Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

I really it when people talk about how George Bush is evil, or how everyting he does is wrong. Don't get me wrong, i'm very anti-Bush, a democrat all the way. But it REALLY es me off when people ONLY talk about how everything George Bush does is wrong, or how George Bush is the worst person ever. George Bush is just a bad president. George Bush is not made of concentrated evil, he is not going to destroy the world, and he is not the only thing worth talking about. And really, he's only got 3 years left, which is not that long, if you think about it.

I know i'm gonna get flamed, but i'm ready for it.

edit: I'm not talking about wiki people specifically, just the people i know in general.

_________________
hard work pays off later, but laziness pays off now.

Truthfully, if anyone should really hate Bush, it should be Republicans.
If you're a fan of Democrats, you should love George Bush. It's sounds counter-intuitive, but think about this for a second: How has your opinion of the Republican party changed since George Bush took office?

Seems that he's the best recruiting tool the Democrats could ever have. Every Republican candidate from now on is going to have to counter his opponent's "He's republican, that means he's in the same party as Bush. We all know what Bush did."

Personally, I don't think he's the worst president ever. He's nowhere near the top, though.
I DID like his stance on terrorism (the whole "take the fight to them before they bring it to you" thing), but he should come out and say that instead of coming up with all these other reasons that don't seem to pan out.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

I would concur, Jon. Pres. Bush has done some things I really wish he hadn't (particularly the current Iraq conflict), but he's not That Really Mean German Guy Whose Name You're Not Supposed To Say In Forums.

_________________

I do think Bush is far too much of a figure head for something which runs deeper.

But you have to look at it this way; the 90s were a very progressive time. We had our troubles and little wars, but ultimately there was peace and tolerance behind this.

Now, the 00's, George Bush is elected. Somehow, all the religious bigotry and uber-conservatism rears it's ugly head even stronger than before.

It's hard not to make a link.

Yep, it's pretty easy when you hate conservatives and everything they even think about standing for...

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

Every single post you make after mine is a complete exagerration and twisting of my words. I'm extremely tired of you. Did you even think before posting that? It's incredibly out of place, and if it was intended, it's just plain stupid.

How is it twisting you in any way? You've said almost those exact words..

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

This annoys me as well. Any president in office is going to have flaws and make mistakes. No one is perfect, and we shouldn't expect George to be perfect. Especially on issues that are debated both right and wrong.

Just shut up, I'm serious. I know people criticise me for saying things like shut up, but I can't post without you saying rubbish like that.

Woah, woah, woah! as the (unoficial) initiator of peace in the forums, i gotta stop this before a flame war breaks out, so StrongRad, your a good guy, but dont Target someone, Stalk them, and make a post after them just to point out their flaws or whatever, if your gonna add something to the Conversation, please make it nice. As for you Rosalie, your opinion can be expressed, but if someone makes a post after yours just twisting and contorting your words, just dont reply, no matter how much you want to, just dont. okay?
Toastpaint.

_________________

Let me say this, I have to agree fully with SR. Bush has made people dislike Republicans more. The thing is, the people that are now disliking Bush are not going to the Dems, they are starting to hate the Gov't for what is it : Corrupt.

I'm not saying that all politicians are corrupt, but there's a lot more going on that we don't know about. Everyone looks after themselves and not after the good of the Country. They get elected, then what do thet concern themselves with after that? Getting Re-elected.

I also have to agree with SR about the Rosalie thing. He makes valid points, and you just seem to instead ignore and insult the person instead.

_________________

well, i think the reason it is all stronger than before was because in the 90s people just didnt care what you thought, just as long as you get outta their way or move in the line. now a days, if you say something like "man, maybe Hitler shouldof invaded america, then we'd be better off", someone can just sue ou for that. now a days, anyone can sue anyone for anything, from the Smallest Remark, "Blonde Hair Doesnt look good on you" then they sue you because they say your being racist, to the Largest of things such as a murder, you can and will get sued. heres another example, You own a store, someone comes in and buys something from you, you hand them their receipt, and they get a paper cut. BAM! you just lost $65,000 and your store all from a little paper cut. i seriously think that all problems of today are just from Lawsuite Abuse, And not being able to say something that also means something that you dont mean.

_________________

I think Australians have the same problem with John Howard. He's doing everything wrong, but he's only just a bad PM. Not the Devil.

_________________

He's not a bad PM.
He's just the PM. Making fun of them is what they're for!

_________________
Guten tag, Johann, du riechst ganz richtig. Danke schon, Heidi. Und du auch. - A Bit of Fry and Laurie

...but he is also a bad PM.

_________________
"They've taken Mr Rimmer! Sir, they've taken Mr Rimmer!"
"Quick, let's get outta here before they bring him back!"

"Our troubles and little wars"? "Peace and tolerence"? You seem to have a unique gift to either exaggerate situations grossly or minimise them grossly - depending on whether they effect you personally. Ask the Rwandan Tutis whether the '90s were peaceful, tolerant times for them - and, more importantly, whether they had the West to thank for this "peace and tolerence". Ask the Israelis and Palestinians what the 90s brought by way of "peace and tolerance". Ask the Bosnian orphans and widows if they consider the Kosovo War to be a "little war" - or the Haitians, or Chechnyans. Seriously - the world is not black-and-white, you know.

