Bush a good president???

[Shane12_01]

Is Bush Jr. a good president? tell me your oppinions on him. What you like and dont like.

My oppinion is that he a bad president for not taking care of the home front. He seems to care about daddy's unfinished businness. Katrina was one and another is that he has put the U.S. in more debt then all 42 preidents before him [B]Combined!! [/B] :animecry:.

But thats just my oppinion tell me what you guys think so I can see it in your perspective. :animesmil

[Liam]

I felt that way for a while too, untill I started listening to talk radio. I started actually doing political research. Then I started to realize all the stuff going on over there, that it wasn't all about the oil, but it was in fact a war, not so much an occupancy. It's really something that must be done.

New Orleans was INFACT told to evacuate. they chose not to. I don't see how that's the president's fault.

Shipping lines were ruined for about a week due to it. (when I say shipping, I mean trucking, trains, transit, ect) If I couldn't get my paycheck shipped from 3 hours away for a week , I'm sure that the government got everything done that they could. (I lived in FLA at the time, NOWHERE near New Atlantis)

as for the country's deficit... it's not really important. You have to understand this deficit was created funding a manditory war, that will last longer than any other prior war. :( The job market is up, which is better on a person to person basis than worrying about the deficit(it doesn't increase taxes) Based off of inflation, however by modernday standards, Vietnam costed over double what opur occupation of Iraq has costed.

To top it all off we have Dick Derbin, Hillary Clinton, and Howard dean all slandering and mud slinging. Does he bother to justify their claims? No, Because they are in fact wrong (IE: It's NOT an Illegal war, and is supported by the United Nations and law). He doesn't have to worry about being re-elected next term. So is there a point in arguing? No. He's jsut doing his job, Presedenting all day long. :P

[WindFox17]

Ok I can't stand bush one bit. But we had to pick the lesser of two evils so I guess it could have been worse. But the war, we should be more worried about our country first. I mean we still need to clean up the mess from Katrina and he is more worried about the east. Oil shortage my ***** we have 2 milloin or more drums of oil in storage. But there in Texas, and not to mention that he has a lot of stock in almost every oil company. He is a greedy as his father was.

[IceRose]

I hate him plain and simple, he's made life for virtually everyone that is not rich and pretty impossible. Hopefully he will not go for reelection a 3rd time, and he has done a horrible job with the Iraqui situation, they were not suppossed to go up againt Sadam they were suppossed to go up againt Bin Laden. This is my opinion and please don't hurt me :animeswea

[Liam]

[quote name='WindFox17']Ok I can't stand bush one bit. But we had to pick the lesser of two evils so I guess it could have been worse. But the war, we should be more worried about our country first. I mean we still need to clean up the mess from Katrina and he is more worried about the east. Oil shortage my ***** we have 2 milloin or more drums of oil in storage. But there in Texas, and not to mention that he has a lot of stock in almost every oil company. He is a greedy as his father was.[/quote]

Isn't dealing with the enemy actually benifiting our country? Is it more devistating to us to fight them on our soil or theirs? Keep in mind that Katrina was a hurricane... How exactly can we defend ourselves against that? Can't bomb it, Bush woulda trid. Last year was a horrible year for storms. Look at other countries. :P The fact stands that if we leave Iraq, they get overrun. They're not ready or able to defend themselves yet. If we loose Iraq we loose the war on terror. If we withdraw now, we only send the message to these terrorists that they can just wait it out and then later blow up more of our stuff.

You say all these things like he mad a decision, when clearly if you break it down, there is no choice.

[quote name='IceRose']I hate him plain and simple, he's made life for virtually everyone that is not rich and pretty impossible. Hopefully he will not go for reelection a 3rd time, and he has done a horrible job with the Iraqui situation, they were not suppossed to go up againt Sadam they were suppossed to go up againt Bin Laden. This is my opinion and please don't hurt me :animeswea[/quote]

How has he made life unlivable for the non-rich. I haven't seen any tax breaks or tax reforms since he was in office. Nothin's changed since Clinton was in office. Unless the constitution is radified he cannot run for a 3rd time. 2's the limit. According to United nations Treaties, UN as a whole was supposed to deal with Saddam. Let's say we have a terrible president for holding up to his end of the contract.

