Bush

[mooglekexin]

Originally Posted by Gri77oN

that's why i think we should unite.

i say the opposite, split up into communites, destoy the word country, just communites romaing about the world where they please with their own laws, if deemed necessary by the groups

[Natural Mystic]

you cant have 'communities' with their own laws.. thats the same thing as a country isn't it? and their would still be punishments if these laws were broken.

i think the world needs a common goal, a world vision that would make everyone happy

[mooglekexin]

i will explai this when i can type better in the morning in mer detail

[TXweed]

ok so here is the deal thread starter buddy....you may have realized that most people on grass city are very liberal or well at least anti-bush/anti-conservative. i applaud you for staying true to your political convictions. its hard to stick to something when everyone

else is running the other way and hopping on the bandwagon agaist bush.
most people on this forum stick to their guns and boast strong liberal claims against bush. if you are of the mindset of something other than a bleeding heart liberal and express your view on the forum you are likely to be shot down in some kind of way typical of the "understanding and concerned liberal" who claims to be open-minded.

well here is my question above all other questions brought up in this tread so far...if most of you liberals are so open-minded and so in tune with americas political heartbeat, than how come i keep on hearing so many claim "i dont know why someone would vote for bush?"

i think i have a pretty good grasp why kerry voters voted left in the last election. so whats so hard, why cant yall answer your own question. im not giving any hints....just do your liberal thing, think real hard, grasp the concept, understand it, and accept it...whether you like it or not. I, a mere bush voter, have managed to digest most of yalls bull shit and understand your line of thinking. so next time dont ask dumb questions or make dumb claims, and understand this one thing i would have expected such "compassionate and actualized people” to have grasped....people have different views and they need to be respected….so don’t diss bush supporters, I don’t diss you.

[Butter]

I don't dislike bush, cause I don't know him. But I disagree with his ways... His oil company got rich off of laden's brother and then his brother dies in a freak accident in the states... in a plane crash he was flying.. his brother had very good experience in flying, a very good pilot... and we train bin laden to be a cia technician and train his men and give them money and weapons to win a war and then we piss them off somehow not sure exactly... im assuming its because america stepped in their holy land (not sure) and they attack us and "I BELEIVE" bush retaliates(sp?) (to try to cover up his some what of an alliance((my opinion)) with the laden family)... so no I don't dislike him just dont agree with his ways nor trust him too much.. and fear him, never... there is a difference between distrust and fear... but everything could just be conspiracy theory... kennedy, martin luther king, lincoln... i could go on but..... i cant think of alot of this just off hand...

[Grim Bongmaster]

Originally Posted by stoned_nate

why does everyone hate him so bad. i really like him and i am very much a republican in everythikg i do almost. LIke i really like hunting and fishing and my family is farmers and ranchers but yea i dont see why everyone hates him so bad

He sold out fiscal conservatives..
He destroyed our bill of rights with the patriot act...

Here is an article that can explain it far better than I ever could

The monarchization of America under Bush



by Bill Winter



[Review of "The Bush Betrayal," by James Bovard. 330 pages. Published by Palgrave Macmillan. Hardbound, $26.95. Available at: Amazon.com.]

The Chicago Tribune once described humorist P.J. O'Rourke as "a trophy hunter let loose in an unguarded zoo." They should have saved that description for James Bovard.

In his new book, The Bush Betrayal, Bovard opens fire on President George W. Bush with a thunderous barrage of facts and revelations that proves, beyond any doubt, that Bush has broken every small-government promise he ever made, and has shattered any credibility his Republican lackeys in Congress have for claiming to be a party of "limited government."

The premise of the book is simple: Bush is a terrible president who is savagely shredding the liberties of the American people.

As Bovard writes in the first chapter: "Bush is expanding federal power and stretching prerogatives in almost every area that captures his fancy."

Sure, Bush loves to talk about "freedom." But, as Bovard acerbically notes, "Bush is as qualified to speak about freedom as former President Clinton is to speak about chastity."

You want specifics? The only question is where to start, because the "unguarded zoo" that is the Bush Administration is a target-rich environment for Bovard. Here's a sample of the Bush Administration's big-government crimes:

* On stifling dissent: Bush's Secret Service detail arrested or detained peaceful American protesters who made the mistake of carrying "No War for Oil" or other anti-Bush signs at Bush campaign appearances in Arizona, California, Connecticut, Michigan, New Jersey, New Mexico and Texas. As Bovard notes, the Secret Service has now apparently been relegated to suppressing "any affront to the dignity of the supreme ruler."

* On free trade: Despite claiming that he is a "fierce free trader," Bush slapped a 30 percent tariff on imported steel in 2002. One consulting firm estimated that the move destroyed eight American manufacturing jobs for every one steel-producing job it saved. But as Bovard notes, the tariff was never about fair trade -- it was about "the president's own political advantage," since some steel-producing states were up for grabs in the 2004 election.

