# Bush's job rating



## sevendogs (Sep 19, 2003)

I am surprized how many North Dakota outdorsmen rate Bush not really high. I believe this number will increase with deepening of his falure in foreign affairs.  May be we should impeach him? I would go ahead with this now.


----------



## jamartinmg2 (Oct 7, 2004)

Impeach him on what basis? Seven.... you have to get over the election(s). Your boys Gore and Kerry lost.... story over. Oh, thats right! Bush stole both the elections! If Bush intentionally lied... like a certain former president who I won't mention, (although his hobbies included cigars, golf and young interns) I would support impeaching any president, republican or democrat. :eyeroll:


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

I am neither a republican or democrat, but I would rate Bush's performance POOR.

More countries hate us know than ever before.

Both Kerry and Bush are idiots. Bush was just the lesser of two evils.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

No, neither Bush nor Kerry or idiots and I find neither one evil. They are both intelligent and very good at their job. Actually they are simply politicians that have two different directions of approach that will appeal to you one way or the other.

Now having said that ...................... there is a name for a person that starts threads like this and then never comes back to debate or share except that they jump in every couple weeks with a quick zinger to stir the pot. No Live2Hunt, I'm not talking about you..................


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

I think that name is MILITANT TIGER!!

Gohon: I know you weren't referring to me since I love to come back and debate and I log in just about every day. Plus I know how much you truly do care for me. :beer:

You are correct. Both Kerry and Bush just share interests that I don't necessarily agree with and that doesn't make them evil. I have just lost alot of faith in many politicians. You never know if they are telling the truth or not.

Where is Superman when you need him?


----------



## Burly1 (Sep 20, 2003)

Losing faith in politics...hmmm...that's something new! (he wrote with unabashed sarcasm) I have become so discouraged and disgusted with politicians, and politics in general that I often find discussing such more of a trial than it's worth. Suffice it to say that if you're looking for a hero in the political arena, you will be disappointed somewhere down the road. On the bright side, if you look hard enough, you may find redeeming qualities, that will bolster your faith in individual politicians, if not the system itself. For myself, knowing that the man who was chosen to lead our country is a genuine Christian, is something of a comfort. But knowing that we are incurring an increasing national defecit, are fast approaching another horrendous recession with double digit inflation and are firmly comitted to continuing to fight another guerilla war, with dubious benefit, has me completely depressed. Sorry for the downer, but sometimes one needs to vent to maintain sanity. Still hopeful, Burl


----------



## the_rookie (Nov 22, 2004)

Well heres the thing if Kerry was in office then we would all be speakin arabic right now because Kerry is a wus who woudlnt take action and let the terrorists take over our country he would bow down to them and give them stuff if they promise not to attack in other words we would be eating right out of there hands and absolutely get taken over but bush doesnt stand for that he sais he hit us... lets him them harder back


----------



## sevendogs (Sep 19, 2003)

jamartinmg2 said:


> Impeach him on what basis? Seven.... you have to get over the election(s). Your boys Gore and Kerry lost.... story over. Oh, thats right! Bush stole both the elections! If Bush intentionally lied... like a certain former president who I won't mention, (although his hobbies included cigars, golf and young interns) I would support impeaching any president, republican or democrat. :eyeroll:


Yes, both lied. One difference. Clinton lied about his penis; Bush lied about reasons to drag us into a war. Do you see the differnce?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Sevendogs
I think it is time to put up or shut up. I am tired of this childish Bush lied. Give me some proof. We have beat this dead horse until he has no hide left. We have all discussed that he went with the best intelligence we had. If you have other proof lets hear it. Otherwise I think your simply blindly partisan. :fiddle:


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Interesting in that I saw a recent poll that asked if you felt less safe now after Bush went to war with Iraq...

50% said yes.