[Drix D'Zanth]

[quote name='IceRose']... he's made life for virtually everyone that is not rich and pretty impossible...[/quote]
[img]http://img477.imageshack.us/img477/9638/bushlife6nj.jpg[/img]
[b]Despite the risk of gaining the ire of Bill Gates and The Alien, here; Bush still continues to "make life" for virtually everyone else.It's only a matter of time until the "rich" and "pretty impossible" demand their cut[/b]


All jokes aside, I'm pretty mixed on Bush. I suppose he's the lesser of the two evils. He and I agree on some key moral issues, and I think that he is a genuinely good person. I don't really subscribe to either side's political rhetoric until I can look at the history and statistics myself. So don't be so quickly to demonize him for problems out of his control (like hurricanes, or the economy).

Sure, he's not perfect. But history will show that he did a good job, despite the media's intepretation of his presidency.

I'll reply with more specific examples and rebuttals, I have to go to class first ^_^.

[Your Mother]

[quote name='Liam'] (IE: It's NOT an Illegal war, and is supported by the United Nations and law)[/quote]

[SIZE=1]Where the hell do you live? Under a rock? Or just Laa-Laa land?

Bush attacked without, let me repeat, WITHOUT the UN's support. In fact, with basically no one's support. (Except for Britain, but then again what does Blair have to do other than kiss Bush's *** all day long?) Now Iraq is a madhouse- stability may very well never return there.

That idiot has stacked on so much national debt, the US will probably be a 3rd-world country by the time it's paid off.

Bush didn't know jack **** about what was happening in New Orleans- he even complimented the now-fired FEMA head Michael Brown. You want to know exactly what he said to Brown? "Brownie, you're doing a heckuva job." I did NOT make that up.

I suppose America can't exactly stroll out of Iraq now, but he messed up- BIG time- trying to start a war for oil while cleaning up Daddy's mess.

For a list of all the stupid things Bush ever said, click [URL=http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushisms.htm]here[/URL]. [/SIZE]

[Liam]

Well apparently, My rock is alot closer to the facts than yours. I do not appriciate being flamed, Mother. As this is a somewhat Mature topic, let's try to keep the conversation such.

as for support...

Support for the invasion and occupation of Iraq included 49 nations, a group that was frequently referred to as the "coalition of the willing". These nations provided combat troops, support troops, and logistical support for the invasion. The nations contributing combat forces were, roughly:

Total 300,884 - 98% US & UK

United States (250,000 83%), United Kingdom (45,000 15%), South Korea (3,500 1.1%), Australia (2,000 0.6%), Denmark (200 0.06%), and Poland (184 0.06%). Ten other countries offered small numbers of non-combat forces, mostly either medical teams and specialists in decontamination.

Before the attack, the head UN weapons inspector in Iraq, Hans Blix, clearly stated that his teams had been unable to find any evidence of nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons in Iraq. However, the discovery of illegal missiles discovered by United Nations weapons inspectors which were ultimately deemed in violation of United Nations Resolution 687 (1991), called the Al-Samoud IIs, raised serious questions: these rockets could possibly narrowly pass the allowed range of 150 km (93 miles), though without carrying any load. Ultimately though, they were determined to be in violation of the terms to which Saddam Hussein agreed in order to cease the hostilities of the Persian Gulf War and thus, deemed prohibited and ordered destroyed by the United Nations Security Council.

In a May 26, 2004 Insurgents with a Sarin gas warhead used against US soldiers in an IED. The Boston Daily News published an article concerning this (poorly implemented) WMD attack against US troops by insurgents. This failed chemical weapons attack was also noted by The Associated Press and reported by Fox News later that year.[I] Read as violation of Cemical weapons and WMD treaties with Iraq.[/I]

As of May 2005, small quantities of chemically degraded mustard gas had been found in old munitions. These are generally regarded as left-overs from the pre-sanction era before the 1991 Gulf War were not destroyed by the Iraqi regime.[I]Violation[/I]

An article published by The Associated Press and reported by Fox News that more WMD not destroyed by the Iraqi Regime were discovered in South Central Iraq by Polish Allies. Sarin Gas warheads dating back to the last Iran-Iraq war were trying to be purchased by terrorists for $5000 a warhead. The Polish troops purchased items on June 23, 2004. [I]Again, Violation[/I]

On August 14, 2005, The Washington Post published an article titled, Iraqi Chemical Stash Uncovered [62]. The presentation identifies a chemical weapons facility discovered in Iraq and chemical weapons uncovered were in the process of being classified. The time of instantiation was unknown. The article incorrectly indicated that Chemican Weapons was not used against allied forces in Iraq (ignoring the May 22, 2004 IED attack), ignores the July 2, 2004 discovery of Sarin Gas warheads and launchers by Polish Allies, and even contradicts the self-same article by indicating that chemical weapons were not found in Iraq. [I]supports above statements, proves media folley[/I]


[B]UN Sanction violations.[/B]

During the UN Sanctions, France and Russia had been selling and transporting advanced electronic military equipment to Iraq, violating international law. The discoveries reported on August 6, 2003 of MIG's with advanced electronics sold during the 1990's illustrate the difficulty in recovering evidence of UN sanction violations.

