraq to 9/11.

Since you love to ignore the facts presented by Pru and Moxie please present a fact to illustrate that Saddam was responsible for 9/11.

Saddam did use wmds on the Kurds with the US looking on and doing nothing. That is a fact. There were none found during the beginnings of the Iraq war nor have any been found since. That is a fact. I will reiterate that there were no "humanitarian" reasons for going into Iraq. This White House knew the only way to get the Senate and the American people to support this war was to create such fear that we would be attacked imminently that

You are over Clinton??:rolleyes Could have fooled me. You and your compatriots love to bring Clinton up as an excuse to Bush's lack of accountability. I'm sure Bush is still looking for any mistakes he has made since the press conference last year when he just could not think of one.:rolleyes

And please don't try use the republican strategy that we should not criticize this government if we don't tow the republican party line. :rolleyes

mr pru

June 19th, 2005, 03:12 PM

Don't forget manskater-

Major combat operations ended in Iraq ended on May 1st 2003.

Georgie Porgie said so-therefore it must be a FACT.

Mission Accomplished!!

Gee, I hope daddy was watching me on TV.

manskater

June 19th, 2005, 05:17 PM

Pru- so sad but true.

colinmom71

June 19th, 2005, 05:58 PM

So you are saying basically that Clinton's administration tried to get Osama also, but FAILED? You said this, correct? Well, if you are correct, no one is saying that wasn't a good effort on Pres. Clinton's part, but then why do some (maybe not you, per se) say then why hasn't President George W. Bush captured Osama? They make it sound as a failure on his part, they make him sound dopey, but they don't apply that same illogical point of view when it comes to Clinton. Do you see my point? Why is it kuddos for Clinton and negative criticism of President George W. Bush if HE is doing exactly the same thing? Doesn't make sense now, does it?

Well, it's a bit of a misnomer to say Clinton's administration failed to capture bin Laden, but who said I'm giving him kuddos and applause? I'm simply giving credit to the actions some proclaim he never took. I personally don't support his directive to illegally assassinate binLaden. I find it an immoral excercize of Presidential power, but I do understand why he felt it necessary. The same would apply to Bush, by the way.

But Bush's situation is very different from Clinton's. Clinton did not enjoy the support from Congress (in reaction from the impeachment and Lewinsky matter) he would have needed had he requested a military action against Afghanistan in order to destroy binLaden's safe harbor there with the Taliban. After 9/11, Bush recieved not just Congressional support but also crucial international support for forcibly ousting the Taliban and searching for binLaden. Though I haven't found any info on whether Clinton's directive to hunt down binLaden was continued by Bush to the CIA in the months before 9/11.

Clinton gave the directive to the CIA and other relevent agencies (Sorry, but I'm not sure what would constitute the proper delegation of an illegal order. I have read that the CIA was involved though.) to assassinate him if he could be reliably found. One CIA attempt came thisclose to killing him, as in the rocket propelled grenade hit the wrong car in the cavalcade that bin Laden was almost assuredly a member of. Another attempt, believed to be on part of a foreign ally (no other details were provided to Clinton's admin.) also failed. All this occured during Clinton's last 4-5 months in office.

In Bush's case, the problem with not at least having found binLaden is that it hasn't been 4-5 months. It's been almost 4 years. To put this in perspective - Since mid-May, more days have now passed since 9/11 than had passed between the day Pearl Harbor was bombed and Allied victory was proclaimed in VE Day...

Bush's administration (Rumsfeld, etc.) refused requests from generals and his advisors for larger deployments of troops needed for the search in Afghanistan once the Taliban was toppled. This has been spotlighted as likely the top reason binLaden was not found in that first year after 9/11. There wasn't enough man power to fully "smoke out" the mountainous regions of Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan. By diverting our armed forces away from that effort into Iraq, it almost certainly doomed the search for good. This is why officials like Richard Clark resigned in disgust...

Eek. I have to go for now. I'll come back a little later to comment on some of the rest of your post above...

mr pru

June 20th, 2005, 12:48 AM

"...wasn't enough manpower...."

This a pattern of this administration-resulting in failure, and unneeded deaths of brave American soldiers.

LinaLamont

June 21st, 2005, 07:46 PM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>So you are saying basically that Clinton's administration tried to get Osama also, but FAILED? You said this, correct? Well, if you are correct, no one is saying that wasn't a good effort on Pres. Clinton's part, but then why do some (maybe not you, per se) say then why hasn't President George W. Bush captured Osama? They make it sound as a failure on his part, they make him sound dopey, but they don't apply that same illogical point of view when it comes to Clinton. Do you see my point? Why is it kuddos for Clinton and negative criticism of President George W. Bush if HE is doing exactly the same thing? Doesn't make sense now, does it?<hr></blockquote>

Diverting resources from the hunt for bin Laden in order to attack a country that hadn't attacked us made no sense, but we the public have every right (and indeed the responsibility) to hold him accountable for it. As the Republicans were so quick to remind us in 1998, lying to Congress is an impeachable offense. How many soldiers died when Clinton lied about a blow job? How many innocent civilians? Every argument they provided as justification for war has been proven ridiculously false. WMD? None. Saddam was a horrible despot - so is Kim Jong Il, so is Robert Mugabe,but they never lifted a hand against Poppy, so we let them torture and murder their citizens and leave them be

4dogknight

June 21st, 2005, 08:20 PM

Welcome Lina, I do love your handle; "Singing in the Rain" is my favorite musical.

