President Bush - Great pres or bad pres ?

Earthfirst · 2002-09-26 20:06:38

Yes bush has been a great president!!!

Dayton3 · 2002-10-09 17:02:46

Yes, President Bush has been a good President. Even before the war on terror began

nebob2 · 2002-10-09 20:49:27

Bush has proven himself static and resistant to change. He proposes spending hundreds of billions on threats his OWN intelligence agencies say are non-existant during a time of decreasing reciepts. He pushed massive tax cuts and other expenditures supposedly paid with by a surplus which never existed, when the governemt could no longer afford such cuts, Bush's origonal argument was conveniently forgoten. He argued for the unilateral aproach for Iraq before even trying to go to the UN, pissing everyone off in advance, and gureenteing no international support. He supported librarians spying on those who checked out books, and has frequnetly tried to trample on state's rights, something he ran on, when those states' decisions are not part of his doctrine. A wally gee-good job!

Shaun Barrett · 2002-10-10 00:27:06

My God, what a question to ask at New Mars!!

I can already hear our resident politicians rummaging in their closets for their soap boxes!

If they can extricate themselves from the razor fights going on in other Topics, they'll be into this one like rats up a drainpipe!

P.S. Just kidding around .... no offence intended!

clark · 2002-10-22 13:12:53

Good president?

What has he done that is so good? Massive tax cut before a looming (and known) recession? Perhaps ill advised, but I was mighty happy to spend my $300 dollars- you know, doing my part as a Patriotic Consumer- at least that is what he told us to do. Yeah, there was that other suggestion about 2yrs worth of community service, but the way I figure it, I'll just keep spending money and count it as "just doing my American part"...

Is He a good pres or a bad pres, bah! As if simplifying the issues, the problems, the history, or the situation into such simple terms would do us any good, or any service. The President, any president, is ONE citizen, serving ALL citizens.

What does that MEAN?

It means that if you feel he is doing poorly, it is your JOB, your DUTY, your RESPONSIBILITY to make it known how, why, and where you disagree. It means you have to pull the strings, ie your Represenative, and let them know they must use their constutional powers to fufill their duty to you and OUR country, politcal party be damned. It means you don't get to be a sheep anymore.

If you think that Bush, and our government are doing well, and that things are peachy, I suggest you turn over, and go back to sleep like a good sheep- ewe are either one of the lucky few who are empowered by actions that limit us as a whole, or you just don't care.

America was, is, and should always be, founded on a natural distrust of government and the actions it engages in, always.

Why do lemmings run into the sea, more than likely: they trust that one leading the way knows best. And where did that get them?

See you at the bottom of the cliff.

