bush doesn't know what he's doing

gohan93

gohan93

dazed and confused...
Messages
13
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
in my house
Ethnic group
white
who else here thinks president bush has no idea what he's doing.... i think he's an idiot.
 
Last edited:
That may or may not be true (I've given up on arguing with liberals about the current government) but whatever is the case, I think that the topic title needs changing.
 
Glenn said:
Agreed. And it would also be useful for you to make some specific comments instead of being as general as possible.
Click to expand...

Let me get the ball rolling then

"What's surprising to me is that no one stands up and points it out," he continues. "No one listens to his speeches and goes, 'Huh?' In his NASA speech [last January], he used the term 'courageous spatial entrepreneurs.' What does that mean? It's like astronauts are selling space and to use space as an adjective it's 'spatial entrepreneurs.' He went off the page there. You're addressing the entire world when you're the President of the United States. If you can't speak, listen to your speechwriter, stick to the page, don't smirk. And he does it every time."

- Henry Rollins

Point is that he is a brain dead ***** who can't think beyond whatever his speech writers prepare for him. If you've seen some of his speeches you know exactly what I mean. He's a total retard.
 
Isn't this section for JAPANESE politics? But I'm not complaining - I agree with Jungle Boy. Bush can't speak and he doesn't even realize it. He's a horrible representative of our country (imo).
 
Well, I can rant and rave about how much of an idiot Bush is, but you'll never hear the end of it.

Here's one rant, that "No Child Left Behind Act" it's stupid because it allows kids to move onto the net grade level even if they hadn't learned anything in the previous one. Another dumb idea, privatizing Social Security, that's a bad idea because SS is social and if it's privatized you can't call it Social Security anymore. Jungle Boy dear, I listen to his speeches and I wonder the same thing.

Hey, that wasn't much of a rant, was it? :blush:
 
lonesoullost3 said:
Isn't this section for JAPANESE politics?
Click to expand...

Good point. I hadn't even noticed that it was in the wrong section. Moved to American Issues.
 
How about Michael Moore's 9/11 video. hehehe

I just thought it was amusing to watch. I really have no clue if any of that footage mixed with the naration is true.
 
he looks like a monkey too... :p
 
You're not exactly doing a bang-up job of intelligently presenting your objections yourself, gohan boy. But since you're 12 I suppose "Bush is an idiot" and "he looks like a monkey" is about the best one should expect of you. Goodness knows all too many of your adult counterparts do little better.
 
Hiroshi66 said:
whatever is the case, I think that the topic title needs changing.
Click to expand...
Although I can't say I like the Bush's, I agree with Hiroshi. Gohan might want to articulate his mind without profanity to get his point across. I've also noticed that I could like them more when silence is not broken-- there's acutally great wisdom in silence imo.
 
screw you mikecash, im a democrat... he rushed into war just because he THOUGHT they had weapons of mass destruction...every day on the news last year you'd see the news reporter saying that *example* "17 U.S. soldgiers were killed today in a car bomb"* So don't you go critisizing me you republican ... :auch:
 
I think Obi-wan said something in Star Wars
"Who is the bigger fool, the fool who leads or the fool that follows?"
Remember that just over 50% of voters decided on Bush.

Gohan93, comments like that can get you a bad rep in no time. there was no need for such an attack on Mikecash. He is quite right in pointing out that your arguement anginst Bush is purely personal and appears to have no arguement to back it up. If you make such a general comment then expect criticism. If you cannot take it, then do not make such comments. One question; are you really 12, or using that age to hide your real age?
 
Thanks Gohan for changing the thread title to something more neutral although you might not have liked it. I appreciate your courage in doing that. Unfortunately the "forum main page" still lists the old title... could you maybe contact one of the site admins if that can also be updated to reflect your most recent change ? Otherwise, people would see the same old title; this time it's not your fault, and it would be sad if you were blamed for the old title. (It's been like that before; just wasn't causing any serious misunderstanding as now.) :)
 
gohan93 said:
screw you mikecash, im a democrat... he rushed into war just because he THOUGHT they had weapons of mass destruction...every day on the news last year you'd see the news reporter saying that *example* "17 U.S. soldgiers were killed today in a car bomb"* So don't you go critisizing me you republican ... :auch:
Click to expand...

You're not a Democrat. You're a juvenile.

Among others who THOUGHT they had weapons of mass destruction (which was only one item among a laundry list of reasons given, and the sole one on which Democrats focus with their selective hindsight) you may number such luminaries as W.J. Clinton, John Kerry, and a host of other prominent Democrats who said in 1998 much the same thing that Bush said later on. The primary difference being, of course, that the Democrats felt safe talking smack in 1998 because they knew they would take it all out in bluster without ever getting off the dime and doing anything.
 
He is an idiot, regardless what you think and feel about it Mike.Oh excuse me for saying that out loud.Hmm like I care ? :sick: He's just a lucky guy with money to back up his whole campaign and most of the stereotypical Americans behind him just because they can profit from it.Some people just like to have money and don't even care about the consequences of their actions.Some just are that dumb to support him and believe his anti-terrorism crap he uses to cover up the whole mess he made.You don't believe he is a good man do you? Ah well, you'll find out eventually.Honestly I liked Clinton better, even if he had some scandals...at least he's not that kind of a warnut like Mr Bush.

Nice job telling a 12 yo that he's not intelligent because of a remark a 12 yo normally would make btw
 
You know after reading this topic through and through I could make a 10 post reply on the ignorance of the topic creator and his various other political standpoints, but then again I realize it still wouldn't change the his mind so I'm just going to walk away from this one.

Doc
 
mikecash said:
Among others who THOUGHT they had weapons of mass destruction (which was only one item among a laundry list of reasons given, and the sole one on which Democrats focus with their selective hindsight)
Click to expand...

That isn't at all the only reason coming in for criticism by democrats. The alleged ties to 9/11 and the exaggerated links to terrorists are another.

Its also incorrect to say that the WMD issue was merely one among many reasons for the war. According to the Bush doctrine of preventative warfare the WMD threat is the only reason that would have justified it according to Bush's own criteria. The other reasons, like spreading democracy (a goal quite similar to what Clinton was trying to do in other regions for which he got heavily criticized by Republicans) and punishing Saddam for past atrocities are clearly secondary, or at least they were secondary until the primary reason for the war evaporated.


mikecash said:
The primary difference being, of course, that the Democrats felt safe talking smack in 1998 because they knew they would take it all out in bluster without ever getting off the dime and doing anything.
Click to expand...

Or you could argue that the democrats weren't so caught up in their own rhetoric that they couldn't foresee what a mess an invasion of Iraq would turn into (as Pres. Bush Sr. and Colin Powell are both on record as having predicted in the late 90s when explaining the rationale for not having deposed Saddam in 1991 when they themselves were "talking smack" as you put it). There is also the obvious fact that in 1998 President Clinton didn't have a traumatized post 9/11 public that would willingly follow him into a horrendously costly invasion of Iraq over an issue that very few Americans would have felt justified those costs.
 
Alright, the thread title has been changed for the second time.

On a side note, I'd like to thank mikecash and senseiman for turning this discussion into something respectable. Finally we get some specifics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 4265 times.

Back
Top