4dk

manskater

June 22nd, 2005, 07:37 AM

Lina - Welcome and ITA.

Emerald2000

June 22nd, 2005, 09:23 AM

I hate the fact that the war in Iraq, with no tangible end in sight, is costing us more and more money every day. There are so many better things to be done with that money...I would say that directing more aid to Africa *cough*Darfur*cough would be awesome, but the problem with that area of the world is that the money doesn't go to the people who need it--it gets intercepted by the corrupt government, and stays there.

Still...the gross human rights violations going on in the world right now are scary. It's a shame the war in Iraq is taking up so much of our financial resources.

EigthAv

June 22nd, 2005, 10:43 AM

The situation in Sudan disgusts me.Tossing more money at that problem is like pouring gasoline on California wildfires.The corrupt potentates take the money and use it to further purge the oppressed.I do see some positive purpose for our efforts in the Middle East.People over there are turning on to the concepts of democracy,freedom and liberty.As Ms.Rice stated recently,we have tried for years to overlook the dictatorship goverments in that region in favour of improved stabilty.In so doing,there have been no improvements in stabilty.I'm still waiting for this same "World" who keeps condemning the USA and all it's actions in Iraq to officially condemn what the insurgents and terorists are doing.I get sick of this same wore out olde blame it on the U.S. government routine."Hey Big Brother" is one of my all-time favourite protest songs and Rare Earth released it in the early 70s............here's an idea.Have US Air Force planes and helicopters flying all over in Iran,Syria and Saudi Arabia with the Rare Earth classic blasting for all the Middle Eastern hippies to hear.:smokin

Skatekwan6

June 22nd, 2005, 12:26 PM

olde

?????

EigthAv

June 22nd, 2005, 04:13 PM

"olde"="old". I like to use the olde English spellings sometimes.........like flavour,colour and neighbour...........Michelle Kwan is my "favourite" senior ladies ISU topcat.

ladybugs

June 22nd, 2005, 08:09 PM

So, I just need to vent here. It is strange how we live in one country with different views. I just don't understand the left, I really don't. First, I don't understand why they don't like George W. Bush. I think he happens to be handsome and a strong leader. I am so thankful we have him as our president. I don't know why you despise him so much. He is not out to get you, that is the way you twist things around. Why don't you like him? You want to know a secret? I actually didn't like him either at one time, when he was running against John McCain for the 2000 nomination. I actually was hoping John McCain would get in. When Bush came around, something just sunk in and I realized I wasn't really giving him a chance and I finally saw him for who he really was and realized he was being himself and he was not a phoney. Suddenly, I liked him. Now after seeing all that he has done for our country and how strong he has held up for all the difficult times in his administration I really respect him and think he is great. I was hoping maybe some of you who may be so quick to say bad things about him, will come around too and give yourself a moment to see that he isn't being dishonest or mean or anything that the left are so quick to believe. I am hoping that you will see this and be proud and happy for the man who is our president.

This is all I really wanted to say. I just get so tired of hearing bad things about President Bush and all the harsh criticism constantly thrown at him.

4dogknight

June 22nd, 2005, 09:31 PM

And we get tired of this administration doing things that we can do no other than to distrust and dislike them!

It isn't easy to sit back and listen to the lies and watch the corruption from this administration float over this country like a dense noxious fog.

Not everyone is going to like everyone else; it's not human nature. Not everyone thinks the same thoughts as everyone else. Not everyone come from the same economic, religious, ethnic and social background. And you wonder why we have different view? Age also plays a part as well as education.

In short you like this man because you think he happens to be handsome and a strong leader. Good for you because he's what we're stuck with until 2008. So you can go on praising him and his administration but you must realize that there are always two sides to every coin.

You are not wrong in your views but we aren't wrong in ours either. And believe me I can understand your frustration but it's not all Liberals and Democrats that disagree with this administration. There's enough going on for just about anybody to disagree with.

It is said an Eastern monarch once charged his wise men to invent him a sentence, to be ever in view, and which should be true and appropriate in all times and situations. They presented him the words: And this, too, shall pass away."
-- Abraham Lincoln
4dk

colinmom71

June 23rd, 2005, 02:07 AM

This may surprise you Ladybugs, but I also voted for McCain in the 2000 Republican Primaries. I based my vote for McCain on what I felt was his more centrist, common-sense approach platform and greater experience on domestic and foreign policy issues. I also had major qualms on Bush's policies decisions while Governor of Texas - mostly on education and health policies, lack of foreign policy experience, and his prolific allowance of the death penalty during his term.

Had the 2000 election been a McCain vs. Gore ticket, I would have had a very hard choice to make indeed. See, I don't play the "I like or hate so-and-so" game with politics. I can't make any qualified commentary on whether to like Bush, or Clinton, or McCain, or whomever. I've never met any of these persons... I've read reports that Bush can be quite personable and likeable to those familiar with him, and we've all seen Clinton's ability to connect with people (please, no cheap shots here...). McCain can come off as somewhat aloof in his public personna but I still preferred him in the primaries despite that tendency. But as for what any of these people are like on a personal level, I have no basis upon which to make any judgement.