Stated byy the UN Security Council Resolutions authorizing the 1991 invasion, in addition to Resolution 1441, gave legal authority to use "all necessary means," which is diplomatic code for going to war. This war ended with a cease fire instead of a permanent peace treaty. Their view was that Iraq had violated the terms of the cease-fire by breaching two key conditions and thus made the invasion of Iraq a legal continuation of the earlier war.

Looks pretty cut and dry to me. I'm pretty sure you'll say that INSURGENTS are not offiliated with the legality of the war(and that is who we are currently warring with) However Insergents, and terrorist orginizations do not claim home soil and cannot be protected by any UN sanction.

BTW LOL Drix.

[Retribution]

[size=1]The War in Iraq is completely unjustified. We're not going after the same people that had ties to 9/11. We went into Iraq after realizing that Afghanistan was a lost cause, as far as finding Osama went. Bush needed to bring something back home to show for all the military action, and that's why when Saddam was caught, he said it was "Mission Accomplished."

Really, what mission was accomplished? I thought there war was against terror, and as far as I can tell, Saddam is not the only terrorist in the world. He needed a trophy to bring back to the American public after failing to bring back Osama or WMDs.

We're trillions of dollars in debt -- when Clinton left office, America had a [i]surplus[/i]. The oddest thing, though, is that Bush insists on [i]tax cuts[/i] during a war, when [i]you need those tax dollars to pay for all the costs.[/i]

The fact that Bush brought up gay marriage and abortion in another attempt to divert America's sort attention span from the slow-moving Iraqi conflict annoyed me a great deal. I disagree with him outright, and the whole "It's against the Bible!1" arguement he regurgitates makes him even more tiresome.

He's also the reason why all other nations think of Americans as stuck up, piggish, greedy, and arrogant.[/size]

[Claire]

[FONT=Arial]Hm, Retri, I'm pretty sure not every country thinks America is stuck-up, piggish and greedy. It's strange, for some reason, my parents think France is rather stuck-up. =(? Oh well.

Anyway, my opinions on Bush are rather...phlegmatic. It doesn't seem like anything has changed in my personal life since the 2001? election (whenever he was first elected) other than stuff that I could control without the help of any moronic president. My American Government teacher said something like this: "Bush is a moron, an idiot, but he's smarter than me and everyone of you [students]." That made me think about my friend's otaku, which once had a post proclaiming Bush's IQ to be 125. If that's so, then I actually am smarter. xP. IQs aren't really meaningful, though, so I'm just going to go with my American Government teacher on this one.

The same friend posted a long list of Bushisms, complete with hilarious commentary [URL=http://www.myotaku.com/users/abyss_of_despair/life/]here.[/URL]

I'm neither a republican or a democrat, because politics bore me to death and I really don't care. The way I see it is that if I don't like the way things are being run (and chances are, I won't care) then I can just move to Europe. I don't want to vote (as I've said before) so I'm probably never going to waste my time trying to make a difference in something I'm not interested in. I'm just really apathetic, and I may grow out of it, but if I see something as something that won't help my future (and since nothing has changed since the last election, I can't see how voting will change anything later) then I just don't want to do it. xP;;

But as for Bush...better than Kerry. I don't remember much about why I didn't like Kerry, I just remember that I didn't. >=([/FONT]

[Retribution]

[QUOTE=Amelia][FONT=Arial]Hm, Retri, I'm pretty sure not every country thinks America is stuck-up, piggish and greedy. It's strange, for some reason, my parents think France is rather stuck-up. =(? Oh well.