On subject: it's probably likely that Bush will be know for his failures by future generations. Maybe exaggeration will be a part cause for this, but he and his administration has made some HUGE errors of judgment that you can't get away from. Starting with the Kyoto Agreement, the failure of intelligent surrounding Sept 11, and crashing into the Iraq conflict. I don't think they did that bad a job on Afghanistan, but that remains to be seen.

Anyone seen Hotel Rwanda? Excellent movie; makes you really think.

_________________

its because of hurrican Katrina
nickname: Blair

_________________

I'm gonna have to agree with Strong Rad, who really hit the nail on the head. As a Democrat, I realized what was going on as I read his post. George Bush has effectively pushed my views farther left. He is kind of a Democratic recruiting tool.


I was actually quite pleased with Afghanistan. I thought it was all going rather well. Of course, this was until Bush decided to direct his sword towards Iraq and almost push the Afghanistan issue off to the side.

_________________

Don't you think its pointless to discuss this though? You're stuck with him for 3 years.

And honestly, he isn't all that bad. Haven't heard a lot from him lately, aside from what was presented as that Katrina blunder (but which I think is just bull....he did what he could). I'm Canadian though, so what do I know.

_________________
-Krista

I said there were still troubles in the 90s, but the point is, we in the civilised world were moving forward. Now we've been set back so far. You can't honestly tell me that the 00s have been as productive as the 90s in terms of global politics.

Moving forward? Did you even READ her post?

_________________

Ask the Afghani men, women, and children that aren't under strict Taliban rule anymore how they feel about the "progress" of the 90's versus the progress since 2000..
Ask the Iraqis that don't have to worry about dying for criticizing their government anymore how they feel?
See how they feel.
There's just as much good as there is bad..

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

... did you even read mine?

I am talking about the western world moreso than anything - and even moreso, the fact that things, as a whole, are progressing. In any given era, there will be some kind of war and struggle. The 90s were still, as a whole, at least in the western world(Which means that within time, third world will follow suit) far more progressive than the 00s.

Afghanistan and Iraq are a mess. Those were terrible examples. You shouldn't have brought war into it, either, since half of your own country, and 90% of the rest of the world disagree with it.

Quite a lot, apparently.
That whole Katrina thing was just a cascade of errors. The administration was at fault (only in the sense that they didn't fix FEMA which is a system full of faults, but that's a WHOLE other topic that I don't have time to get into), but, given the situation and the unprecedented devastation, they didn't do too bad.
I've heard people say Bush should have built the levees in New Orleans stronger. Yes, he should have. So should Clinton, Bush Sr. Regan, Carter, Ford, Nixon... or, maybe, just maybe they shouldn't have built a city 20 feet below sea level.

Either way, though, I knew he was going to get blamed. He always does. What shocked me was how quick people were basically saying that, if he'd ratified the Kyoto treaty, this hurricane season would never have happened. There are so many problems with that, I don't know where to begin. It's another one of those things I don't have time to go into.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

Kyoto should have been implemented, but there is no way in hell it would have prevented this years hurricane season. I love how far some people will go to find a scapegoat.

_________________
-Krista

I can totally understand why Bush didn't implement Kyoto.
The treaty would have really ratcheted up the pressure on industries located in the US. The costs associated with that would have probably made it advantageous for companies to move to a country that didn't ratify.
One of the biggest things people have criticized Bush over is that secondary economic activities (manufacturing, etc) have moved overseas, meaning Americans are out of work. Had he signed it with that in mind, I would question his sanity even more.
I'm still not fully convinced that our industry is negatively affecting the environment (with respect to global temperature) all that much. The planet IS getting warmer, but it does that with or without us. (The Earth goes from a glaciation period, an "Ice Age" if you will, to a relatively ice free period and back). The real question is whether the CO2 and water vapor input(water vapor is magnitudes more important than CO2 wrt greenhouse effect) are causing us to warm faster than that natural "background" warming. The data are inconclusive and there are as many studies pointing one way as there are pointing another. Basically, we (atmospheric and earth science community) have wasted a lot of your money studying this, and can't tell you anything except that the planet isn't warming as fast as the expensive computer models tell us it should for a given amount of industrialization (which means that, either the models are wrong, something else is happening to remove carbon, or both).
Admittedly, there are a lot of times I don't really know what I'm talking about... This is not one of those times. I'm not an expert in the field, hurricane intensity models are my research area, but since this kinda thing ties in to that, I have to be versed in planetary temperature.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

Hey, I can understand why he didn't ratify, economically, as well. You may also be right about the emissions not promoting global warming.

I still think that Kyoto should have been ratified though. Big companies are going to relocate, regardless. It's all about money, and there will always be someone willing to cater to big business. The state of the environment right now is disgusting though. Something needs to be done, and Kyoto wasn't really asking for all that much.

_________________
-Krista

I don't think you realise how terrible Bush's economic policy is.

And I rather think that the condition of our environment, you know, the place we live in, is more important then these industries having to adapt to new methods. It's not so much about global warming as the fact that well, at the end of day, you're screwing yourselves over by polluting your air, seas, and whatever else ends up being tainted.

Another reason why extreme capitalism is dangerous.