I sure do.I guess time will tell.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Ken, let me put my feelings in chronological order. Since Regan left office I thought we were more vulnerable, then Bush senior showed some gumption in Desert Storm. I thought we should have taken out Sadam then, but the weak people prevailed, and he withdrew. To the demise of many Iraq people I might add. Then our embassies were bombed, the Cole was bombed, and we talked as if we carried a big stick. We in fact did very little and with each bombing and our failure to react the terrorists became more emboldened. I worried that we were becoming vulnerable, and I expected a large bomb or something within our boarders. I expected it in the next 20 years if we continued down the pacifist path we were on. I was wrong, it came much sooner than I expected.

As the question was posted do I feel less safe since Bush went to war. I felt vulnerable after 9/11, but felt some relief when Bush took on Afghanistan and Iraq. I perhaps would consider Iran or Syria next if they don't keep their nose out of it. To bad there isn't a city full of terrorists without innocent women and children so we could wipe it from the face of the earth as an example. But there is the problem, there are not just innocent people, but many good people.

I am not willing to stay long in Iraq, so I hope the new government gets it's act together. I think we should help people, but the majority of the responsibility lies with them. If they are not willing to fight for their freedom as we have many times perhaps they truly don't deserve it. In the near future we shall see if they can handle freedom. Some nations are so primitive perhaps they are better off with a benevolent dictator.


----------



## sevendogs (Sep 19, 2003)

Gohon said:


> No, neither Bush nor Kerry or idiots and I find neither one evil. They are both intelligent and very good at their job. Actually they are simply politicians that have two different directions of approach that will appeal to you one way or the other.
> 
> Now having said that ...................... there is a name for a person that starts threads like this and then never comes back to debate or share except that they jump in every couple weeks with a quick zinger to stir the pot. No Live2Hunt, I'm not talking about you..................


Yepp, I am reading the posts. What to debate? We got stuck in Iraq and left alone war on terror, except "Home Land Security" in place. Just watch the News, there are no debates are needed. My impression is that many of the debaters ingore the truth. We are in trouble in Iraq, period. This Pres is inept like a log and he is floating like a cork.


----------



## mr.trooper (Aug 3, 2004)

*sigh*

Seven, you need to realize that you cant belive everything you hear or read. Its verry sad that there is loss of life, its true. But do you realize just how FEW lives are being lost when compared to any other war? People die in war; its an unavoidable fact.

The fact that war kills people does NOT however mean that we should avoid it. War is sometimes neccisary. REGARDLESS of your political stance on the war in Iraq, you have to realize that the current pace of things are realy very TAME compared to what most of our other wars have been. Go check out the death rates in WWIIver 4 million, or Korea: WELL over 2 million, Vietnam: nearly 2 million.

The simple truth is that the Iraq war realy isnt as bad, casualy wise, as any other major war we have ever been involved with. This is NOT to downplay the tradgedy of those who have lost there lives in this war. It is simply to make you realize that your current view on this war is highly distorted.

War by nature is Messy. The Iraq war is NOT out of controll, and it is NOT a lost cause. It is simply a war. IF Iraq is a quagmire like Vietnam, then by your own standards so were WWII and The Korean War.

The Iraqis are no less important as people than the Koreans, They are no less important than the British, and they sure as HECK are not anly less important than the French. If it was worth is to free these people THEN IT WAS, AND STILL IS WORTH IT TO FREE THE IRAQIS AND GET THEM BACK ON THEIR FEET! You should be ashamed of yourself for suggesting otherwise.

Sit back and think before you spew such HEAVILY partisaned nonsence. uke:


----------



## jamartinmg2 (Oct 7, 2004)

> Yes, both lied. One difference. Clinton lied about his penis; Bush lied about reasons to drag us into a war. Do you see the differnce?


Seven.... If that is the truth why are the democrats not putting up a bigger fuss over this? Could it be that there is very little evidence to support your allegations? If this was true, the dems would be looking to have Bush's head on a platter. I'm with Plainsman..... if he lied intentionally I hope you can show us more proof of his crimes.[/quote]


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

I don't think Bush lied intentionally.But I'm a firm believer in the Harry Truman Philosphy....."The buck stops here."

We should not be there and GWB made the decision to go there....thus the responsibility is totaly his.And Americans will hold him responsible if it doesn't work,just as he should get the credit if it does.

Right now his popularity is in the low 40% range....look out Republicans in the 2006 congressional elections if it doesn't get better.


