Do you still think Bush is doing good?

The hand will want to change puppets.

An expected comment in defence of the Bush cabal has just started peeking out in this thread. ‘But he/we bring/s democracy to oppressed people.’
Yeah?
Go tell that to the Palestinians. They have the shit kicked out of them by a rogue, terrorist state propped up by US money for decades. Then they have a democratic election with a 78% turn-out and Dabbayoo’s first comment is to refuse to deal with the people elected to power.

So, is it Democracy that’s the ticket?
Or is it Democracy-as-long-as-you-elect-the-people-we-want-you-to-elect?

I havent been able to see the video Steve linked to in his first post.
Here’s a bit of reading matter that might chill the blood.

But relax, even Nixon got two terms.

Yowza! Quite the list.

Turn the other cheek.

Unign, John Childs, Jethro, and boo, I hope you can see how this is spiraling downward and making you all look bad. Then it hits these awful extremes, and nobody is laughing.

Take this to the PMs, please. Not in public.

You may wish to heed the advice of a very wise man. If someone had called Jesus what boo called unign, Jesus would have said:
Turn the other cheek.

Enough said.

Also, this was ignored and belongs here:

Truth #1: You made a racist statement. This makes you sound like a racist. If you think about it and do not consider it a racist statement, you probably are more of a racist than you think. This behavior can be unlearned.

Truth #2: The democratic government being set up in Iraq is an experiment. It may work, and it may fail. All anyone can do at this point is guess. Some of the Iraqi people are very much in favor of this form of government, while some are very much agsint it.

These people did not grow up in a democratic society, so it may be harder for them to grasp the possibilities, and realities, of that form of government. It may take time for more people to get behind it. Maybe they’ll feel better about things when their country is no longer, or is less occupied by American forces.

Being from an Arab/Muslim/Middle-Eastern background does not make someone incapable of understanding other forms of government. In the former Soviet Union, the vast majority of the people had to learn how a market economy works, from scratch. Most people totally didn’t get it at first. But they’re getting it. And China’s way ahead of them.

Anyway, we can hope the new Iraqi government works, or we can hope it won’t. I hope it works, even if it makes George W. Bush right. Even if it makes him a hero and gets libraries, of all things, named after him. But nobody will know if it’s going to work long-term until the Iraqi people are running it on their own.

And hero or not, George W. Bush will never make it onto my list of favorite presidents.

yeah i didn’t really mean anything by it. jf called me a racist so i figured i would try to act like one. maybe we should bring back the rep system so we can more easily insult eachother privately. continue the discussion…

even if the iraqi’s got some sort of democracy to work out it’s not worth the price we’re paying. there are many other places where we could set up democracy cheaper.

No other places have the planet’s second largest known oil reserves, and so are much less attractive to the military/industrial forces behind Bush/Cheney et al.

What would it take to set up a democracy in the USA?

Here the executive branch (Bush) was given more power by the legislative branch (Congress). Bush then grabs more authority claiming “wartime” priveleges. Even his supporters are uncomfortable with his claiming a right to “eavesdrop,” yet he makes it clear he will persist.

Judge Alito ignores our system of checks and balances, elevating the President over everything else and has shown little enthusiasm for restrictions on Presidential power.

Billy

My 2 cents;
As far as I’m concerned, Bush will be/is the worst president ever period. That’s all I have to say-I don’t even want to get started…

No question. Well, only if you consider ruining the planet to be a bad thing.

The planet survived Reagan and also survived Carter. It will survive Bush.

As Bush kills more and more innocents (as in Iraq), or fails to act to protect lives (as in 911 and Katrina) he’s the most heinous of all. As our planet careens closer to massive and irreversible global warming, Bush will be seen as the worst science contrarians.

FWIW He could partially redeem himself if he’d make non-fossil fuels his personal “moonshot”. Like that’ll happen.

alito would be all for restrictions as soon as a democrat takes office.

it’s important that people stop pretending bush knows what he’s doing and realize just how badly he’s screwing us over, but in order for that to happen he has to do more stupid things. i’d much rather see him actually do a good job than see ppl realize he’s doing a terrible job.

Most assuredly things won’t go straight to hell before 2009, but the problem is compounding, and the current administration has been the worst ever in regards to the environment and twisted “science.”

Ex-EPA Chiefs Criticize Bush on Warming:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060119/ap_on_go_ot/global_warming

(That would be six republicans and one democrat taking the Bush administration to task on current policy & practices)

Also, the Union of Concerned Scientists (nonpartisan interest group) keeps track of immoral attempts at warping scientific studies with political agendas. It’s been a growing problem over the past two decades, and is currently at the worst level ever. They recently released a statement criticizing the Bush administration’s attack on science:

http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/reports-scientific-integrity-in-policy-making.html

The statement is signed by many high-profile scientists, including 49 Nobel laureates, 63 National Medal of Science recipients, and 171 members of the National Academies. It is an honest, stinging and thorough conviction.

The Bush administration’s record on the environment and science in general is dismal, and should not be brushed off as “temporary”. Whoever comes next must not be allowed to continue to erode scientific ideals. We must begin a process of scientific and environmental accountability now, or the United States will lose its status as a superpower, and the planet will someday be lost to our children.