* On education reform: Bush claimed that his No Child Left Behind (NCLB) program, which mandated standards and testing for local schools, was "the boldest plan to improve our public schools in a generation." However, Bovard notes that the law only requires schools to improve their "baseline" standards -- so most states immediately dumbed-down their existing standards so they could easily show future gains. For example, the NCLB baseline standard set in Delaware required only 33 percent of children to test at grade-level in math. NCLB also required states to identify "dangerous" schools. So, New York politicians mandated that 5 percent of a student body had to be suspended for weapons violations before a school could be declared "dangerous." Such standards, notes Bovard, "practically guarantee no school would be found guilty." Needless to say, NCLB also came with a hefty price tag. At various times, Bush boasted that he had increased federal spending on education by 36 percent or 49 percent.

* On continuing the Clinton legacy: Bush has been the #1 fan of former president Bill Clinton's AmeriCorps program, which pays people $16,000 a year in cash and benefits to "volunteer." Bush increased funding for the program -- whose employees engage in such vital civic activities as organizing gay proms at high schools, paying children a $5 bounty for toy guns, and recruiting people for food stamp programs -- by more than $120 million in 2004.

* On government subsidies: During his 2000 campaign, Bush claimed to support a "market-driven approach" to agriculture. So, when he became president, he signed a bill that earmarked an additional $50 billion in federal handouts to farmers over 10 years. The bill funneled two-thirds of that money to the richest 10 percent of farmers, and will, by one estimate, cost every American family $4,377 over the coming decade in higher taxes and inflated food costs.

* On government-run health care: In 2003, Bush pushed through Congress a $400 billion-a-year Medicare bill to provide prescription drugs to seniors. (More accurate estimates later said the annual cost would actually be $576 billion.) Bovard notes that the program is the "worst financial blow Medicare ever suffered" -- and pushed Medicare's bankruptcy forward by seven years, to 2019.

* On the government's failure to stop the 9/11 terrorist attacks: After the attacks, Bush claimed that no one "could envision flying airplanes into buildings." But Bovard notes that "in the previous few years, the CIA had issued several warnings that terrorists might fly commercial airplanes into buildings or cities."

* On spying on Americans: Bush enthusiastically endorsed the USA Patriot Act, which expanded the federal government's ability to read your e-mail, search your home without notifying you, obtain a list of the books you checked out at your local library, and subpoena information from businesses without a court order. Bush's hand-picked attorney general, John Ashcroft, explained that the USA Patriot Act protects what he called "ordered liberty." Bovard disagrees, and writes, "The only way to reconcile the Patriot Act with freedom is to assume that unjustified government intrusions into people's lives are irrelevant to freedom."

* On extra-Constitutional powers: On November 13, 2001, Bush signed an executive order giving himself the power to designate Americans as "enemy combatants" and put them on trial before secret military tribunals -- with no right to appeal. The move, which stripped Americans of their Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Amendment rights to a fair trial, was necessary to fight terrorism, Bush declared. In fact, Bovard counters, if Bush can, by imperial decree, deprive Americans of fundamental civil liberties at his whim, it means the president is no longer "bound by the Constitution." And that, ultimately, is more dangerous than any terrorist.

That's not all: The Bush Administration also launched a campaign to arrest medical marijuana users; proclaimed Thailand a "force for good" after its government ordered police to execute 2,700 suspected drug dealers (and innocent civilians) without trials; federalized airport security at a cost to taxpayers of more than $10 billion; helped cover up the brutal beating of dozens of post-9/11 detainees in U.S. prisons; and signed the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act, which made it illegal for Americans to engage in certain kinds of free speech in federal elections.

By the way, Bovard doesn't just make these claims; he documents them. If some of his allegations seem unbelievable, just check the 42 pages of footnotes -- it's all there.

Add up all of the president's anti-freedom actions, and you can't help but to agree with Bovard when he writes: "The monarchization of America is proceeding by leaps and bounds under Bush."

As I read The Bush Betrayal, I thought about the group called "Libertarians for Bush," which supports the president's re-election. After finishing the book, I am tempted to write to them and encourage them -- in the interest of accuracy -- to change their name to "Libertarians for Massive Government." As Bovard makes clear, any Libertarian who votes for George W. Bush is voting for a bloated, expensive, un-Constitutional, civil liberties-smashing, anti-free trade, pro-Drug War federal leviathan. Could you please explain to me how any so-called "libertarian" could support that?

There's almost nothing to quibble about in this book. Yes, Bovard does recycle Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 claim that Bush sat in a Florida classroom with a "deer-in-the-headlights" look after being informed of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. So what? I would prefer that Bush sat and did nothing -- if our choice was the barrage of un-Constitutional measures that followed once he stood up. Why waste time criticizing Bush for the one time he didn't do something bad?

But, wisely, Bovard sticks to the important issues most of the time. And it's that relentless focus on Bush's war against freedom that makes this book so shocking, eye-opening, and important.

With The Bush Betrayal, Bovard cements his claim as America's journalistic superman -- fighting for truth, justice, and the American way of freedom and limited government. We may have been stuck with George W. Bush for four years, but at least we have Bovard on our side.

And that evens the odds just a bit.

[About the author: Bill Winter is communications director for the Advocates for Self-Government. From 1997 to 2004, Winter was editor of LP News.]


..this is why I hate bush...don't get me wrong kerry was worse...so I voted libertarian.