I can only decide my vote on their experience, platform positions, and track record in working towards implementing that platform. I'm blythely unconcerned with looks. While trust isn't something I tend to easily grant, consistency on these factors is what I use to decide whether a candidate is trustworthy or not. Then, it comes down to what policy positions I feel are more productive for our country.

What I don't like about Bush's administration has nothing to do with any matters of "cult of personality" but everything to do with their policy positions. In the last almost five years now, we have seen a budgetary surplus turned into the worst record deficit this nation has ever experienced. We've seen the wealthiest citizens and corporations given dramatic tax breaks while the middle class increasingly faces being squeezed by the alternative minimum taxation (AMT) rates. We've seen nothing to address a tax code that does nothing to penalize corporations that "out source" jobs to other countries and still enjoy the rewards of profitting like mad here.

We've seen the implementation of an education policy (NCLB) that punishes schools for having low performing students rather than helping them find ways to improve. NCLB demands expensive testing and teacher re-certification without providing the extra funding to help implement those criteria (any wonder why a lot of localities are beginning to see their property tax base increase dramatically?). It also demands constant improvement reflected in testing with no set standard to define what constitutes a good performance from said schools. Example - I live in a county that is continuously ranked with some of the best schools in the state. And yet, schools that were ranked as well performing the first year under NCLB were ranked as having threatened performance the next year simply because their >95% passage rate hadn't gone up by a certain factor. Ridiculous!!

Most importantly, while the goal of promoting democracy in Iraq may be one with good intentions, it has been utterly problematic and perhaps illegally and unconstitutionally carried out. Wiping out the Taliban's hold over Afghanistan was a justifiable action, a necessary one. No matter whether it was McCain or Gore in office when 9/11 happened (if it had happened that is), I firmly believe the Taliban would still have been ousted but, as was repeatedly said by even Bush himself, Iraq/Saddam Hussein had *nothing* to do with 9/11 and fundamentalist Wahabiist Muslim terrorism (that would have threatened his power base within his secular-leaning despotism). The UNSCOM weapons inspections turned up bupkis in regards to long range weaponry, with very few working medium and short range weaponry capabilities, so the professed reason Bush ordered Iraq to be invaded was patently false.

I can think of other examples, like a proposed Social Security plan that may endanger crucial benefits for seniors and the disabled, policies against public funding of stem cell research (thereby also denying public oversight of ethics concerning such research), a Medicare drug coverage program that will wreck financial havoc against Medicare and the federal budget, Patriot Act provisions that erode the civil rights of law abiding citizens, and other issues that go against my somewhat libertarian leanings in regards to private matters (abortion, whether to terminate life support for a loved one, religion, etc.)...

I've found these policies to be harmful rather than beneficial for our country and that is what I critique. These policies have earned harsh criticism from liberal-progressives, centrists, and true political conservatives alike for good reason... I don't criticize just to do so or to make personal jabs out of dislike. I do it because real and lasting harm has been wrought against this country under some of Bush's major policy decisions...

If you have the patience to deal with my post here (I know you said you were tired of seeing posts expressing dislike of Bush) and are willing Ladybugs, can you please delineate those policy decisions you feel have been good for the country and how they have been beneficial as well? I'd like to try to understand your perspective here...

JerryStopher

June 23rd, 2005, 06:17 AM

Good Job, CM71!

candygirl559

June 23rd, 2005, 02:30 PM

Yet didn't support removing Saddam Hussein from power are nothing but lying scumbags who are looking for political opportunity to regain power.

Even if President Bush were to do something about the genocide in Sudan, you'd just be criticizing him for doing the wrong thing and find some fault with him just b/c he's not a liberal.

So spare me your "I'm so caring about humanity" bs b/c you're not fooling anybody who has a brain.

mr pru

June 23rd, 2005, 02:46 PM

Fantastic post colinmom71.

Once again FACTS that will be ignored because some people can bear to see the truth right in front of them.

It'll be amusing to read to emotional rantings that will follow!!

candygirl559

June 23rd, 2005, 02:49 PM

You mean you claim facts such as "We need to reduce the deficit" yet at the same time claim "We need to hang onto Medicare, Social Security, and Public Education" which are eating up our budget? :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin

Excuse me for not laughing at liberals' contradictions and stupidity.

mr pru

June 23rd, 2005, 02:54 PM

Our previous President had no problems with the mentioned programs.

A multi-billion dollar surplus was in place when he left office.

Now we have the biggest budget shortfall in history.

That too, is a FACT that you'll deny.

candygirl559

June 23rd, 2005, 02:59 PM

I know he's increased funding for all of these stupid programs but you libbies advocate for them, so your attacks against him on the deficit are meaningless since you're for big nanny state taking care of everybody.

Excuse me if I don't want big nanny state in my life.

mr pru

June 23rd, 2005, 03:01 PM

No, a "nanny" state is not needed.

candygirl559

June 23rd, 2005, 03:02 PM

Obviously for you libs it is or else you wouldn't have any power in this country to control people's lives and money.

mr pru

June 23rd, 2005, 03:06 PM

:rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin :

More emotional ranting.

No FACTS!!

candygirl559

June 23rd, 2005, 03:08 PM

More emotional ranting.

No FACTS!!

From you, it is definitely that way.

Especially how mean Dick Cheney is with voting against all these big nanny state bills. Yet you're complaining about how awful the deficit in this country is while supporting more big government spending.