Earthfirst · 2002-10-23 11:34:30

Some of you people out there are still mad about the election, that whole mess down in Florida. I have one thing to say to you get over it!! That hapened two years ago already and if you think the that Hillary clinton will run in 04 you are not too far out to think that. Maybe she could use the secert service to keep track of Bill, whats that saying when themaster is out the cats will play. Any ways back to the election you cliam that gore would of won if there was an recount or a reelection, that might not of happened. If you want to get into lost votes what about the millions of milatary votes that were not counted, or how boxes of bush votes ended up in lake Michigan?? I bet if you dive off the peirs in chicgo with a metal detector in could find boxes of votes for Nixin, Bush senior, Berry Goldwater "dont get me started on how he was ceated @#$%#*!@3 opps I held the shift key" in 1963 election. Any ways Mayer Dailey and the fedral voting ensecptor(the DNC) Know what happen to the bush votes. If you look at a map of countys that voted for bush and gore, it was over whelming how many went for bush almost sold red across the nation for bush. The only places were gore won waas in the big citys on both costs, in my veiw a few extermist sould not decied for the rest of the nation. Maybe we could give Californa and New York there Independence so that they could only srew them selfs up. As far as they are concerned the area in between Southern Californa and new York is only fly over territory, they think that the rest of the nation is filled with rednicks and cowboys. Well they are even dumer than than the worest setrotype Hillbilly you can thank of. Like in the the Bevery Hillbillys they thought that the clampest were well hillbillys but they knew more about policatics and philosy than the Hollywood elit could ever invent. For example Hollywood actors are alwise pushing there exterme left veiw on policts every one but Charlston Heston. They act like they have a doctorist degree in history or Religion and spot there hate of bush and America. Like Modona, she thinks that her views on life should matter to other people like just because she knews how to strip and be sexy. As if realy mattered the news shows them mouthing off the man how has one of the hardest jobs in the world. "Being president" Its a free country and they can say what ever they want no matter how uneducated they are about it, if they dont like America and think that we are gulity of so many war crimes than why dont they move to Irag in see how long Sadam would put up with them? :0 :angry: I knew that most actors and other left people dont get very far in school most of them barly finish high school, were they paying attention in history class and governtment no the were asleep dream about being a movie star. Beside they hire spend doctors to come up with there crazy ideas, they are not even smart egough to have own ideas. ???
Well they can take there idea with them to Irag and levy America to those who love it. Gore can lead them since they dont balive that bush dint win, and like the wore of Babolyon they will be lead to Armageon to there deaths and the good will asend into the heavens. "Revolations" They an d the false profit and gods will burn in the lake of fire lead to it on the back of the beast they worship.
Not to get to holy but it proves my point that they think that they are holy than thou too. That attitude was express win many hollywood insider side that many be should not count the votes in middle America the all are racist rednicks that are not enlighting by the Dolly Loma. They dont that they are wrong, Rosa o doland or some other actress said that. Like when the Damond Backs won the world series last year Rosa said that New York was ceated and desiverd to win! What ever that team was called the come go back to there rednick State where they belong!!!!!"She realy said that, even David lettern congelguted the Dbacks and he in New York!!!
:angry: If have gotten this far you may of notice that I dont like the Hollywood elit who belittle the common man in America
Arizona is a great State and so is Californa and Upper New York state is too. Some day if they are not carful they will aleinate the people who suport them and go out of businse.
Gore Is a loser and nothing could have ever change that, dont count on him in 04 he will lose to some other democrat. Get over it already, and give middle America the support it deseire because with out it there would be NO AMERICA TO SPEAK OF!!!!!

clark · 2002-10-23 12:59:31

Rant much?

Byron · 2002-10-23 14:10:40

It means that if you feel he is doing poorly, it is your JOB, your DUTY, your RESPONSIBILITY to make it known how, why, and where you disagree. It means you have to pull the strings, ie your Represenative, and let them know they must use their constutional powers to fufill their duty to you and OUR country, politcal party be damned. It means you don't get to be a sheep anymore.

Thanks for saying that clark...that's exactly how I feel...

The REAL problem in this country is that people are so apathetic that they don't even bother to crack a newspaper, let alone take an active role in the political process of this nation. This country belongs to ALL its citizens, and it is the duty and responsibility of everyone to make sure our leaders are doing their job properly...even if you didn't vote for them in the first place.

Without active participation of its citizens, democratic countries have a tendency to wither and fall into decay...so if you don't like what Bush, or any other leader is doing....get off your duff and DO something about it...

B

Palomar · 2002-10-23 14:34:12

*I'm voting for Tony Blair in 2004.

Oh, don't tell me he can't run for US Presidency because he's British. I don't care, we'll throw that paltry little rule right out the window. We need a handsome man in the Oval Office!

--Cindy

"BLAIR FOR PRESIDENT!"

clark · 2002-10-23 14:40:14

We need a handsome man in the Oval Office!

Perhaps the men in this country shoul reevaluate a certain ammendment passed at the turn of the century...

And Byron, couldn't agree with you more.

Byron · 2002-10-23 14:51:22

*I'm voting for Tony Blair in 2004.
Oh, don't tell me he can't run for US Presidency because he's British. I don't care, we'll throw that paltry little rule right out the window. We need a handsome man in the Oval Office!
--Cindy
"BLAIR FOR PRESIDENT!"

No need to do that Cindy...chances are the handsome Senator John Edwards from North Carolina will be running for President in '04..and from I hear of him, he'll make an excellent candidate...