It is funny to see people in a panic thining the world is going to end just because of a slight move along the political scale. There were right wingers in a panic when Clinton was in office and now there are left wingers in a panic because Bush is in office. The US frankly doesn’t swing far enough either left or right for anything too drastic to ever happen due to the Democrats and the Republicans switching places in the White House.

I wasn’t happy while Clinton was in office and always wary about what would happen due to what he was or wasn’t doing, but I was never in a panic and never thought the planet was in trouble. This is somewhat funny to see the other side in an absolute panic because of Bush.

Slight? With mass illegal imprisonment, widespread torture, massive domestic eavesdropping, quelling of dissent? From center to extreme right, this is a slight change to you?!?

The world wasn’t in nearly as much trouble.

Bill Clinton was a d!ckhead, and, in a way, I blame him for our current state of affairs. He singlehandedly (single-organned-ly) cemented many people’s opinion against the democratic party with his philandering.

But Clinton was making science and the interchange of different viewpoints the basis of his decisions toward medical matters, the environment, dependence on foriegn oil, and especially global warming.

Bush & Co. had a chance to lead a push for true, meaningful fossil fuel conservation after 911, with his approval rating of 90%. Instead, they said things like “the jury’s still out on global warming” and “go out, spend, travel”. They prevented better mileage legislation which would have done much more for our country’s gluttonous oil dependence than all the oil in ANWAR and now we’re buying hybrids from overseas. This is all incredibly illogical, until you consider the alliances and close ties between the Bush family oil and arms partnerships with the Saudis (literally with Bin Laden’s relatives) via the Carlysle Group and the huge oil companies.

We’re now in a war in Iraq, not Afghanistan, (where Al Qaeda was centered), nor in Saudi Arabia, (one of the most oppresive regimes in the world who are financing Al Qaeda with our oil money). Again, please show me logic here, unless you consider that Mr. Cheney, by far the most powerful VP ever, has been planning to invade Iraq (2nd most oil of any nation) since they came to office in 2000. (He still won’t release details or attendees of his “energy task force” meetings.)

JC, this is why your support for Bush baffles me, as you are obviously extremely well-read and logic-minded in all (other) topics. If you respond to this post, please tell me the logic or reason you still support this approach to the foreign-oil dependence that is such a bane to the US.

Re: Clinton…
If you’re still reading this far down, please compare Bush & Co.'s actions, which have directly led to tens of thousands of deaths and otherwise ruined lives, to what you consider the worst thing Bill Clinton ever did.

I believe Mr. Childs will not repond to these statements backed by basically every peer-reviewed scientist in the world, except with generalities. Please, JC, explain away their statement in which the “scientists charged the Bush administration with widespread and unprecedented ‘manipulation of the process through which science enters into its decisions’”, or will you ignore the issue?

It is slight on the scale of politics. You’re acting like the right is some sort of extreme regime when actually they are so far within the bounds of american democracy that there is no need to worry about democracy falling apart or some destruction of government. Yes, there have been some lack of proper oversight and yes on what the government wants to do with the Patriot Act in the name of protecting us. But all that will balance out. The political game will play out and anything that is too extreme will get put in check. It is good to have the left keeping an eye out to make sure that the government doesn’t go too far in its desire to police and investigate and restrict our rights in the name of saving us from terrorists. The checks are working, and that’s good (and I support that).

Did you listen to right wing talk radio when Clinton was in office and when Kerry was running? They were piling on the issues to create a feeling a doomsday. Clinton was going to destroy the free market, plunge us into despair to save the environment, create a catastrophic foreign policy nightmare in North Korea and China and other areas by giving them technology that could be used to build better weapons and such. It was all quite a doomsday scenario. Much like the doomsday scenario you’re painting, only in reverse.

I’m not in a panic. I’m watchful and want to make sure that the checks and balances work to keep things within reason.

And yes, if Kerry was President now I’d probably be bellyaching especially with him getting appoint at least two Supreme Court justices.

ahem…

JC, your replies do not address the issue I asked you about, that is the manipulation of science and intelligence by the right to further their idealogies.

Right wing radio piled the doomsday charges onto Clinton. The charges against Bush are NOT the same, and do NOT come from “left wing radio”, which is all but non-existant.

People now painting the “doomsday pictures” are pretty much all the scientists in the world and many low and high ranking govt officials, including former staunch republicans from Bush’s own staff and cabinet, some there through the last 20 years, who quit when the stench grew too great.

Again, I noticed you avoiding the issues raised here, and just saying, yeah, well Clinton was bad, too.

Why won’t you compare Bush’s specific actions I’ve discussed here (repealing of environmental regs, stripping citizens of Constitutional rights, starting a war with already debunked intel) to actions by Clinton? There is no way you could win in such a debate, so your answers are general GOP talking points instead of substantial.

I don’t expect you to address real issues like these, but please prove me wrong and discuss mass illegal imprisonment, widespread torture, massive domestic eavesdropping, misuse of science, vote-fraud, and quelling of dissent.