Just more idiocy from a liberal.

mr pru

June 23rd, 2005, 03:15 PM

Clean Air.

Clean Water.

Ten seperate votes against nutritional programs for CHILDREN?

Get a grip.

I'm going for big steak dinner with a beautiful woman and a trip for some ice cream.

I'm not going to argue with a child.

I'm done with it.

Feel free to blast away with more emotional chest pounding. Members of this fine Forum can see right through your shallow views.

candygirl559

June 23rd, 2005, 03:21 PM

Clean Air.

AKA punishing businesses while letting the air stay dirty.

Clean Water.

AKA punishing businesses while we can't drink water.

Ten seperate votes against nutritional programs for CHILDREN?

You mean he voted against the creation of a food police? Oh the horrors.

Get a grip.

Did I just hit a nerve?

I'm going for big steak dinner with a beautiful woman and a trip for some ice cream.

Is that on mommy and daddy's credit card?

I'm not going to argue with a child.

You mean you're only a toddler? No wonder you sound so stupid.

I'm done with it.

So you're done with facts. :D

Feel free to blast away with more emotional chest pounding. Members of this fine Forum can see right through your shallow views.

As opposed to childish temper tantrums you throw about how big nanny state owes you something in life?

Obviously the conservatives on here are intelligent enough to know they don't need the government to take care of themselves.

mr pru

June 23rd, 2005, 03:27 PM

Notice I said WOMAN.

Not a little girl.

Many members have seen the extremely beautiful Pru.

One day you'll probably grow up.

It's truly a shame your parents didn't do any better.

mr pru

June 23rd, 2005, 03:34 PM

Gotta go!!

Time for a ride in a nice Caddy and some mature company!!

Woo-hoo!!

4dogknight

June 23rd, 2005, 03:43 PM

Collinsmom: You posted everything I wanted to say but it was late and I was tired so I posted the Cliffnotes version.

mr pru: I don't know about you but I too am getting tired of posting "please cite your sources". What is it about that request that is so difficult to understand?

candygirl: "Just more idiocy from a liberal." Nice response. CITE YOUR SOURCE OR STATE THAT IT IS AN OPINION!

4dk - Sheesh is the best I can say about that previous post.

candygirl559

June 23rd, 2005, 03:44 PM

Notice I said WOMAN.

Obviously it's your mommy taking you out for a nice steak dinner and some ice cream.

Not a little girl.

What's the matter, your sister is picking on you b/c you're a loser?

Many members have seen the extremely beautiful Pru.

Nobody cares about looking at your mom here.

One day you'll probably grow up.

You mean I'll move back into my parents' basement? :rollin

Yeah right. I'm already taking good care of myself in the financial department.

It's truly a shame your parents didn't do any better.

You mean that I'm not living in my parents' basement, my parents did a horrible job?

candygirl559

June 23rd, 2005, 03:51 PM

candygirl: "Just more idiocy from a liberal." Nice response. CITE YOUR SOURCE OR STATE THAT IT IS AN OPINION!

You're not citing credible sources in the first place and you're acting like a spoiled child living in mommy and daddy's basement.

www.thetruthaboutliberals.com/Pages/coulter (http://www.thetruthaboutliberals.com/Pages/coulter)

Queen of Technicolor

June 23rd, 2005, 04:09 PM

Candygirl, do you have any facts to offer, or just crude ad hominem attacks?

candygirl559

June 23rd, 2005, 04:12 PM

Obviously you missed the fact about the ERA failing to pass in 1982 or the fact that unemployment rate in the US is at 5.1%.

It's also funny how you claim I'm using crude ad-hominem attacks when that's what you pinko commies use against conservatives all the time. So why don't you knock it off with your bs crusade against conservatives.

Queen of Technicolor

June 23rd, 2005, 04:24 PM

candygirl559

June 23rd, 2005, 04:31 PM

Bush had nothing to do with one, and while he has little to do with the other, neither were being discussed before you started spouting random Rethugnican talking points. You get partial credit for bringing 2 facts to the table, but I have to take points away since the ones you brought were irrelevant.

Get your year's supply of Rice-A-Roni (the San Francisco treat!) and a brand new Spiedel watchband on your way out.

Yet somehow Bush is responsible when the economy goes bad?

Since when do you get to take away points from me since I don't deem you to be credible in the first place.

And it's funny how you claimed how nasty I was being when you claimed I was spouting off rethuglican talking points.

candygirl559

June 23rd, 2005, 04:34 PM

Queen of Technicolor

June 23rd, 2005, 04:41 PM

BTW, the only poll that really counts is the one on election day and Bush won on election day. The rest of the news polls are a bunch of garbage and only sample a very small portion of the population.

Funny - when Bush "won" with 51% in November, he claimed a mandate. Now that 51% oppose the war, 51% is an insignificant bare majority.

I'm not going to debate statistical polling data, polling place irregularities or voting machine fraud with you. One poll on it's own could be considered an anomaly, but every poll in the last 2 months (ABC, NBC, USAToday, CSM, etc...) have shown a trend that is not favorable.

candygirl559

June 23rd, 2005, 04:45 PM

Funny - when Bush "won" with 51% in November, he claimed a mandate. Now that 51% oppose the war, 51% is an insignificant bare majority.

The 52% poll in November is accurate while the 51% poll you claim is accurate is inaccurate since the sample size is too small.