B

Earthfirst · 2002-10-28 10:56:58

I may rant much only because in america we have nothing else to do, beside protesting, I think american have that trend because we have it so good here. Like last Sunday when I went with my family to go see president Bush at a political event in support of the arizona state governer race. He gave a great speech on terr and told the people that if the Un does not do its job it might become like the leage of nations. He had good points and the crowd loved hom, which was a good thing since the Repulicans are lock in a close battle with the democrats for control of the state, and the Senate. I hope that come Nov 5 Matt Salmon will be the next governer.
When I was leving the event protesters were blocking the exits and the police had to keep them from entering the theather. The protesters had sings saying that Bush wants blood for oil, Bush Lies, Bush is a@#!*, and Bush is a terrorst.
The protesters were waring black hoods, and Bush masks with sawthicas on the fore heads. Not very classisy people if you ask me. They claim that they were peace protest, but the hickkle the people leaving the event surrounding them and trying to start a fight. When you werent looking they would kick you and spit on you, I being a gentlmen got in and told them to pick on some one the own size rather then old ladys. I ask them would they use that kind of langue around there own mother? They call me a @#%^$ "I leave up to you imagation" so I grab there signs and tore them up. In my veiw they were just grandstanding for the tv camerous. To teach them a leasin I got some pigs blood and moter oil and mix it together, I went right up to the people with the no blood for oil and therw it at them and told them to go back to mill Aveanue, or california. I ask them were they are form, they said San Fransico, then what are you doing in Arizona you dont represent the state or the people!!!! They said they represented the America, I told them bull the rep pothead loser with nothing to do but call old ladys drity names!!!!
I told them to go to Irag and see if sadam would put up with them, the declinced. Anyways needless to say the were pissed and said that I was sick, and I said bac"yeah the whole world is crazy everyone but you". Well then I got out of there before the could attack me.
Its like I say Americans rant and protest because they have things so good, and the are protected under the consitution. I remine them it protects there right to free speech not verable attacking people on the street. Some of you brittish might know what I am talking about when it comes to ungreatful anarches "pothead losers with nothing else to do".
Maybe bush could bring back the draft, the Marine and army would strighten them out in five minutes, but why would they want to waste their time on them anyways??
Have you people run into the same group in other countrys?
I think some rich leftist pay to fly them around the world to any event that deals with the president or the worl bank, because as far as I could tell most people in arizona are happy with the president, I think that I say the same people in other protest in th news in other parts of the nation.
Well I quess That I am Done ranting for to day, Or am I!!!

clark · 2002-10-28 11:12:14

Earthfirst, by all means, keep talking. I can see now that you do your cause and your personal beliefs a great service by advocating your position in such an eloquent and thoughtful manner. I for one am finding myself swayed to believe in the legitmacy of certain casues as I hear your wisdom.

While Arizona representation should ultimetly be determined by the fine people of Arizona, the majority of whom saw the sense in allowing the medical use of marijuana (are you one of them by the way?) and not just regular "pothead" use, don't you think that people demonstrating at a function featuring the Supreme Court appointed President of the United States is perfectly valide if they are from somewhere in America? Bush afterall represents all of America, not justhe fine State of Arizona. And I might add, isn't it rather compelling that all of these individuals not from Arizona are willing to take the time and energy to go to Arizona to demonstrate for their beliefs? Isn't that ACT the very basis of being American and the exercise of our enshrined rights? While physcial violence can hardly be condoned, and physical altercations are not neccessary, why would you resort to the behavior of the lowest comon denominator? People smart enough tend to put together an argument and rationale for why they belive what they do- soem even scream it to be heard. Those less blessed with the intellect, or patience, to verbalize and explain their position tend to be more inclined to break things, or others in a childish attempt to silence what they have a hard time disproving.

Something to think about at the next rally I suppose. Good luck.