I'm neither a republican or a democrat, because politics bore me to death and I really don't care. The way I see it is that if I don't like the way things are being run (and chances are, I won't care) then I can just move to Europe. I don't want to vote (as I've said before) so I'm probably never going to waste my time trying to make a difference in something I'm not interested in. I'm just really apathetic, and I may grow out of it, but if I see something as something that won't help my future (and since nothing has changed since the last election, I can't see how voting will change anything later) then I just don't want to do it. xP;;

But as for Bush...better than Kerry. I don't remember much about why I didn't like Kerry, I just remember that I didn't. >=([/FONT][/QUOTE]
[size=1]Funny - someone on dA said "Are you [i]American[/i] or something? What kind of question is that?" And yes, everyone jokes about France. It's what they get for getting steamrolled in WWII. :3

Your indifference and apathy bothers me. You essentially said "If it bothers me, I won't try to change it, I'll just leave so that others have to put up with the same system and chance never occurs." The same could've been said about the racism in the sixties. If it bothers me, I'll just move to Europe so that it's not such a problem. How would that change things for the greater good?

I think voting is a right that should be exercised -- it's sad that the words "Give me liberty, or give me death!" are now answered with "I can't be bothered to vote." Get up, read a newspaper, figure out where you stand, and help the nation develop by voting.

All you really need to do is take a look in history to see how elections have changed the course of the nation. What if Andrew Jackson had won the elections instead of John Quincy Adams? Jackson was the biggest bigot to hit America -- he massacred natives throughout his life, and so think about the damage that would've been done had he been president for that term?

Sure, the issues seem distant, as if they don't affect you, but they will eventually. As for not liking Kerry, coming from someone who is too apathetic to follow the news, I'll take it with grain of salt.[/size]

[Albert Flasher]

[FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=Sienna]This is how I see Bush:

Bush gets elected. He sits around for a while, trying to pass bills and do somthing. He gets absolutly nothing accomplished, he's completely lost and doesn't have any idea how to run a country.

Than, all of a sudden, a sign decended from heaven. The clouds parted, and it decended wreathed in light, with angles singing a chorus. Soaring through the sky magestically, the words "Boeing" clearly imprinted on its side.

So than he invades Afganistan to go after a few guys (Makes sense). Afganistan is occupied. Bin Laden was never found and even recently he sent a recording to the US offering a truce or he'd bomb more cities or somesuch. He's alive and well.

That begs the question, where exactly is he? Well, the logical choice would not be Iran (Where he got the majority of his funding from) because it owns 6% of the US... why would they ever want to attack America.

So than Bush finds himself in a bit of a pickel. He's wasted to many lives and to much money to just say 'We so many bombs we must have gotten him at some point!', so he decided to draw attention away from Afganistan... but invading Iraq.

Iraq of course was harmless, as the US et al had been engaged in the No-Fly-Zone war with them since the end of the Gulf War and they had no ability to go on the offensive, even if they had the weapons to do so. But Bush knew what he was doing.

So now Afganistan is completely frogotten, bin Laden is sipping wine with Iranian royals, and Iraq is a complete and total mess. They have almost no chance of their ever being a stable country again. The only reason that Iraq stayed a single country for so long is because Saddam was such a cruel dictator - the extremists of the three main Muslim sects would have torn the country apart trying to kill eachother.

So now the US has no choice but to stay in Iraq, probably forever. If they leave than the country will implode and than there will be genocide galore. They've got their foot on a landmine and no matter what they do their royally boned.

Meanwhile, in his own country, nothing is happening. Nothing positive anyways, just trillions of debt and coffins by the boatload. So, in order to deflect this from the public eye, Bush brings up trivial issues (i.e gay marriage, abortion), the kind of thing that gets covered on Faux News.

So in answe to is 'Bush a good president?', the answer is a simple, resounding 'No'. He would have been impeached long ago if it wasn't for Osama, he should be sending him gift baskets instead of bomb-drones.

Oh, and Amelia... his IQ is not 125 unless he was doing one of those online IQ scams that try to make you feel smart so they can rip you off. In the inagural presidential IQ test, his score was an impressive 91. That's impressive since I always thought it was more around 20-30. I know IQ's really don't prove anything, but still... hahahahahahah![/COLOR][/FONT]

[Claire]

[FONT=Arial]I honestly really don't want to vote. I'm too young, now, anyway, and as I've said I might grow out of it. I've recently become very cynical and pessimistic, which might account for some of my not caring. Racism is a very different thing, to me, than which president is in office, though. Racism is more moral than political, which is why I can't stand it. I believe that all people were indeed created equal, and I'm not going to share my political philosophy of "If I don't like it, I'll leave" with something like that. With politics, I'll just leave behind a country half full of angry voters who didn't get their way and half full of people celebrating the new president. But if America was just as racism tolerant as it was in the sixties, I'd be leaving behind people who are suffering wrongful discrimination. That would be something I'd rather take a stand for - not politics.[/FONT]