[mooglekexin]

Originally Posted by TXweed

if you are of the mindset of something other than a bleeding heart liberal and express your view on the forum you are likely to be shot down in some kind of way typical of the "understanding and concerned liberal" who claims to be open-minded.

he asked what was wrong with him, we are explaining.

[Gri77oN]

Originally Posted by TXweed

I, a mere bush voter, have managed [...] ....people have different views and they need to be respected….so don’t diss bush supporters, I don’t diss you.

no you don't , but bush, him DOES.

"will help spread freedom, will use force if necessary"

the guy you vote for doesn't have the same tolerance you have.
he /seems/ (which in turn seems to be enough for you) to but doesn't.

---

i wouldn't mind if you'd open up a thread trying toexplain to us the WHY.

why did you vote for bush . (new thread, please)

[stoned_nate]

if someone is goin to attack us i think that we should retaliate somehow just to show that we are not going to put up with it. If they attacked us and we did nothing what is gonna stop them from doing it again

[Gilligan]

Nate. we are attacking an ideal, a philisophy. Like the cold war. Iraq is a part of a bigger war. We didnt pay enough attention and didnt think these types of people could pull of a great attack on us, they did, now we pay more attention. We went to afg. and took out the taliban. Then, we had, what we though was creditable evidence that said Saddam had WMDs. We, after 9/11, are paying more attention to these types of things. Saddam has used them before, all evidence showed he had developed them and could start re-manufactirung them at the drop of a dime. We went in to over throw someone, which should have been done 10 years prior, but the UN held us back. He toyed with their sanctions, paid them off, so we decided, like John Wayne said "a mans gotta do what a mans gotta do". Sure, we didnt find WMDS, but we stop a humanitarian crisis and are in the process of setting up a stable, free-election type govt in Iraq.

People hate him for this reason. Democrats have 0 power. They have a minority in congress. They have a rep president who will appoint more conservative judges. They dont like his forign policy. You can disagree with someone. but i have never seen this kind of hatred towards a man, who cant do dick without congressional opproval anyway.

Bush is like the cops. Everyone hates them and are scared of them. But if your not doing anything wrong, theres nothing to be sacred of.

Whats to stop Bush from bombing another country people like Gri770N ask? Well, dont commit humanitarian crisis, dont rule your people through fear, dont harbor or aid terrorist, then you have nothing to worry about.

The only ones scared of the cops are the ones hiding something or the ones who are guilty......

My personal view of Bush, I like his doctrine, we have the power to do it and do not need to consult a currupt organization to do it. I like his Tax-Cuts. Ony 2 qualities ilike about him. I voted for Bednarik. In a 2 party system, i support Bush over Kerry because i support Conservatism over Liberalism.

Vote Libertarian, Greene, Whatever you want if they agree with your rights, by this, we can ruin the Monopoly system we are currently in.

[Grim Bongmaster]

Originally Posted by Gilligan

The only ones scared of the cops are the ones hiding something or the ones who are guilty......

...that's everyone on this forum....

[Gri77oN]

actually if you read Patriot Act, that's /anyone/ .

but as long as anyone is not yourself....

[Gilligan]

Originally Posted by Grim Bongmaster

...that's everyone on this forum....

I was refering to forign nations who are scared of Bush's "New World Order."

I dont like the man much myself, the reasons being his stances on social issues and privacy. I persoanlly am not scared of the man (govt). I would hope they have bigger fish to catch than busting me with an 1/8th.

I just think Bush gets way, way more than his share of blame and criticism. People make up lies and get violently mad over him. That, and i went to military college for 2 years, lived near an air force base my entire life, have many, many friends in service who all tell me how much the media portrays them as losing, and show only the grim, grizzly pictures, and never anything positive. I have seen pictures and videos of things from aftermath ro reconstruction. To the areas, many areas the media doest talk about, with little or no violence. So i like what the military does, and i respect anyone who makes that sacrafice, because it is not for me. Im way, way, way too much of a smart ass and i cant take orders without knowing why i am doing something. I feel alot of the critics, espically abroad, get a slanted view of what is going on there. Most of them have noone on the ground there, so it leaves one to wonder exactly how they know so much about it.

Fuck the Police.

[Mutant Monkey]

Originally Posted by stoned_nate

if someone is goin to attack us i think that we should retaliate somehow just to show that we are not going to put up with it. If they attacked us and we did nothing what is gonna stop them from doing it again

The "intelligence" (?) used to justify the attack against Iraq was bullshit , no WMD have been found , Bush is only interested in forcing others to live according to the US ideal.
Then of course you have the refusal to sign the Kyoto treaty.
The links between the Bush family and various regimes (nazis among others).
Plus the man is an absolute idiot in public.
The following quote being a perfect example.
"I think if you know what you believe, it makes it a lot easier to
answer questions. I can't answer your question."
—In response to a question about whether he wished he could take back any of his answers in the
first debate. Reynoldsburg, Ohio, Oct. 4, 2000 (Thanks to Peter Feld.)

More??

http://www.bushisms.com/index1a.html#List
http://bushbodycount.com/list.php