do u like president bush?

i wanna kno do u like president bush are u a republican a democrat or do u have a ? for me?

I'd say I lean more republican however don't really agree with everything Bush has done. My question to you, is how old are you?

I'd say I lean more republican however don't really agree with everything Bush has done. My question to you, is how old are you?

I lean far more to the left, and I severely dislike our president.

See: http://zelaron.com/forum/showthread....highlight=Bush
and http://zelaron.com/forum/showthread....highlight=Bush for why.

i am on opposite end of the political compass that bush is on. so no, i do not like that man.

i'm against bush, for log cabin republicans

Not really.

I'm neither, and I don't like Bush that much.

But I do believe he is the best person for the job.

Best person? Are you joking?

I'm a moderate or a centrist, whatever you want to call it.

I dislike Bush strongly, but I hate no one.

That's like saying an elderly woman is the best candidate for the Nascar champion.

I can't say which way I lean, but I can say that I don't like Bush.

And he was the right candidate for the original job... but now he's overstayed his welcome.

Would Gore or Kerry have done what he has done? Sure, he might have gone a bot over the top, but early on in his terms he did what seemed to be right.

I don't agree with sticking with one side on every issue anymore. Back a few years ago I would have said I'm republican, but I think my views have matured a bit more to where I don't have to go along with everything everyone else says. There's no way to have a completely republican or completely democratic view on every hot topic out there, at least not to the point that there would be two parties that all have the same opinions. I personally think gay marriage and abortion are two completely different topics and my opinion on those should not be based on what party I would consider myself a part of.

As for Bush, I don't really like him myself, but he was the lesser of two evils of the last election. In times of war I'd rather have a president who might make bad decisions rather than a president who makes no decisions at all.

"Times of war?"

There IS NO WAR. We are occupying a nation

The whole fiasco would not have occured if Bush was not President.


The lesser of two evils bullshit is spouted off way too much by people whose heads are so far up their asses that they blindly refuse to look beyond the two-party slave system that has been so nicely forced down our throats by money-grubbing evil plutocrats.

The fact that you gladly succumb to their thought process by only considering two possible candidates whom THEY CHOOSE FOR YOUR VOTE TO NOT MATTER ON (ahem, electoral college 2000 election) should alarm you somewhat.

When did this become a discussion about the election system?

I've said before I think the electoral college is bullshit. The fact is, in the last election, the only two people who had a chance of winning were Bush and Kerry, whether I like that or not, one of those two was going to be the winner. Is that my fault?

If one of two people is going to win, why vote for a 3rd who has no chance? You'd be better off not voting at all.

As for this "fiasco" not occuring if Bush were never president, what do you think Kerry would have done differently? He's said on two different occasions that he'd both support sending more troops and that he was against the war or some bullshit. Kerry has probably never said what he actually feels, he says what he thinks people want him to say. That doesn't mean he would act in that way.

In the beginning, Bush made the right choice. He couldn't sit idly by while our country was being threatened by terrorism. Anyone would have had a hard time dealing with that right after being elected president. The problem is how he has dealt with things since. The war on terrorism has gone on far too long, too many lives have been lost.

Tell me Grav, if there is no war, why do we lose soldiers every day? Why does the death toll keep rising? There is a war.

We're not just occupying Iraq just to say "haha you losers we own you." We couldn't just go in and destroy their government and then leave them hanging. If we had left right away, things would have gone back just how they were.

We should have done things other than occupy. What's wrong with reform within the Iraqi armed forces? What's wrong with letting Saddam have had a fair trial in Geneva in front of a completely unbiased and untouchable human rights court? Why send him to his death in such an undignified manner, AND on the holiest day of the year.

We may have toppled one of the worlds greatest modern dictators, but we didn't need to go and make a complete hash of everything for the next 3 years.

K_A has a point. In the beginning we were starting out right. I myself was Republican at the time before the 2004 elections ever occurred. Bush did what he thought was right and I supported, and still support, going to Afghanistan to route out the Taliban, though now they're regaining power because we've spent way too much of our effort in the idiocy that is Iraq.

But I believe the war would've been justified if he had just been honest about it and actually had a real reason to go to Iraq, not some lameass "WMDS!" "They tried to kill my daddy." or "THEY HAVER TIES TO AL-QAEDA!"

When did this become a discussion about the election system? I've said before I think the electoral college is bullshit. The fact is, in the last election, the only two people who had a chance of winning were Bush and Kerry, whether I like that or not, one of those two was going to be the winner. Is that my fault? If one of two people is going to win, why vote for a 3rd who has no chance? You'd be better off not voting at all. As for this "fiasco" not occuring if Bush were never president, what do you think Kerry would have done differently? He's said on two different occasions that he'd both support sending more troops and that he was against the war or some bullshit. Kerry has probably never said what he actually feels, he says what he thinks people want him to say. That doesn't mean he would act in that way. In the beginning, Bush made the right choice. He couldn't sit idly by while our country was being threatened by terrorism. Anyone would have had a hard time dealing with that right after being elected president. The problem is how he has dealt with things since. The war on terrorism has gone on far too long, too many lives have been lost. Tell me Grav, if there is no war, why do we lose soldiers every day? Why does the death toll keep rising? There is a war. We're not just occupying Iraq just to say "haha you losers we own you." We couldn't just go in and destroy their government and then leave them hanging. If we had left right away, things would have gone back just how they were.

There is no real war on terrorism. It is really just a false metaphor used as an excuse to curb our liberties. And why are people dying every day?

Hmmmm... because

-Our country is on such a downward slope that many young people feel forced into joining the military as a way out?
-The complete lack of education and excruciatingly low standards set in this country compound the problem? This is no coincidence. We are being dumbed down because it makes us easier to control. The average level of intelligence and just competence in general is becoming painfully low.
-The Bush family has been in bed with Saudi Arabian royalty for decades? Did you know that Saddam was the biggest enemy of said royalty? They hated him passionately. Is it a mystery why both Bush presidents have sent soldiers to die to fight him? Oh, "WMDs." Right.

I am probably not going to even give you a response after this one because it just makes me so seethingly angry that "intelligent" people such as yourself fall for this shit this hook line and sinker that I get a headache.

I feel that we focus too much on extracurricular activities instead of the actual education itself in schools. We need reform and not have money thrown at it. We need to actually try and get back to the way we once were.

Also, enlighten me more about the Saudis and Bush family. I'm truly intrigued now.

Short answer:

No, hes absolutely terrible. He should have never been put in power, and he has put the United States in a place where it shouldn't be and probably won't get out of for a long time, unless they pull their act together real quick.

A democratic house of representatives and senate is the first step though. At least some changes are being made.

Short answer: No, hes absolutely terrible. He should have never been put in power, and he has put the United States in a place where it shouldn't be and probably won't get out of for a long time, unless they pull their act together real quick. A democratic house of representatives and senate is the first step though. At least some changes are being made.

ZOMG, JAMES!