high_jinx

first off, i'd like to say that i don't consider myself a dem or a gop. having said that, i can't help but notice and thought i'd point out that whenever i see any arguments coming from republicans, it's always attacking kerry or calling him names. i see a point brought up about bush and the only thing republicans seem to have in response is a counter attack on kerry. on the other hand, when i see something about kerry posted or broadcasted or printed, there are admittedly counter attacks, but there is also quite often an arguement in defense of kerry or a positive point in his favor. so i'd like to hear positive spin about bush from anyone who can provide it in this thread with the following exceptions....

1) i don't want to hear about how bush has kept us safe. sure, there hasn't been a major attack here since 9/11 but 9/11 happened on his watch, and i haven't seen enough evidence to prove that a) he did all he could to stop that from happening, and b)that if anyone else at all had been in office this past term they wouldn't have just the same (if not better after considering the resulting allocation of our countrys money and manpower in the invasion of iraq) track record when it came to the dry spell we've experienced since 9/11. especially considering how focused we've become on terrorism as a country since that day. i also feel that terrorism is a no brainer issue when it comes to priority, so theres no way to convince me that any president would do a better or worse job suppressing and eliminating it.

2)don't use kerry to prove your point(s). like i said, i don't want to here why you think kerry or his party is bad, i want to hear why you think bush is good.


i'd also like this to be a nonpartisan thread. so if any dem's can think of any good things to say about bush or refute any of the glowing posts of republicans, by all means fire away with your thoughts. thanks!

__________________
-my phobia drowned while i was gettin down.

Arroe

Well, I'll start with the obvious.

The economy is on the road to recovery following Bush's tax cuts. Since I believe January of 04 or maybe the end of last year, the economy has been going uphill, which is a good thing.

Locobot

Bush is very kind to his dogs, a good pet owner through and through.

tecoyah

Bush,much like Reagan, has definately scared the hell out of any Nation with thoughts of action against the United States.

Bush has made very clear the deficiencies in our political system to those who wish to mend our democracy.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

Lebell

Since being alive is the sine qua non for all the rest, I would say that maybe you should want to hear about it.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

Willravel

He has a great laugh, he is good a fishing, he loves Texas, he is smart enough to look aloof when he does wrong, and he's probably a good golfer by now....

maximusveritas

Bush could be certainly considered good if you're a member of the top 1%, the religious right, and/or big business (drug, oil, defense, offense, etc.)

Stompy

That's a silly thing to say.

If Bush wasn't president, we'd still be alive today. It was a terrorist attack, not a full blown war or an invasion.

Any president can sit in a comfy chair and call shots to others in response to some sort of attack. They almost have to otherwise they'd look stupid Doesn't even remotely show any "good" he's done considering anyone can do it... or, haha is that your point?

__________________
I love lamp.

Lebell

A terrorist attack that killed more people than Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

hannukah harry

it was quite an impressive attack. but didn't more people die that day from smoking related disease than the terrorists?

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

Willravel

hannukah harry, you always keep your perspective. Unfortunatally, smoking (while HORRIBLE) is completly unrealated to an attack on America, politically, by another group of people using violence.
Lebell, I have to go with Stompy on this. Bush in no way prevented 9/11 and if Gore was in office (as far as the general public knows) it probably would have happened the same way. The only thing Bush saved us from was litteracy (no school funding).

Flyguy

Good point harry.

Dyze

Bush has some nice shoes. And he can keep Hussein's now!

Stompy

...and?

That's 3,000 people vs. 300+ million. You really think if Gore was president that attack would've magically killed everyone in the country or something?

__________________
I love lamp.

whocarz

I hope that was an intentional mis-spelling.

__________________
If there exists anything mightier than destiny, then it is the courage to face destiny unflinchingly. -Geibel

Despise not death, but welcome it, for nature wills it like all else. -Marcus Aurelius

Come on, you sons of bitches! Do you want to live forever? -GySgt. Daniel J. "Dan" Daly

Willravel

Hahaha, of course. Did you change your avitar? Nm...it has nothing to do with Bush.