I'm not going to debate statistical polling data, polling place irregularities or voting machine fraud with you. One poll on it's own could be considered an anomaly, but every poll in the last 2 months (ABC, NBC, USAToday, CSM, etc...) have shown a trend that is not favorable.

That's why the only accurate poll is on election day and you can cry me a river about voter fraud all you want, it's not going to change the facts.

LinaLamont

June 23rd, 2005, 05:11 PM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>The 52% poll in November is accurate while the 51% poll you claim is accurate is inaccurate since the sample size is too small.<hr></blockquote>

Sorry, wrong again. According to <a href="http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/president/" target="_new">CNN</a>Bush had a popular vote total of 62,040,606 or 51%.

OK, if ABC, NBC, AP/Ipsos, CNN and USAToday are polling incorrectly, what would you consider a valid sample size?

4dogknight

June 23rd, 2005, 05:26 PM

Ladies and Gentlemen: This thread has reached its limit or should I say its bottom and quite frankly I do not wish to continue sparring with a spoiler who has nothing of substance to say.

This thread was a good idea to find out what motivated people to vote for Bush but it has long since out lived its usefulness.

Candygirl: you are not proving anything by name calling and vague innuendo.

If someone else has anything of substance to add on the subject, have at it, otherwise I consider this thread closed. I think there are other topics we can and should be discussing.

4dk

EigthAv

June 23rd, 2005, 06:27 PM

A multi-billion dollar surplus was in place when he left office.Yes,"on paper".They used OUR SS surplus to balance the books and a huge-big stock market stint also helped.(you know,those wicked big corporations). I wonder how good those books would have looked if 911 had happened in 1993.Look it up Pru.They have all used the i owe yous to the fantasy ss surplus for "other things".......but ya'll still trust them and don't want anything to do with private accounts. I like some better than others,but don't trust any of those dam feds or revenuewers! If they had been half as good as their blindly loyal fans imagined them to be,Gore would have stomped Little Bush so bad that even the wicked Florida judges couldn't have stopped him.The 1st 4 years wuz pretty cool and I even considered voting for the Bill Gore juggernaut myself in 1996.Maybe you do hate Dick Bush and all he stands for right now,but it is reality and I mean like real reality,not a phony balonia reality show and your heroes would be scaring the yell out of me right now.John K and Steppenedwards heavily implied escalation.I was here and remember well when Lyndie Bird Nixon & Co took us up the escalaters.Instead of correcting one of Kennedy's rare mistakes,Johnson poured white lightnin' on it................Pru,here's you a bit of cool nostalgia..............guess which extremely well known American radical pop artist was the son of the adimiral of the US Naval ship that took the "phantom hit" from the imaginary communist vessel???? It was Johnson's excuse to escalate like a big dog. The artist was an unlikely and often reluctant voice for the antis,a poet and frustrated actor wanna bee who instead settled for late 60s rock icon.

EigthAv

June 23rd, 2005, 06:34 PM

Where are my manners????? Hello CandyGirl and welcome to my nightmare! Stick around,I like your style! Don't let Pruddie Woodey intimidate you. He is really just a big ole teddy bear once you get to know him. Hello also to Lina Lamont.As a sometimes jazz fan,I dig the name.Are you a musician by any chance?

mr pru

June 24th, 2005, 12:41 AM

EigthAv-

Pruddie Woodey???!!!?!?

I Love It!!!!!!!!

Where did you come up with that??

Nothing wrong with being associated with a "woodey"- eh!? ;)

:rollin :rollin :rollin

phisigsig

June 24th, 2005, 11:18 AM

Candygirl-If you have taken a statistics course then you know how small a random sample one needs to conduct an accurate poll.

Unfortunately, I belived the polls in November- 51% voted for Bush (I can't understand why but that's another topic!).

I also believe the polls now- 51% are dissatisfied.

I believe this topic began asking a legitimate question.

I have only seen one legitimate response (thank you DMB for a thoughtful answer).

If this thread is going to become nothing but name-calling then I see no point in returning.

olympic

June 24th, 2005, 02:26 PM

That the link Candygirl put in her last post was to Ann Coulter's website? The truth about Liberals. Watching her motor mouth posts and the name calling struck me as Ann Coulter-ish long before I saw that link. Amazing. Now there's an explanation: She probably listens only to Ann Coulter.....or maybe it is Ann Coulter:rollin Hello Ann, I'm a Social Libertarian tax-paying citizen, got a good job, vote both Democrat and Republican, and served proudly in the US Army for 4 years

The horrid nanny state you refer to actually helped me retain my job back in 1997-1998, when I had to leave work for a medical emergency. In 1993, Pres. Clinton and a Democratic Congress passed the FMLA (Family Medical Leave Act) over the strident objections of Republicans. The Republicans ranted that it was "bad for business." If the Republicans had their way, the hotel I worked for at that time would have been under NO OBLIGATION to retain me. I was out of work for months, so they could've said "Sorry, we need to fill your position. Medical Benefits? Oh. You can obtain COBRA and pay everything yourself. You say you have no Job to make money to pay your benefits? WE feel bad but it's not our problem!"

BTW, the hotel I worked for expanded in 2001, so as you can see all aspects of the Nanny state are bad for business as the Republicans claimed!:rolleyes

mr pru

June 24th, 2005, 02:33 PM

Eigth-

Correct me if I'm wrong-but hasn't the same "formula" used to determine surplus or shortfall been used by both parties for a number of administrations?