----------



## Shu (Oct 21, 2003)

Do I feel safer now? No safer than 40 years ago when all this Islamic terrorist stuff started. No need to blame it on one person. It has been developing over a long period. Some have already probably seen this but I think it's a good review.

HISTORY TEST

Please pause a moment, reflect back, and take the
following multiple choice test. The events are actual
Events from history. They actually happened!

Do you remember?
1. 1968 Bobby Kennedy was shot and killed by

a. Superman
b. Jay Leno
c. Harry Potter
d. a Muslim male extremist between the ages of 17 and 40

2. In 1972 at the Munich Olympics, athletes were
kidnapped and massacred by

a. Olga Corbett
b. Sitting Bull
c. Arnold Schwarzenegger
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of
17 and 40

3. In 1979, the US embassy in Iran was taken over by:

a. Lost Norwegians
b. Elvis
c. A tour bus full of 80-year-old women
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of
17 and 40

4. During the 1980's a number of Americans were
kidnapped in Lebanon by:

a. John Dillinger
b. The King of Sweden
c. The Boy Scouts
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of
17 and 40

5. In 1983, the US Marine barracks in Beirut was blown
up by:

a. A pizza delivery boy
b. Pee Wee Herman
c. Geraldo Rivera
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of
17 and 40

6. In 1985 the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked
and a 70 year old American passenger was murdered and
thrown overboard in his wheelchair by:

a. The Smurfs
b. Davy Jones
c. The Little Mermaid
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of
17 and 40

7. In 1985 TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens, and
a US Navy diver trying to rescue passengers was
murdered by:

a. Captain Kidd
b. Charles Lindberg
c. Mother Teresa
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of
17 and 40

8. In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by:

a. Scooby Doo
b. The Tooth Fairy
c. Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of
17 and 40

9. In 1993 the World Trade Center was bombed the first
time by:

a. Richard Simmons
b. Grandma Moses
c. Michael Jordan
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of
17 and 40

10. In 1998, the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania
were bombed by:

a. Mr. Rogers
b. Hillary Clinton, to distract attention from Wild
Bill's women problems
c. The World Wrestling Federation
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of
17 and 40

11. On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked; two were
used as missiles to take out the World Trade Centers
and of the remaining two, one crashed into the US
Pentagon and the other was diverted and crashed by the
passengers.
Thousands of people were killed by:
a. Bugs Bunny, Wiley E. Coyote, Daffy Duck and Elmer
Fudd
b. The Supreme Court of Florida
c. Mr. Bean
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of
17 and 40

12. In 2002 the United States fought a war in
Afghanistan against:
a. Enron
b. The Lutheran Church
c. The NFL
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of
17 and 40

13. In 2002 reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and
murdered by:

a. Bonnie and Clyde
b. Captain Kangaroo
c. Billy Graham
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of
17 and 40

Nope, ..I really don't see a pattern here to justify profiling, do you? So, to ensure we Americans never
offend anyone, particularly fanatics intent on killing
us, airport security screeners will no longer be
allowed to profile certain people. They must conduct
random searches of 80-year-old women, little kids,
airline pilots with proper identification, secret
agents who are members of the President's security
detail, 85-year old Congressmen with metal hips, and
Medal of Honor winning and former Governor Joe Foss,
but leave Muslim Males between the ages 17 and 40
alone lest they be guilty of profiling.
Let's send this to as many people as we can so that
the Gloria Aldreds and other dunder-headed attorneys
along with Federal Justices that want to thwart common
sense, feel doubly ashamed of themselves -- if they
have any such sense. As the writer of the award
winning story "Forrest Gump" so aptly put it, "Stupid
is as stupid does."
Come on people wake up!!! Our Country and our
troops need our support.
And guess who just bombed London?


----------



## mr.trooper (Aug 3, 2004)

It just goes to show you that you are never truely safe.

The probablity of a jihadist flying a plane full of people into your barn may be rediculoulsy low, but in todays world, it could hapen.