Flyguy

He does a good job at keeping the masses scared enough to vote for him by invoking 9/11 into every sentence that spews out of his mouth.

A shining example

irateplatypus

i'll go on record as being in fundamental disagreement with the premise of this thread and am surprised that no one has brought this up. Bush has a very loyal base among republicans... i think it's as galvanized a base as you're likely to see in the current political climate. there are plenty of republicans who support the President regardless of his opponent's stance.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

Rdr4evr

You just saw the "keeping America scared" video, didn't you? . I agree though, he does try to invoke fear as much as possible, being for the simple fact he has done nothing positive for this country for him to run his campaign on.

filtherton

I've never actually seen it, but i've heard that the presidential ass is both soft and supple.

Just something to think about the next time you see him on t.v.

Stompy

I dunno, I actually know a lot of republicans who are AGAINST him, which is odd.

I've also heard from others (by having political convo w/ friends) that even the republicans that THEY know dislike Bush. Not ALL of them, but enough to make you wonder if he really has a solid republican base.

I mean, I'm sure most republicans are with him and maybe the same percentage of republicans has also been against a republican president in the past, but I'm hearing about it a lot more often these days.

The actual reasons most of them give is the same: he's very deceptive and is focusing on the wrong issues thus making the republican party look bad.

__________________
I love lamp.

Lebell

..and the point being that you say you don't want to hear about Bush preventing more terrorist attacks, but to me and a lot of people, that is of paramount importance and the best thing IMO Bush has done, for without a life to live, the rest is persona non grata.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

Stompy

How do you know he's prevented terrorist attacks? Because they haven't happened? Do you happen to have sources on the amount of attacks that have been prevented since 2001?

The funny thing about threads like this ("What good has he done?") is... the question never really gets answered. I mean, it does, kinda, but not in depth to the point that it makes a convincing response.

You can't say Bush has done a good job preventing terrorism if an attack doesn't happen. These attacks aren't exactly going on day-by-day. These things take time, years, to plan out. We're not really any safer today than we were 5 years ago except for the fact that us people are more aware of the reality of terrorism - hardly a "good job" by Bush. If something big like 9/11 happens, yes, we'll be more aware and to look out for things like this, but you can't say, "Bush has done a good job in preventing terrorism". How has he prevented terrorism? Arresting Al Qaeda members? Funny, because last I heard, Al Qaeda is larger today than it was in 2001.

Another thing is the economy. People here say the economy is good, people there say the economy is the worst it's been in 70 some years. Show links and sources - they would be very helpful.

Is there anything else? Ok, so let's just pretend we're safe from terrorist boogeymen and that the crappy economy is on a slight rise... what else? Is there anything else he has done?

Bush supporters, when they see this thread, should EASILY be able to rattle off a laundry list of good things he has done that's benefitted this country.

The war in Iraq is a mess. Yes, it's good Saddam is finally gone, but what's the plan? What good has come of it so far? Is it simply too early to tell, or what? Do tell.

__________________
I love lamp.

djtestudo

Most of us try not to feed the trolls.

__________________
"Final thought: I just rented Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Frankly, it was the worst sports movie I've ever seen."
--Peter Schmuck, The (Baltimore) Sun

OpieCunningham

It's rather difficult to accept the concept "Bush prevented my death" as an intelligent argument.

Rdr4evr

Before Bush cheated his way into office, there was never a terrorist attack on US soil on the scale of 9/11, so nobody can say, "oh, bush is preventing terrorism". If anything, Bush is the reason we had the biggest terrorist attack in US history, why can’t Bushie loyalists see that?

Stompy

Actually, it's a perfectly valid question: What good has he done? This is a political forum and someone asked what good he has done. What's wrong with that?

It's only a troll if you let it be one. And if you actually read the first post as well as understood it properly (the first thing he said was he wasn't a dem or gop - wants to know what Bush good has done straight from the mouths of those who know). I mean, I could be asked a perfectly valid question and cop out with a "oh, that's a troll" response (especially if I didn't have anything to say). Just because you (or others) are stuck in trying to formulate a response doesn't mean it's a troll. It's proving a point.