I'd be willing to bet that this is a FACT. :b

ladybugs

June 24th, 2005, 09:54 PM

I'm sorry, but I just don't "jive" with your liberal way of thinking. It is plain and clear to me what is going on with our country and although, you write very well and come across in your grammar as very intelligent, you just don't make any sense.

We are at war. We were attacked on 9/11. Innocent American civilians, going to work, etc. were killed. No one was asleep that day. No one saw it coming. History has shown that there have "surpise attacks" before, so to blame it on one of our own, our American President, is hurtful and truly sad to hear it coming from a fellow American. Remember, we were the ones attacked.

So to spew your antics about how foolish we Republicans are and how, "Oh, I can't wait to hear what else we are going to say!" as you say, is not only childish, a cheap shot, but sad and destructive. You do seem to defend the evil-doers. Listen to yourselves. You clain that we Republicans don't allow you to differ in your views, or if we don't see eye to eye then you are somehow being unfairly acknowledged or viewed. How further from the truth! We are defending you in this war on terror, to give you those freedoms, what you lack though is respect. We give you your freedom to spew your antics, but you cannot show any respect.

What I really hear you saying is, "Please let us say and do whatever we want. We need to be recognized. We are different in our views." Is this what you are saying? Why do you think we don't hear you? You don't give anything the President does, a chance. You just jump right in there and start saying he is doing everything wrong. Where is your faith? Where is your trust? Where is your diversification that you so amply throw around at us?

EigthAv

June 24th, 2005, 10:50 PM

Pru,to answer your question,yes.It's the raw numbers that can and usually are manipulated.Al Clinton didn't have a 911 scene to deal with,did have a big booming Wall St to work with,thanks in part to Big Bush's latter days intiatives and were more willing to just let the good times roll.Yes,on paper,they looked better than George Cheney.Dude,on paper,Tara Lipinski's butt looks better than our faces.Does that make her a better option for Master???? Before you say speak for yourself,forget it! That butt is is insured by Lloyd's of London,is your face???? :lol Do like I did when the "wrong one won". Speak your peace and then get with it before it leaves you 9 stokes behind.The economy here in Alabama is booming!!! For the first time in history,a South Korean girl has a bona fide chance to become a figure skating legend.Auburn U almost won the football NCAA title last season.Sasha didn't win Worlds last season.Look at the bright side.:D Dick Bush wasn't my 1st choice in 2000,but I have learned to work with them and do my part to make sure they can't become the George Wallace dynasty of DC.You'd best open your eyes and watch Bill & Hillary.That is starting to smack of carefully orchestrated longterm dynasty.If anyone still believes Lurleen "won on her name" I have some Nevada beachfront property for sale.I doubt Bush's other son will run and if he does,I promise you I wil openly back his parties opposition.12 yrs is plenty long enough.If a man hasn't stolen enough money from us to treat his kids,grand kids and great grand kids well in 12 years,he was too stupid to start with.

olympic

June 25th, 2005, 04:17 AM

No one needs to be reminded we were attacked on 9/11. My stomach still turns when I think about the losses! But here is the formula and a very simple equation that I thought the most simple lay person could understand:

9/11: We were attacked by a multinational (mostly Saudi) group called Al-Qaeda led by Osama Bin Laden (Saudi). Osama Bin Laden was hiding out for years in Afghanistan, sheltered by the Taliban regime. We attacked Afghanistan (rightly so) to get him "Dead or Alive." To this date, we haven't found him. THAT IS THE WAR ON TERROR.

Later, we decide that we've had enough of Saddam Hussein because he was developing WMDs. He was not in any way connected to 9/11. Saddam is a Sunni Muslim and violently suppressed the Shi'ite Muslims in Iraq for decades. This reason alone made him HATED by Osama bin Laden. So put your thinking caps on (those who see a connection between 9/11 and Iraq): Why of ALL the countries in the Middle East would Osama bin Laden seek help from Saddam? Especially when he could get help from Syria or Iran or his own wealthy Saudi family?? So now we are embroiled in Iraq. That aside let's do the math about our own Nat'l Security: We are involved in 2 countries now: Iraq and Afghanistan. Where does the manpower come from if we have to teach Iran or North Korea a lesson??? These countries have WMDs...they actually do, unlike Iraq. Do we institute a draft?

We are really in the quagmire, so I have a solution to keep the Military up to snuff and avoiding the draft: All of you who love this President and truly believe in him, step away from your keyboards, go to your local recruiters' office and sign up for duty. What a Patriot you'd be! You'd all make good soldiers because you truly believe in the cause.

mr pru

June 25th, 2005, 04:55 AM

Olympic-

We both know that ain't gonna happen!!

Great post, BTW.

kuchana

September 8th, 2005, 11:19 PM

Geez, is this mud-slinging really necessary??? Can we not have a civil discussion even if we don't agree?????

Krista

September 9th, 2005, 04:34 AM

considering the last post on this thread was 3 months ago, I'd say it died down.

Thanks for drudging it up again though :b

pbluu

September 10th, 2005, 12:26 PM

Ladybug, u are so gullible, like the rest of those who voted for bush. fine, be a republican, but please pick someone that’s worthy to support. Bush has demonstrated over and over again how incompetent he is.