Earthfirst · 2002-10-29 21:48:32

To Clark you seem to be well educated, well spoken, and aware of current events. You even seem to know about the last of the 48 to enter the union, most people would not even know were Arizona is on a map much less are neighbor to the east New Mexico.
To your Question about Prop 102(medical pot) the arizona state legistater did away with the first law that passed some years ago. This is the second time around for medical pot. If I was old egough to vote the first time the prop came around I would of voted no, Like I did to the current one on the ballot. I voted early by mail in ballot, if you are wondering.
The same people that were protesting the president and being very rude I might add, are also the ones behinde the medical pot. Mostly they are are pothead losser from down on mill Avanue, Its in Tempe near AUS main campus but they are not students. In my experince they are out of state run aways from Califronia, Ministoa, and all those other back water states. They come to Arizona because well we are gengerouse people and a person here can make a good living of beging. There hang around Mill avanue hasling stundents and others for money to buy drugs and stuff. Recently the major of Tempe kick them out but they are still around.
I see medical pot as just the first part of there plan to totaly legalize drugs. By pulling at are hreat stings to help the sick and the dieing. They have all ready succeded in San franisco, big surprise there. They have turn a great city into a sess pool, when I visted the city two years ago the city was dirty full of crim, homeless people, and others you know. Although I was impressed with the citys history and archutexter the rest of the city I was disspleased. I expected it to be better than it was.
Anyways back to medical pot, be legitaizing it in the minds of the people it will make it easyer for them to except total legalization. It may be easy to suker the good hreated out there in desetorying the social sturcture of are nation, but the hole idea that just because the citzeens of state want to have pot and pass a law making legal its not. If you remeber back to government class federal law supper secides all state laws. That means until the federal law against pot is removed or legalize by a bill in both houses of congress and is signed into law by the president, or a 2/3rds vot in the senate happpens. Any law pass by the state in legalization cant happen, so they can keep passing there medical pot props all they want its still ilegal under federal law, and any one who acts under any pot prop will be charged under the full power of federal law and be sent to jail. Even if the Democrats keep the senate and win the house, and senator Edwards becomes president. I dont think even urder such a event medical pot would pass, remeber that they have to be reelected and many democrats dont support legalization, and dont for get Republicans will still be there fighting every effort.
I think that they should go back were they come from they are given the state of Arizona a bad name, pretty soon people will start to think that we are part of the left costs.
Clark are you colleged educated, If so were did you go
and what degrees did you get? You problely a engeiger right?
Not to brag but my dad got a PHD from ASU in history, a seminarly degree from Osberg college in Minisota, and a Blecher degree from New Mexico state. He hastaught me a lot of what I know, and has influenced my veiws.
As a stundent in colleged my self I hope to become as well educated.

CalTech2010 · 2002-11-27 21:17:54

Now that the SDI system is on its way, all of those little satellites will need to be launched into orbit. That will spur a need for faster, cheaper, and better rockets (NASA goal). After we've mass produced a few hundred of those babies, who knows what we'll have left over for the space program. :0

I think the SDI and its innoventions will be a great way for NASA to piggy-back into space.

AltToWar · 2002-11-29 20:29:06

After we spend 100s of billions of dollars on SDI, NASA will have techniques for building $50,000 toilet seats down to a much more reasonable $39,950!

PaganToris · 2002-11-30 00:15:39

Well see me i thank that well i know we dont like the middle east becuse of september 11th but Bushs dad his main idea was to take out sadam who saying or what ever his name is and now becuse bush wants to fo fill his dads dream hes gonna do the same thing i mean dont get me wrong saddam is a bad guy but now we are gonna go attack him prolly all becuse bush wants to fo fill his dads dream me myself i thank thats kinda stupid!

CalTech2010 · 2002-12-01 23:51:48

Why do we have two different boards on the same topic? The "about Bush" board is more about policy, and this one is primarily SDI and other initivatives of the adminstration. I vote that we abandon this board and post everything new on the "about Bush" board.

And on PaganToris' last point, be sure you see my reply on the other board. I won't clutter this one unnecessarily...

Palomar · 2002-12-18 11:43:29

*I'm voting for Tony Blair in 2004.
--Cindy

*Looks like I'm not the only one who thinks Blair would be a good Presidential candidate [even if it's an impossibility]:

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/18/opini … sheadlines

--Cindy

Josh Cryer · 2002-12-18 15:00:22

Tee hee, if Tony Blair would believe what Bush tells him, he wouldn't make a great President, in my mind.

Palomar · 2003-06-02 12:54:04

{{{BUMP!}}}

This is the 2nd time in a month this thread has indicated a *new* post by Josh, yet it's months dated. Hmmmm.