Simply state the good things he has done. It's your time to prove the original poster wrong if Bush has, in fact, done good things.

[edit]
Let's put it this way... the more posts and responses that are made that AREN'T a list of good things he has done, the worse he looks. All it really takes is a minute or two to post something, unless, of course, you aren't exactly sure of what he has done and you have to research it or something.. but I'm sure most of us know what's went on.

__________________
I love lamp.

Scipio

This thread might be the best evidence of the leanings of the tfp politics board. Take it from a drunk moderate democrat.

Here's my read. Repubs often don't like Bush. He simply isn't impressive. However, they find more reasons not to like Kerry. I know a guy who's a hardcore movement conservative. He's a brilliant guy, very smart, committed, motivated, and thoughtful. Here's what he said to me, in regards to the election: "the devil you know." The implication was, of course, that we might as well stick with Bush. That's the best he could do. Think about that.

__________________
"Erections lasting more than 4 hours, though rare, require immediate medical attention."

hannukah harry

while that may be (and i'm a ABB kinda guy, lesser of two evils if you will), but we have quite a few tfp'ers who seem to defend everything bush does as though we were trying to lynch their uncle with anything negative said about him. so when so far the only thing said so far is (paraphrased) "he's kept me alive", i'd have to say that says a lot about our sitting pres.

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

DJ Happy

He's good for a laugh though, isn't he? You can't deny it. And even if he's lost jobs overall during his tenure, at least he's provided the political satirists and cartoonists with a steady stream of material to keep them gainfully employed.

"They never stop thinking of new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

Now tell me, truthfully - who can honestly not have a little chuckle every time they hear the above Bushism? The man is a comic genius and he doesn't even know it (or anything else).

tecoyah

Add this also to the "pointless spin" section of TFP

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

ARTelevision

This endorsement from today's Chicago Tribune echoes enough of my own thoughts to be sufficiently representative and serve as my response to this thread:

...

George W. Bush for president

Published October 17, 2004

One by one, Americans typically settle on a presidential candidate after weighing his, and his rival's, views on the mosaic of issues that each of us finds important.

Some years, though, force vectors we didn't anticipate turn some of our usual priorities--our pet causes, our own economic interest--into narcissistic luxuries. As Election Day nears, the new force vectors drive our decision-making.

This is one of those years--distinct in ways best framed by Sen. John McCain, perhaps this country's most broadly respected politician. Seven weeks ago, McCain looked with chilling calm into TV cameras and told Americans, with our rich diversity of clashing worldviews, what is at stake for every one of us in the first presidential election since Sept. 11 of 2001:

"So it is, whether we wished it or not, that we have come to the test of our generation, to our rendezvous with destiny. ... All of us, despite the differences that enliven our politics, are united in the one big idea that freedom is our birthright and its defense is always our first responsibility. All other responsibilities come second." If we waver, McCain said, "we will fail the one mission no American generation has ever failed--to provide to our children a stronger, better country than the one we were blessed to inherit."

This year, each of us has the privilege of choosing between two major-party candidates whose integrity, intentions and abilities are exemplary.

One of those candidates, Sen. John Kerry, embraces an ongoing struggle against murderous terrorists, although with limited U.S. entanglements overseas. The other candidate, President George W. Bush, talks more freely about what is at risk for this country: the cold-eyed possibility that fresh attacks no better coordinated than those of Sept. 11--but with far deadlier weapons--could ravage American metropolises. Bush, then, embraces a bolder struggle not only with those who sow terror, but also with rogue governments that harbor, finance or arm them.

This was a radical strategy when the president articulated it in 2001, even as dust carrying the DNA of innocents wafted up from ground zero. And it is the unambiguous strategy that, as this page repeatedly has contended, is most likely to deliver the more secure future that John McCain wishes for our children.