1. the iraq war. we still haven't gotten osama and yet we're in iraq freeing people? saddam doesn't even have al quaida ties. we didn't find any wmd. Where's Osama? Oh, that's right, the right are suffering temporarily amnesia? Even if Iraq had wmd, shouldnt our Bush set better priorities by capturing Osama and going after known and proven Al Quaida cells? Oh, that's right, they're in Saudi Arabia.

2. Bush is putting us in huge deficits with this unneccessary war and he's about to do away with the estate tax that gives billions to 1-3 % of the richest people. And of course he's on of them and he wants to ensure that his heirs wouldn't have to burdened by this.

3. health care, social security, education, ect.
bush haven't done anything for these issues. instead he gave millions to the insurance industry instead of fixing medicare or improving on it. now medicare has to compete with private insurance companies. Guess who comes out ahead and who loses? He didn’t want to fix Medicare, he wants to do away with it.

4. Now we have Katrina, Pelosi was so right when she said Bush should look in the mirror as far as accountibility goes.
He appointed a guy that has no back ground in crisis management at all to the head of fema. Talk about incompetency. He waited 3 days to do something about it and he is the chief commander of the army. We didn't accept aid from other countries when offers were extended. Yes, we didn't refuse it either but we didn't accept it either.

How can anyone support Bush is beyond me.

Around the world just couldn't believe that Bush got reelected the 2nd time.

My theory is that those who voted for Bush don't want to admit that they made a terrible mistake by voting for the most incompetent president i've ever known in my life.

manskater

September 10th, 2005, 03:36 PM

Pbluu -- you got to remember Bush was never re-elected. He was "selected" in 2000 and I still have questions about the 2004 "election"<img border=0 src="http://www.ezboard.com/intl/aenglish/images/emoticons/eyes.gif" />

RA5CViggie

September 11th, 2005, 06:23 AM

My theory is that those who voted for Bush don't want to admit that they made a terrible mistake by voting for the most incompetent president i've ever known in my life.
My theory is that they're willing to let all of the disasters go because Bush has promised to keep "dykes" and "fags" from getting married. I'm sure some of them are perfectly happy with the job he has done with Hurricane Katrina. After all, with every person who dies, that's one less lazy, race card-playing, handout-begging, looting-not-finding-or-commandeering, fat welfare queen or king their taxes have to pay for or have to worry about moving into their neighborhoods. One honest woman was bold enough to come right out say so on CNN. Not to say that all Bush supporters or ONLY Bush supporters feel that way, but some do.

EigthAv

September 11th, 2005, 03:35 PM

So,this thread is back from the dead. Okay,since the mud is slinging again. ......... Pelosi makes broad sweeping put downs.No specifics.She just points her self righteous finger and says,"everything you have done is wrong". She has higher political ambitions of her own and strong attacks on the opposing party are timely right now.Veggie,some strong words.Better you than me. When I get anywhere near that "colourful", the libs toss me right back on the grill.:lol I think you used every epitaph the board won't automatically censor,except the n word and the wt word.You also left out bulldaggers and gay rednecks.*Sci Fi Moment*Hurricanes don't discriminate.They destroy just about everything and anyone in their path. Katrina is a new breed.....or should I say a hybrid? She was conjured up in the Bush family kitchen.The first of her kind.Hurricane molecules spliced in with dna from Lester Maddox and Al Capone.A smart hurricane which can hit selective sections and target races,ethnicities and sexual orientations....sci fi moment concluded What isn't making sense to me is this....... if Bush is so full of bigotry and hate,why did he encourage so much $$$$$$$ be spent to help the people he alledgedly hates??? If he hates blacks,why Condi Rice when there were surely qualified lily whites he could have chosen? Shouldn't he be afraid that little African American girls might see Rice and become inspired with heavy political dreams of thgeir own? sci fi continues.......Phase 2 of the Bush Bomb™,the "smart hurricane",is to apply the technology in Iraq so that the hurricane will have a face like Hussein and target the insurgents.Phase 3 will be another domestic attack,this time on broccoli.One for the olde man.:eek

moxie

September 11th, 2005, 03:46 PM

if Bush is so full of bigotry and hate,why did he encourage so much $$$$$$$ be spent to help the people he alledgedly hates???

Because the major beneficiaries will be those companies that get all the fat no-bid contracts -- including (of course!) Halliburton, which has already been hired.

If he hates blacks,why Condi Rice when there were surely qualified lily whites he could have chosen?

Because Condi is a bigger political asset than "lily whites."

RA5CViggie

September 11th, 2005, 06:55 PM

And because Condi called the Civil Rights Movement "unnecessary." She's a "credit to her race."

pbluu

September 11th, 2005, 07:16 PM

I don’t know much about Condi but from what I’ve heard, she’s just another OJ. She hangs around with all of these white upper class white men in the Oval Office and, like Bush, I don’t think she has any ideas how much struggle poor folks go through day to day.
I don’t think I have heard anything from her that shows she really cares for minorities that are poor. Like OJ, she runs with the upper crust and it’s one of the main reasons that she’s a republican. Of course she’s also a conservative and probably deeply religious.

moxie

September 12th, 2005, 04:45 AM

Well, I wouldn't compare Condi with OJ.

She has an impresive history of academic achievement and certainly is well-qualified for many Cabinet positions. I'm just not convinced that Secretary of State is one of them. Or that she was the "best" choice.