This is just a fact of life. Its not the fault of ANY one administration, or even a couple of administrations. Its the way things are, and the way they will likely continue to be for some time.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Lost Norwegians took over the embassy in Iran. :toofunny:


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

George W 's legacy will be that he was one of the worst presidents he will be right up there next to Carter.,


----------



## DeerScarer (Jul 23, 2005)

Polls are not THE polls. What I mean is this: If the elections were today, G. W. Bush would still beat J. F. Kerry, and all you anti-war bleeding-hearts out there know it. It's easy to say why we shouldn't be in Iraq, war = death, death = bad. Since the WMDs mysteriously dissappeared (for my money we should try looking in Syria) it's tougher to say why we should be in Iraq, and yet more than half the people of this country seem to understand it instinctively.

From day one I have asked myself this question: Would I go? (If they'd have taken me I'd have joined up in 1996, but I have diabetes.) The answer has always been yes. Why? 9/11 plays a role to be sure, but whether or not the specific 19 terrorists who flew those planes had any money or help from Saddam's secret agents is not as important as certain things we do know and have seen since.

For starters, those nut cases in the black pajamas we saw running from our tanks inside Baghdad in April of 2003, the "Saddam Feyadene" or whatever they called themselves. A lot of those guys weren't even Iraqi. What were they doing fighting for Saddam? Most of the nut-cases we're still fighting are just like them. "Foreign fighters" they're called on the News. Or occasionally, "former regime elements." I've got a simpler word, we all know it: "Terrorists."

Still think Saddam's regime didn't support terrorism? Think again. Saddam used to send $100,000 to the families of Palastinian suicide bombers. It's been a while since I've heard that one mentioned on CNN, :evil:.

But there's also positive reasons for staying in Iraq right now. Those women marching arm-in-arm to the polling stations last winter chanting "we are not affraid" after a suicide bomb went off in the distance are one of the reasons I would go to Iraq. Standing up for all those people walking around with big smiles on their faces and purple index fingers held high after they'd voted in a free election for the first time in their lives is a very noble cause all by itself.

As Bill O'Reilly summed it up on his radio show today, "'Greater love has no man than this, that he lay down his life for a friend.'" There's a reason we were hailed as liberators by a majority of Iraqis: How many of his own people did that mad-man, Saddam, bury in mass graves during his two and a half decades in power? What they've endured since we arrived - this puny, so-called insurgency - is a cake-walk by comparison.

Six paragraphs. My longest post anywhere ever. Sorry about that, but it's about as short as my red, american, male blood will let me make it.

Dave the DeerScarer, signing out.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Your right deerscarer. The idea of self defense and curtailing repressive government is why the second amendment exists. Can you see why there are so many anti firearm/ anti defense people in the cities. Until we loose $100,000 people to a small nuke, or biological agent the pansies will prevail with their anti war rhetoric just as Hanoi Jane did during the Viet Nam war. Jane Fonda may have apologized, but her protégés are alive and well in America. Then there are those who would risk national security for political gain. It matters not to some how much Iraq blood runs in the streets if we pull out now. Some of these people say they belong to the progressive party. The play on words doesn't do justice to the fact they are progressing in the wrong direction.

It is interesting to watch political motivation at work. We have a republican governor in North Dakota because we are a socially conservative society. We have democrat representatives, because the agriculture in North Dakota counts on liberal ag welfare programs. One party promotes self responsibility, the other creates government dependency. It is that dependancy that will make our state vote against their own moral judgement for financial gain.

A point somewhat out of context. The more leased land we see, the fewer hunters we will see. The fewer hunters we see the more anti firearms/anti defense types we will see. People will forget hunting and the second amendment, and perhaps American males will become the pansies the feminists of the 70's so admire.

Like Khrushchev said at the UN back in the 60's "we will need not fire a shot, America will fall into our hands like a ripe plum". We are partially socialist now, and sliding towards making old Khrushchev's words true.


----------



## rap (Mar 26, 2002)

haven't read all the posts but would like to mention that the independent organization that analyzes our national debt just released numbers this week that have lowered the national debt from somewhere around $410 billion to an estimate of $330 million next year... why? strong economy is why...