A President Kerry certainly would punish those who want us dead. As he pledged, with cautiously calibrated words, in accepting his party's nomination: "Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response." Bush, by contrast, insists on taking the fight to terrorists, depriving them of oxygen by encouraging free and democratic governments in tough neighborhoods. As he stated in his National Security Strategy in 2002: "The United States can no longer solely rely on a reactive posture as we have in the past. ... We cannot let our enemies strike first."

Bush's sense of a president's duty to defend America is wider in scope than Kerry's, more ambitious in its tactics, more prone, frankly, to yield both casualties and lasting results. This is the stark difference on which American voters should choose a president.

There is much the current president could have done differently over the last four years. There are lessons he needs to have learned. And there are reasons--apart from the global perils likely to dominate the next presidency--to recommend either of these two good candidates.

But for his resoluteness on the defining challenge of our age--a resoluteness John Kerry has not been able to demonstrate--the Chicago Tribune urges the re-election of George W. Bush as president of the United States.

- - -

Bush, his critics say, displays an arrogance that turns friends into foes. Spurned at the United Nations by "Old Europe"--France, Germany, Russia--he was too long in admitting he wanted their help in a war. He needs to acknowledge that his country's future interests are best served by fixing frayed friendships. And if re-elected, he needs to accomplish that goal.

But that is not the whole story. Consider:

Bush has nurtured newer alliances with many nations such as Poland, Romania and Ukraine (combined population, close to 110 million) that want more than to be America's friends: Having seized their liberty from tyrants, they are determined now to be on the right side of history.

Kerry is an internationalist, a man of conspicuous intellect. He is a keen student of world affairs and their impact at home.

But that is not the whole story. Consider:

On the most crucial issue of our time, Kerry has serially dodged for political advantage. Through much of the 2004 election cycle, he used his status as a war hero as an excuse not to have a coherent position on America's national security. Even now, when Kerry grasps a microphone, it can be difficult to fathom who is speaking--the war hero, or the anti-war hero.

Kerry displays great faith in diplomacy as the way to solve virtually all problems. Diplomatic solutions should always be the goal. Yet that principle would be more compelling if the world had a better record of confronting true crises, whether proffered by the nuclear-crazed ayatollahs of Iran, the dark eccentrics of North Korea, the genocidal murderers of villagers in Sudan--or the Butcher of Baghdad.

In each of these cases, Bush has pursued multilateral strategies. In Iraq, when the UN refused to enforce its 17th stern resolution--the more we learn about the UN's corrupt Oil-for-Food program, the more it's clear the fix was in--Bush acted. He thus reminded many of the world's governments why they dislike conservative and stubborn U.S. presidents (see Reagan, Ronald).

Bush has scored a great success in Afghanistan--not only by ousting the Taliban regime and nurturing a new democracy, but also by ignoring the chronic doubters who said a war there would be a quagmire. He and his administration provoked Libya to surrender its weapons program, turned Pakistan into an ally against terrorists (something Bill Clinton's diplomats couldn't do) and helped shut down A.Q. Khan, the world's most menacing rogue nuclear proliferator.

Many of these cross-currents in Bush's and Kerry's worldviews collide in Iraq.

Bush arguably invaded with too few allies and not enough troops. He will go to his tomb defending his reliance on intelligence from agencies around the globe that turned out to be wrong. And he has refused to admit any errors.

Kerry, though, has lost his way. The now-professed anti-war candidate says he still would vote to authorize the war he didn't vote to finance. He used the presidential debates to telegraph a policy of withdrawal. His Iraq plan essentially is Bush's plan. All of which perplexes many.

Worse, it plainly perplexes Kerry. ("I do believe Saddam Hussein was a threat," he said Oct. 8, adding that Bush was preoccupied with Iraq, "where there wasn't a threat.") What's not debatable is that Kerry did nothing to oppose White House policy on Iraq until he trailed the dovish Howard Dean in the race for his party's nomination. Also haunting Kerry: his Senate vote against the Persian Gulf war--driven by faith that, yes, more diplomacy could end Saddam Hussein's rape of Kuwait.