But, then, she does faithfully present Bush's positions to world leaders. Perhaps that is exactly what he wants.

madison

September 12th, 2005, 09:02 AM

Well, she likes expensive shoes!

Krista

September 12th, 2005, 10:42 AM

If you heard her tell her story of her grandfather at the convention, then you'd know she wasn't some hoity toity person.

here's some info on her childhood

Rice was born in Birmingham, Alabama, the only child of Angelena Rice and the Reverend John Wesley Rice, Jr. Her father was a minister at Westminster Presbyterian Church and her mother was a music teacher. The name "Condoleezza" is allegedly a derivation of the Italian "Con dolcezza", meaning "with sweetness" [3].

In an article for the New Yorker, Nicholas Leman, dean of the Graduate School of Journalism at Columbia University, writes, "Birmingham had one notably rich black family, the Gastons, who were in the insurance business. Occupying the next rung down was Alma Powell's family; her father and her uncle were the principals of two black high schools in town. Rice's father, John Wesley Rice, Jr., worked for Alma Powell's uncle as a high-school guidance counsellor, and was an ordained minister who preached on weekends; Rice's mother, Angelena, was a teacher." [4] (Alma Powell is married to Colin Powell.) In 1967, the family moved to Denver when her father accepted an administrative position at the University of Denver.

She was born the same year as the landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision. Rice was eight when her schoolmate Denise McNair was killed in the bombing of the primarily African-American Sixteenth Street Baptist Church by white supremacists on September 15, 1963. Rice states that growing up during segregation taught her determination against adversity, and the need to be "twice as good" as non-minorities [5].

and she was also a democrat until 1982 when she switched to Republican.

and also:

The son of slaves, Condi's grandfather, John W. Rice Sr., earned a degree from historically black Stillman College, partly with money he made picking cotton and partly with a scholarship in return for his promise to become a Presbyterian minister, which he did. In 1951 his son—Condi's father—took over his congregation in Birmingham. John Rice Jr. later became dean at Stillman, as well as assistant vice chancellor at the University of Denver. He passed away on Christmas Eve 2000—just six days after Bush chose Rice to be his national security advisor—with his daughter at his side.

I don't care for Bush, but leave Ms. Rice out of it.

Perfect reasons are stated in this thread why Ill never join the democratic party, even if I don't like the republican party anymore.

moxie

September 12th, 2005, 04:22 PM

Condi's name was brought up by a Bush supporter. She is one of the top-ranked officials in this country. Why should she be left out of this discussion?

Krista

September 12th, 2005, 04:58 PM

because to imply that bush is somehow using her, is to undermine her intelligence. And she is not an unintelligent person.

These are really lame arguments as far as Condi's purpose and not to mention the continuing jabs about her shoes. As if no one ever splurged on something for themselves before.

Take it and run! who cares if it sounds silly! :rolleyes

madison

September 12th, 2005, 07:57 PM

I don't believe she is qualified to be SOS, no matter what her story is.

Krista

September 13th, 2005, 02:11 AM

yeah she's only been dealing with security issues and foreign policy for almost 20 years.

moxie

September 13th, 2005, 03:16 AM

because to imply that bush is somehow using her, is to undermine her intelligence. And she is not an unintelligent person.

I stated that she has "impressive academic credentials."

I also stated that she has been effective in taking Bush's message around the world. Only she knows if she is undermining her intelligence in doing so.

madison

September 13th, 2005, 08:39 AM

DMBchic,
Please list your references. I know she was president of Stanford for awhile, but I hadn't heard this:

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> yeah she's only been dealing with security issues and foreign policy for almost 20 years.<hr></blockquote>

Krista

September 13th, 2005, 09:23 AM

www-hoover.stanford.edu/bios/rice.html (http://www-hoover.stanford.edu/bios/rice.html)

Following her initial Hoover Institution affiliation, Rice went to Washington, D.C. to work on nuclear strategic planning at the Joint Chiefs of Staff as part of a Council on Foreign Relations fellowship. She came back to Stanford when the fellowship ended.

Rice returned to Washington in 1989 when she was director of Soviet and East European affairs with the National Security Council. She also was appointed special assistant to the president for national security affairs and senior director for Soviet affairs at the National Security Council under President George Bush. In those roles, she helped bring democratic reforms to Poland, and played a vital role in crafting many of the Bush administration's policies with the former Soviet Union.

Rice enrolled at the University of Denver at the age of 15, graduating at 19 with a bachelor's degree in political science (cum laude). She earned a master's degree at the University of Notre Dame and a doctorate degree from the University of Denver's Graduate School of International Studies. Both of her advanced degrees are also in political science.

So maybe not exactly 20 years, but around 16 or so.

Actually I take that back

In 1986, while an international affairs fellow of the Council on Foreign Relations, Rice served as Special Assistant to the Director of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

From 1989 through March 1991 (the period of the fall of Berlin Wall and the final days of the Soviet Union), she served in the George H. W. Bush Administration as Director, and then Senior Director, of Soviet and East European Affairs in the National Security Council, and a Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. In this position, Rice helped develop Bush's and Secretary of State James Baker's policies in favor of German reunification. She so impressed Bush that he introduced her to Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev as the one who "tells me everything I know about the Soviet Union."[12]

so 1986. almost 20 years.