[Baron Samedi]

[quote name='Your Mother][SIZE=1'] Now Iraq is a madhouse- stability may very well never return there.[/SIZE][/quote]
[size=1]Not that it was all that stable to begin with, lol ~_^

I don't particularly like Bush, though his actions affect me to a far lesser degree than you Americans. I'm a rather Liberal-minded person, so I disagree with some of his views. I think he has been over-criticised to a degree over the 'War On Terror' though. Some awful things have been destroyed, and now the recovery period is underway. It's not going particularly well, but the odds are that it will improve.[/size]

[RedSkyCoffee]

[size=1]I don't live in the U.S. but I still don't like Bush because ... I don't :animeswea [/size]

[Albert Flasher]

[QUOTE=Baron Samedi][size=1]Not that it was all that stable to begin with, lol ~_^

I don't particularly like Bush, though his actions affect me to a far lesser degree than you Americans. I'm a rather Liberal-minded person, so I disagree with some of his views. I think he has been over-criticised to a degree over the 'War On Terror' though. Some awful things have been destroyed, and now the recovery period is underway. It's not going particularly well, but the odds are that it will improve.[/size][/QUOTE]
[FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=Sienna]
Iraq was stable... backwards, stagnant, and horrifying, but stable (i.e not about to collapse in on itself). All that the Bush War did was make things considerably worse.[/COLOR][/FONT]

[Drix D'Zanth]

[QUOTE=Ziggy Stardust][FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=Sienna]
Iraq was stable... backwards, stagnant, and horrifying, but stable (i.e not about to collapse in on itself). All that the Bush War did was make things considerably worse.[/COLOR][/FONT][/QUOTE]

Iraq's stability was a facade.

I, as a Christian, cannot endorse the war in Iraq. I'll reply more on this when I get back from Neurochem... but I've had a significant spiritual revelation over the weekend that I'd like to share with you all concerning Pacifism and Christianity that I'll post in this thread and the pacifism thread.

[Boba Fett]

[QUOTE=Ziggy Stardust][FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=Sienna]
Iraq was stable... backwards, stagnant, and horrifying, but stable (i.e not about to collapse in on itself). All that the Bush War did was make things considerably worse.[/COLOR][/FONT][/QUOTE]

[color=green]The intel that lead to the war was bad, for sure - and Bush should take the blame for that (as Tenet has already taken the fall).

I think, and at least on all the Iraqi blogs I've read, the prevailing sentiment is "Give me freedom or give me death."

As for Bush, I think he's a decent president. Not exactly stellar, but definitely not the abysmal, impeachable failure many people make him out to be.[/color]

[Liam]

Bush alone? Half that information leading to WMD conclusions came from MI5.

[Baron Samedi]

[QUOTE=Ziggy Stardust][FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=Sienna]
Iraq was stable... backwards, stagnant, and horrifying, but stable (i.e not about to collapse in on itself). All that the Bush War did was make things considerably worse.[/COLOR][/FONT][/QUOTE]
[size=1]True true. I mean, we wouldn't want a dictatorship which murders dissenters and freely abuses it's people to collapse on itself, would we...?[/size]

[Shane12_01]

Well all I think is that he should take care of home first. Our ecanomy is in shambles and we do need to clean up after Katrina. And I think the middle class is going to die soon if we keep the Republicans in power. Soon there will be only the very rich and very poor. There will be no middle income, and a great examle of that is where I live in Truckee. The super rich are moving in and the middle is being pushed out and the rich are going to want the pore to work for lower income at the casino's and resorts here.

This may very well happen, and I hope to God it doesn't. Also Experts that came on to Lou Dobbs monny line admited that Republicans create debt and democrats get us out of it. That is to Say that the democrat is as good as Clinton as far as economy.

Another thing is are we even looking out for Manopolies anymore??? I'm seeing alot poping up latly including the new AT&T. this will further destroy the middle man and put us in a lose lose situation. We need a President that is going to regulate and take care of home first and others second. That may sound mean but you got to look after your self to take care of others, otherwise your going to need help your self.

One last thing We look into history about war and you'll see its mainly for economic interest I dont know what happend to make this war different to not be about economic interest. And arn't wars suposed to improve the economy like WW2 did to get us out of the depression. If you guys have an answer for this then I'm interested.