- - -

On domestic issues, the choice is also clear. In critical areas such as public education and health care, Bush's emphasis is on greater competition. His No Child Left Behind Act has flaws, but its requirements have created a new climate of expectation and accountability. On both of these important fronts, but especially with his expensive health-care plan, Kerry primarily sees a need to raise and spend more money.

The failure of either candidate to offer spending and taxation proposals that remotely approach balancing the federal budget is an embarrassment to both. The non-partisan Concord Coalition calculates the 10-year impact of Bush's proposals as a negative $1.33 trillion; the impact of Kerry's is a nearly identical $1.27 trillion. Kerry correctly cites the disturbingly expensive legacy of Bush's tax cuts--while, in the same breath, promising new tax cuts of his own.

This is a genre of American fiction that Bush, if he is re-elected, cannot perpetuate. To Bush's credit, his tax policies have had the aggregate effect of pushing Americans toward more savings and investment--the capital with which the world's strongest economy generates jobs. But he has not shown the necessary discipline on discretionary spending. Two particularly egregious examples: Medicare prescription drug coverage and an enormously expensive farm subsidy bill, both signed by Bush.

This country's paramount issue, though, remains the threat to its national security.

John Kerry has been a discerning critic of where Bush has erred. But Kerry's message--a more restrained assault on global threats, earnest comfort with the international community's noble inaction--suggests what many voters sense: After 20 years in the Senate, the moral certitude Kerry once displayed has evaporated. There is no landmark Kennedy-Kerry Education Act, no Kerry-Frist Health Bill. Today's Kerry is more about plans and process than solutions. He is better suited to analysis than to action. He has not delivered a compelling blueprint for change.

For three years, Bush has kept Americans, and their government, focused--effectively--on this nation's security. The experience, dating from Sept. 11, 2001, has readied him for the next four years, a period that could prove as pivotal in this nation's history as were the four years of World War II.

That demonstrated ability, and that crucible of experience, argue for the re-election of President George W. Bush. He has the steadfastness, and the strength, to execute the one mission no American generation has ever failed.


2004, Chicago Tribune

__________________
create evolution

^Ice_Bat^

Ok, I do not know which Republicans you are talking to, but the Republicans I know do not have to attack Kerry very much because the record speaks for itself. As I recall, Bush was the first to come out with a televised campaign ad, and it was actually just about his record and why he should be president. Not a single attack. Then of course the Democrats started out with attack after attack after attack. The GOP was late in the game with the attack ads. If a bully comes up to you, and starts punching you in the face, do you sit there and take it or fight back? This is the only reason Bush and the GOP came out with attacks. The Democrats have to attack since they have no other means for political gain. The Democrats are very dirty, very manipulative, and not a single attack ad holds water. They have to compare totally unrelated clips to manipulate the audience to believing Bush is unqualified. Fahrenlie 911 is a perfect example. And if you believe Fahrenlie, then you'll believe anything and it would be a waste of time explaining. So I apologize, but I found this comment to be insulting, because Republicans are much more insightful and informed, and therefore do not have to attack.

And thank you for the fine research ARTelevision.

__________________
If you ever catch on fire, try to avoid looking in a mirror, because I bet that will really throw you into a panic. - Jack Handy

host

By allowing you to participate in this forum without requiring you to substantiate the "argument" that you posted here in your most recent
"contribution" to this forum, the moderators are sending a clear message to
me that I should spend much less time sharing information on TFP forums.

tecoyah

While I agree with the sentiment.....we are all "Allowed" to participate in any forum, should we decide to be civil. You will notice a tend of unsustantiated information on both sides of the politcal fence in this forum, but certainly somewhat more from the Republican minority here. This issue came to a head for me a while back , and I too refrained from comment in the politics forum (and am seriously considering doing so again). That said....surely you realize the likely result of your thread before ever posting it, in fact, it is likely you had certain motives in mind before you ever hit post.
All these type of posts accomplish is a further division between the two sides in this election cycle, and widen the chasm we have before us. I too do not fit into the neat little Left/Right category everyone attempts to place me in, but that makes for a clearer vision of what is actually going on.