--Cindy

Alexander Sheppard · 2003-06-02 22:59:06

Warning: random thoughts ahead

Bush has no more of a goal of exploring space than anybody has. There is no correlation between whether you have a Republican or Democrat in office and whether NASA does interesting things. Both parties are in any case funded mostly by buisness, the Democrats the tune of close to 70% at the Republicans at around 80%. If exploring space is seen as being an important goal for the buisness elite in the US, then the US will explore space. At the present time it is not seen as an important goal. The most important goal of NASA is to provide a support for high technology industry and complement its much larger brother, the military establishment. So you will notice much talk of "commercialization", "public-private partnerships" and so on. Zubrin critizes this sort of stuff pretty harshly in his books, although being a status quo kind of guy he doesn't label it "corporate welfare" explicidly, instead attributing it to government bureaucracy and the usual stuff. NASA has cozied up very close with its contractor bedmates, and now some people are even faulting this kind of stuff as pretty much responsible for the Columbia disaster.

Anyway, science and exploration are secondary goals. That is pretty clear. The Space Shuttle should have been scrapped long ago, because it makes no sense from an economic or scientific standpoint to operate for the tremendous cost. I think probably a large reason for this is that it is just a stable arrangement: the companies and their government cronies who are involved just want a stable flow of cash, a stable system. They don't want some new program and launcher which might upset the status quo, perhaps damaging precious profits. It is an extremely corrupt arrangement. In my opinion the whole system ought to be nationalized and put under the administration of public officials who have exploration in mind and not robbing the bank.

The ISS had the potential to be a worthwhile project. Unfortunately numerous things happened to make it slide into oblivion and today we are left with something which is almost completely useless. In my opinion it ought to be sent into a higher orbit and left alone, and we should start something which makes sense.

What makes sense? Some people contend that we need to develop SSTO vehicles before we start launching manned missions to Mars and other places. My guess however is that the best approach is to develop the capability for manned missions as soon as possible and then bring up SSTO and so on as a replacement at some later point.

clark · 2003-06-03 07:01:15

I'm in a mood.

Bush has no more of a goal of exploring space than anybody has. There is no correlation between whether you have a Republican or Democrat in office and whether NASA does interesting things.

Sure, it comes down to the individuals in office during the times that require decisions or direction. The events dictate reactions as much as the people dictate action. So the question is, is there an impetus for manned exploration of space that will lead a leader to decide that action must be taken? I think there is.

. If exploring space is seen as being an important goal for the buisness elite in the US, then the US will explore space. At the present time it is not seen as an important goal.

Perhaps you should educate yourself. Space continues to become a more visible neccessity for our economic future. Business and Government both agree on this issue. But if you don't believe me, try looking into the vast amount of policy papers, research groups, lobbyists, and other assorted interested parties all saying that the US needs to get more involved with space.

The most important goal of NASA is to provide a support for high technology industry and complement its much larger brother, the military establishment.

You mean NASA's is also responsible for contributing to the US economic security and future as well as US national security? Heaven forbid.

Considering the very, very, very, very long list of scientific accomplishements by NASA, I think you may be a bit off base. Our weather sciences and our understanding of earth systems has increased by orders of magnitudes since NASA's inception. You seem to think NASA is ONLY about putting boots in orbit. It isn't. Manned space exploration is only a small part of what NASA is really about.

Anyway, science and exploration are secondary goals. That is pretty clear.

No, it is not clear. How is CHANDRA a secondary goal? HUBBLE? Viking 1 or 2? The Pluton mission? Project Promethues? Bah.

I think probably a large reason for this is that it is just a stable arrangement: the companies and their government cronies who are involved just want a stable flow of cash, a stable system.

What other consparices do you want to peddle? Yes, there is a group secretly fleecing the US public, with NASA insider colusion to take Uncle Sam and his children for a ride and a song... becuase the people at NASA aren't interested in science.... come on. NASA is about science. They do science everyday. They do cutting edge science- the kind of stuff that is planned on paper, but dosen't neccessarily work out in the real world.

They don't want some new program and launcher which might upset the status quo, perhaps damaging precious profits.

No, they don't want a new program that they don't know. Ever hear, "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush?" All of this other launch schemes are a BIG unknown. What are the constraints? What are the trade-offs? What is the cost of development? Testing? Man rating? Production? Replacement and maintanence? Descent options? Trajectory limitations? Fuel use? What is the experience of the material under stress or the climes of space?

