Bush has won for the second term!!!

So you have a problem with clinton boinking a few woman, but not a problem with bush starting an unneccessary war?

Entirely possibly... but how bad is that? Churchill was voted out as soon as WWII ended, but invincible whilst it went on. Some people are just more appropriate for that kind of situation.

BTW, you mean never an elected change. Sorry to be picky.

But if there wasn't a war, then there probably wouldn't be nearly as many Bush haters out there. That appears to be the biggest complaint against him.

Not so much what he does at home, but what he's done abroad

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Well, my complaint wasn't universal, but that is certainly the vibe from more than one person. The answer can only simply be that their interpretation of those experiences differs from yours.

Ush> I can understand where you are coming from, but it was just so sad to see people vote based on fear and misinformation, than solid facts. It can't be denied that Bush had really messed up this country based on his failed policies.

Voting on emotion and not the facts is just wrong.

Omega>I'm really glad that he has to try to clean up the mess he created through his thick headedness.

Like I said before, it’s sad that the world looks at Americans like they are total idiots based on George Bush’s screw-ups.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
sorry about that wicker, I notice that and so changed my post.

I read "Like this man", My bad, a little dyslexia makes life a hassle some days, my apologies

No problem, no damage done. 🙂

I've said this before about war with Iraq.
I see Bush's mind set. How I would deal with someone causing pain to someone. I'd say "Don't make a mistake in what I am saying." "You make 1 mistake and you will see a consequence." I can just see Saddam laughing a bit after Bush just got into office right after Clinton. Bush takes that slight delay or inconvenience in the inspections as a blip on the chart of "dont' make a mistake" and he drops on him to make a point that he is quite serious. 2617 people died in 2 hours. No president has a precedence for how to handle a dictator who has used chemical weapons after an event like that no matter if they are directly connected or not.

Under the circumstances, Bush did wait 5 months after conflict in Afganistan to begin war on Iraq March 19th, 2003.

Important note, Saddam had 16 previous resolutions with the UN.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Well, my complaint wasn't universal, but that is certainly the vibe from more than one person. The answer can only simply be that their interpretation of those experiences differs from yours.

Sorry Ush, thats just how i perceived it, but i can acknowledge why you feel that e.g.

...but that is certainly the vibe from more than one person.

Originally posted by -=Urot=-
Ush> I can understand where you are coming from, but it was just so sad to see people vote based on fear and misinformation, than solid facts. It can't be denied that Bush had really messed up this country based on his failed policies.

Voting on emotion and not the facts is just wrong.

I find it remarkably unlikely that all his voters did so on such a basis. Again, you will simply have to concede that a great deal of rational, intelligent people voted for him for reasons that are not related to what you say.

Is that why you think Bush went into Iraq Kingcoot?

Originally posted by kingcoot
I've said this before about war with Iraq.
2617 people died in 2 hours. No president has a precedence for how to handle a dictator who has used chemical weapons after an event like that no matter if they are directly connected or not.

Question who gave Saddam the chemical weapons, and for what reason?

Why did Saddam use them, and for what reason? It is Saddam's fault for deciding to use them. We do not baby sit dictators.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
I find it remarkably unlikely that all his voters did so on such a basis. Again, you will simply have to concede that a great deal of rational, intelligent people voted for him for reasons that are not related to what you say.

So are you telling me that Gay marriage and Abortion are not emotional topic if not fully understood?

Bush used those topics to inflame his base in the Bible belt and other areas.

I don't have a problem with differing opinions, but I do have a problem with a candidate that will use those topics to divide a country down the middle.

You must know Bush by now. He is a person of principle and morals. He won't be dropping what he believes in just because everyone else on the democratic side thinks another way.

I think people on both sides caused that, Urot. And I am pretty sure that only a certain section of people voted for him on those reasons. You cannot tar everyone with the same brush.

In the end, alot of people who are 90% like you or me, voted for him because they agree with the bulk of his policies, and that is all there is to it.

Originally posted by Linkalicious
But if there wasn't a war, then there probably wouldn't be nearly as many Bush haters out there. That appears to be the biggest complaint against him.

Not so much what he does at home, but what he's done abroad

Good point, I remember after Sept 11 he was as popular as hell. If he didn't start the Iraq war and just kepted trying to take down Al Quada, this election probably would've been the biggest landslide ever.

Originally posted by kingcoot
Why did Saddam use them, and for what reason? It is Saddam's fault for deciding to use them. We do not baby sit dictators.

You still didn't answer the question.

Go look it up, then get back to me.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
I find it remarkably unlikely that all his voters did so on such a basis. Again, you will simply have to concede that a great deal of rational, intelligent people voted for him for reasons that are not related to what you say.

Have to place some 'agreeing' with you there. But in all fairness Ush, we as UK residents have no real idea of the mind games that the Bush (and Kerry) camps have been endorsing to win votes, i'm not saying it is the case but even the must insusceptible person with the right amount and type of exposure can eventually become swayed.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
I think people on both sides caused that, Urot. And I am pretty sure that only a certain section of people voted for him on those reasons. You cannot tar everyone with the same brush.

In the end, alot of people who are 90% like you or me, voted for him because they agree with the bulk of his policies, and that is all there is to it.

Yeah I guess you're right, but I still don't have to like it. 🙂

Well, maybe, Wicker... but I rather have my doubts it is a big issue.

Originally posted by -=Urot=-
You still didn't answer the question.

Go look it up, then get back to me.

I did, I don't see where the US fits in to Saddam's decision to use them.

For instance, if someone gives me a gun, I'll use it for defense, not to take out a neighboring Kuwait and take countries out because I love the power.

Bush isn't doing the same thing, he is doing to Saddam what he started in 1991 and under the light of what happened to the US in 2001, Saddam underestimated how that changed US policy. Saddam goofed big-time.

Just imagine if you were president and some dictator known for playing around wanted to play around after you just saw some of the largest structures ever built with 80 countries represented in it fall after getting hit by people filled with hate. I have no idea. I'd not want the responsibility or I'd just relieve myself right there.