[Drix D'Zanth]

[b]As a Christian I cannot endorse violence.[/b]

The more I?ve thought about this and read the Bible? the more I find that, as a Christian, I [i]desire[/i] to be ?like-Christ? (the meaning of ?Christian?). It?s an easy decision for any Christian (and I mean [i]real[/i] Christian) to say he or she would die for his religion. Blessed are the martyrs right? This also means, I accept the social repercussions of being opposed to ideas that I believe are immoral- homosexuality, abortion, capital punishment, totalitarianism, etc. So when I?m called by my peers or my government to give my opinion, I will do so as a moral individual? I will do so as a conscious Christian.

What about when my government calls upon me to endorse or oppose War?

Think about the message of Jesus. When asked whether or not ?eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth? was correct- Jesus replied by saying ?When a man strikes one cheek, turn the other?.

Peter, an apostle of Christ and the founder of the formal ?church? was killed by inverted crucifixion. Matthew, another follower, was killed by the sword. The Apostles never fought back. Martyrs throughout the world, and while they may stand in opposition? they never fight their enemies to live.

Jesus, the Son of God, hangs dying from the cross. He extends his forgiveness to everyone by dying for them. He forgives anyone who accepts it, including the Roman guard who looks upon him and admits that he is Lord (Mt 29).
?50 Then the men stepped forward, seized Jesus and arrested him. 51With that, one of Jesus' companions reached for his sword, drew it out and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear.
52"Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. 53Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? 54But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?" ?The book of Matthew, Ch 26
The Son of God does not fight back. The war we as Christians fight is waging and won. I know we are called by our country to fight for values we find important? but what does God have to say about it? How exactly am I, as his follower, supposed to approach war?
Can we honestly reconcile our virtues of faith and forgiveness by killing our enemies- even if it is in the defense of ourselves or another? Or should we, as Christians, love our enemies?
These are questions heavy on my heart. I cannot remove myself from my faith? even if the Government asks me to. Even if the Government asks me to kill for my country, I cannot disobey my God. So I pray that it does not ask me to do so.

[Shane12_01]

Drix D'Zanath
I respect your oppinion, because I'm a Christian to, but what does this have to do with your oppinion on Bush.
I understand what your saying, I dont condone violence or want to kill anybody neither, but the question was what your oppinion was on Bush Jr. Do you like what he's done for the U.S. yes or no and why?

[DBZgirl88]

[COLOR=#004a6f][QUOTE=Drix D'Zanth][img]http://img477.imageshack.us/img477/9638/bushlife6nj.jpg[/img]
[b]Despite the risk of gaining the ire of Bill Gates and The Alien, here; Bush still continues to "make life" for virtually everyone else.It's only a matter of time until the "rich" and "pretty impossible" demand their cut[/b][/QUOTE]Lol, it's funny how this is the result for one small typo.[/COLOR]

[Drix D'Zanth]

[QUOTE=hentai#1]Drix D'Zanath
I respect your oppinion, because I'm a Christian to, but what does this have to do with your oppinion on Bush.
I understand what your saying, I dont condone violence or want to kill anybody neither, but the question was what your oppinion was on Bush Jr. Do you like what he's done for the U.S. yes or no and why?[/QUOTE]

Well I [i]have[/i] posted my opinion on Bush. I'm very mixed. The reason I posted my opinion on war in general is because it is an issue relevant to our Presiden'ts two terms: The war in Iraq and on Terror.

As for his domestic policy, I'm pretty supported. I like his judicial nominees, his policy on abortion, homosexual marriage (although, a constitutional ban is a bit much), and the economy. I don't blame Katrina or the Economy on him. I blame the economic depression on companies like Enron, which was exacerbated further by 9/11. I like his tax-cut plan, and I think it's fair (if you spend more on taxes, you get a proportional amount back in returns). I think if people don't [i]save[/i] that money, and re-cycle it into the economy- we would see stimulation. Inevitably, there's little a government can do in a capitalist-driven market. I think Bush is terrible at public speaking, but I think he's a bright person.

I actually have the right to say this, as I've had an opportunity to meet with the President at a luncheon with my close friend Phyllis. Pyllis is the vice-chair of the International Democratic Party. She was invited to the white house last August. Phyllis and I are close friends, as she was my preceptor and trainer in earning my Paramedic license. We worked long hours together and share a strong bond of friendship. So she took me along, and I had the opportunity to speak with the president. In person, he's very kind and very articulate. I didn't really debate with the guy (he was my host, after all) but I had fun chatting with him [the short while we were able to chat, that is]. The food was [i]amazing[/i].