The Mods are doing exactly what they are supposed to do......keep us all from killing each other, and try to focus a wayward thread before it must be closed. To expect them to subject a thread to the rules we decide upon for its direction is simply too much to ask, and would somewhat defeat the purpose of a debate forum. There are however ideas in the works to create a more guided debate area that would define rules, and create an atmosphere far more condusive to "true" debate and discussion.

Just dont give up on the TFP because of the frustration inherent in such an emotional election cycle...there are those of us still trying to improve the discourse here.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

trickyy

bush is charismatic. i think he would be interesting to hang out with. and i think he is smarter than many people believe, despite his public speaking reputation. harvard and yale, not bad. those schools are the best in the world. even if he had connections he still had to do the work, which was harder since he was drinking a lot.

he went to hunter s. thompson's super bowl party in 1974

also, if you saw the pbs frontline The Choice 2004, you would have noticed that george ditched the monobrow about a decade earlier than his opponent. good documentary by the way.

Lebell

Thanks for the article, Art.

It was far more eloquent than I could ever be.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

high_jinx

thanks for the article art. i appreciate the attempt at answering my query. i found it amazing that yours was the only decent and serious response.unfortunately after reading it, i can't help but think that it's exactly what i didn't want to hear about... half of it is about the "keeping us safe" national security issue. the other half attacks kerry. here are points that bother me about it...

1) it's my opinion that ANY- body in office would make national security and fighting/suppressing terrorism a top priority. quite simply it's a no-brainer obvious issue.

2) no matter how much money we spend or how many terrorist rings we squash, there ARE going to be more terrorist attacks. we're only a suitcase getting through our borders away from something really nasty happening to an entire city. and with all the illegal things being sneaked into our country each year from drugs to weapons to anything you want to name, it's obvious our border security can't prevent that. so, while anti terrorism is and should be a top priority, it's possible to overdo it and have the entire country suffer as a result. i see this happening with the deficit we've racked up, the jobs we've lost, and the health care so many of us (including me) don't have anymore.

3) when speaking of bush and his record, i can't help but think that his invasion of iraq has actually hurt our ability to go after terrorists. it's a siev that all of our resources are leaking into while other countries are much more likely to pose a threat.

that article says that bush has kept us focused for 3 years on our national security, and thats the big reason he should be re-elected. i'm not so sure about that. i think the president is an office that has more than one dimension to it. thats why i started this thread. i was looking for anything i hadn't heard about bush that showed him to be competent at leading this country. it doesn't seem like bush is even thinking about so many things that are so important to our country's future. if national security is all he knows, then he should be our national security advisor, not our president.

even though i don't particularly like either candidate, at least kerry is looking inward as well as outward. and i think it's just plain ridiculous to attack someone for changing their mind about something after they see it's warped or isn't working. so to me, all that "waffle" talk about kerry does more to discredit the accusers than the accused. That and the "liberal" name calling going on seem like simple mantras to mindlessly throw around while steering clear about considering whats really important to us remaining a strong and healthy nation.

so up to this point i can only conclude that voting for bush is stepping into the trap of fear thats' been set for you. and if we have 4 more years of focusing on what bush wants us to focus on, we'll be blind to the continued collapse of our nations core of integrity.

__________________
-my phobia drowned while i was gettin down.

Tex

This is one of the main things that really gets to me. I've heard a lot of this "I like Bush because he would be cool to hang out with and have a beer" train of thought. You know what, I don't give a shit if Bush is the fuckin starting quarterback for the Patriots, I don't care that I could have a beer with him and talk about chicks. I don't care that he's one of the "good ole boys." This guy is supposed to be leading the most powerful country in the world, not the fuckin alpha zeta pi frat house.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I'd rather have a guy who can run a country and not a post-pattern.

__________________
"All I know is that I know nothing..."

daswig

Come on, if Gore was in office, he'd STILL be trying to take the first step to attack Al-Queda. Both Saddam and the Taliban would still be in power. Libya would still be working to create WMDs. And the French would STILL hate us.