----------



## sevendogs (Sep 19, 2003)

the_rookie said:


> Well heres the thing if Kerry was in office then we would all be speakin arabic right now because Kerry is a wus who woudlnt take action and let the terrorists take over our country he would bow down to them and give them stuff if they promise not to attack in other words we would be eating right out of there hands and absolutely get taken over but bush doesnt stand for that he sais he hit us... lets him them harder back


Bush has removed one evil, which is Saddam's regime, but he was not smart enough and replaced iwth a worse evil- Osama bin Laden's terrorists. Now, they have the best terrorist training place and breeding ground right there, in Iraq. Did you watch news ever? THis is what even Pentaogn admits.


----------



## DutyHonorCountryUSMC (Jun 23, 2005)

If I could.... Id like you all to voice your opinions on another political board as well... this one is multi-country-with only like 5-6 americans supporting our views against about 700 Indian's, French, and Germans..... its for an online game, but If its ok with the moderators (nothing innapropriate on the site so it should be fine) im going to post the site....

www.imperialconflict.com

The debates get a bit more heated, so its your choice if you would care to post on the political board... just a suggestion... many topics based off the same bit of info.


----------



## DeerScarer (Jul 23, 2005)

sevendogs said:


> ....
> Bush has removed one evil, which is Saddam's regime, but he was not smart enough and replaced iwth a worse evil- Osama bin Laden's terrorists. Now, they have the best terrorist training place and breeding ground right there, in Iraq. Did you watch news ever? THis is what even Pentaogn admits.


Ummm, I certainly have never heard anybody from the Pentagon say that Iraq is now the best terrorist training place and breeding ground. In fact, given the numbers of foreign terror types we've killed or captured in Iraq and Afganistan so far I'd say just the opposite, those look to me like places the terrorists go to die! Let the morons come to Iraq and fight our Marine Corps. It it saving thousands of American and Israeli civilians! (Another reason why I'd be willing to go, and if need be, die fighting there.) :sniper:

As for the president not being very smart, I'm inclined to point out that it is his grand strategy that has resulted in Al Qaeda being forced to refocus their efforts into fighting our military overseas instead of our civilians over here. The whole point of Terrorism, after all, is to carry a war you cannot win by conventional tactics into your enemy's homeland and terrorize the civilians. Instead, Bush has carried the war into their homelands, and liberated more than fifty million civilians!

But as for whether I watch the news "ever" - go and find out who Abbu Abbas and Abbu Nidal were. They were pet terror cheiftans of Saddam's living in Baghdad before the war just like Osama's man Al Zarqawi was. Nidal used to operate a terror training school in Iraq until he was assasinated, probably by Israel, after the 9/11 attacks. Abbas was the guy who hijacked the Achili Lauro cruize ship back around 1985 or 86. He executed a Jewish-American Haulocaust survivor and dumped him overboard. After he was captured by American forces in Baghdad in 2003, Italy wanted to try him for piracy (if I remember right). But Abbas cheated the hang-man's noose the old-fashioned way, croaked early.

You cannot pretend that Iraq was not a terrorist state before the war. The fledgling democracy that is emerging there now, on the other hand, is a model of freedom with potential unlike anything the rest of the Arab world has yet seen. I agree that the potential also is there for Iraq to become another Lebanon like what produced Abbu Abbas and Abbu Nidal only bigger. But that can only happen if we get fed-up and walk away before the job is done. The people who want us to fail there do not care at all about the Iraqis, they just want us to pull out too soon so they can be proved right about President Bush. That kind of self-fulfilling prophecy should fool no-one, but with the left-leaning news media on their side it just might.
uke:


----------



## Goon (Apr 3, 2005)

rap said:


> haven't read all the posts but would like to mention that the independent organization that analyzes our national debt just released numbers this week that have lowered the national debt from somewhere around $410 billion to an estimate of $330 million next year... why? strong economy is why...


Actually the national debt has declined due to the tax cut. This same news blurb was on the front page of the New York Times. So it has to be true since the new york times is a left leaning newspaper and they go out of their way to smear Bush.


----------