No one knows how it's really going to work, or if one version is better than the other, unless an actual system is developed. Yet each development is a budgetary gamble- they all thought the Shuttle would turn out one way- but reality was different. What makes you or anyone else think that any other space scheme would be different?

In my opinion the whole system ought to be nationalized and put under the administration of public officials who have exploration in mind and not robbing the bank.

Oh, nationalize Boeing he says.... oh brother. :laugh:

You say government is screwing this up, yet your answer is to get government MORE involved? ???

My guess however is that the best approach is to develop the capability for manned missions as soon as possible and then bring up SSTO and so on as a replacement at some later point.

We have the capability for manned missions yesterday, today, and tommorrow. We all need to do is keep a level head, approach these issues rationaly, and realize that mistakes will happen, lives will be lost, sacrifices will be made, and progress will have to be earned slowly, deliberatly, and with an overall purpose.

Palomar · 2003-06-03 07:29:03

Warning: random thoughts ahead
Bush has no more of a goal of exploring space than anybody has.

*I agree. He also doesn't give a damn about the economy, so it comes as no surprise that space exploration isn't on his list of priorities. But hey, so long as the personal bank accounts of he and his oil baron friends keep going *ka-ching, ka-ching*, that's all he cares about.

King George's priority is his wallet, and those of the elite powerbrokers who bought the presidency for him.

--Cindy

clark · 2003-06-03 07:37:17

He also doesn't give a damn about the economy, so it comes as no surprise that space exploration isn't on his list of priorities.

How do you reconcile this opinion given that the administration has supported increases in NASA budgets, as well as a realignment of goals towards more 'enabling technologies' that will allow greater, and longer human missions in space?

With the recent tax cuts, my wallet got a little bigger. Hmmm. I am so conflicted now...

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2002-09-26 20:06:38

Re: President Bush - Great pres or bad pres ?

#2 2002-10-09 17:02:46

Re: President Bush - Great pres or bad pres ?

#3 2002-10-09 20:49:27

Re: President Bush - Great pres or bad pres ?

#4 2002-10-10 00:27:06

Re: President Bush - Great pres or bad pres ?

#5 2002-10-22 13:12:53

Re: President Bush - Great pres or bad pres ?

#6 2002-10-23 11:34:30

Re: President Bush - Great pres or bad pres ?

#7 2002-10-23 12:59:31

Re: President Bush - Great pres or bad pres ?

#8 2002-10-23 14:10:40

Re: President Bush - Great pres or bad pres ?

#9 2002-10-23 14:34:12

Re: President Bush - Great pres or bad pres ?

#10 2002-10-23 14:40:14

Re: President Bush - Great pres or bad pres ?

#11 2002-10-23 14:51:22

Re: President Bush - Great pres or bad pres ?

#12 2002-10-28 10:56:58

Re: President Bush - Great pres or bad pres ?

#13 2002-10-28 11:12:14

Re: President Bush - Great pres or bad pres ?

#14 2002-10-29 21:48:32

Re: President Bush - Great pres or bad pres ?

#15 2002-11-27 21:17:54

Re: President Bush - Great pres or bad pres ?

#16 2002-11-29 20:29:06

Re: President Bush - Great pres or bad pres ?

#17 2002-11-30 00:15:39

Re: President Bush - Great pres or bad pres ?

#18 2002-12-01 23:51:48

Re: President Bush - Great pres or bad pres ?

#19 2002-12-18 11:43:29

Re: President Bush - Great pres or bad pres ?

#20 2002-12-18 15:00:22

Re: President Bush - Great pres or bad pres ?

#21 2003-06-02 12:54:04

Re: President Bush - Great pres or bad pres ?

#22 2003-06-02 22:59:06

Re: President Bush - Great pres or bad pres ?

#23 2003-06-03 07:01:15

Re: President Bush - Great pres or bad pres ?

#24 2003-06-03 07:29:03

Re: President Bush - Great pres or bad pres ?

#25 2003-06-03 07:37:17

Re: President Bush - Great pres or bad pres ?

Board footer