Give me ONE reason...

[Viperidae]

Well... I don't know, something, but he just kept reading... I don't know, maybe I would have done the same thing. It just looked so weird, him reading the book, and just sitting there... who knows.

 

[CptStern]

here ya go ...should be all there :E

 

[Ghost Freeman]

He almost got owned by a pretzel.

 

[Viperidae]

He almost got owned by a pretzel.

Huh? Five Ws please.

 

[Kiva128]

To commerate Bush's delay for action during that time, I reference a line from the great movie spaceballs:

"I'm a president! I can't make decisions!"

In a time of panic, Bush needs people to tell him what to do. Mainly because he's too imcompetent to think of an action himself.

 

[qckbeam]

To be honest, I don't like when people slam him for that. He was in shock, and he didn't want to startle and leave the school. I probably would have done the same thing. And what in those seven minutes could he possibly have done?

This isn't about what you would do though. This is about what a President should do. If you are the President of the United States, and you are told "Mr. President, the country is under attack". in this the nuclear age, you move your ass. The clock is ticking, and certain commands may only come from the President. Time is of the essence, every second counts. We elect men into office that will act without fear, and without hesitation. I would expect my Commander in Chief to be swift in such a crisis. President Bush sat there for seven minutes. It's quite easy to calmly excuse yourself from the room without alerting anyone.

 

[Jakeic]

one very valid reason is he refuses to admitt making a mistake. He is not infaliable, infact, there is always more than one solution to every problem, which he also refuses to admitt.

we claim to give Saddam time to disarm, which apparently he choose not to use, so we invaded. Now the real question is, if Saddam was such a threat, then how come there wasn't a fight to invade the country? If he had weapons that needed to be removed, how come he didn't use them? It was life and death with the war for him, so i doubt that he simply chose not to.

Another reason to get rid of bush is his failure to keep the pressure on terriorists prior to 9/11. Despite what you have heard, the Clinton administration always kept an eye on Bin Laden and his band. In fact, they gave a plan over to Bush for dislodging/disrupting Al Queda when he took office in 2001. He chose to ignore it, and a few of his people were quoted as saying that Clinton spent to much time on Bin Laden.

Again there is another Bush failure when it comes to Bin Laden, and that is in his inability to capture/kill him after 9/11. We have never had a force of an significance in Afghanistan, and when we were sure of where Bin Laden was, we let him slip away, and now we don't know where he is.

 

[Top Secret]

This isn't about what you would do though. This is about what a President should do. If you are the President of the United States, and you are told "Mr. President, the country is under attack". in this the nuclear age, you move your ass. The clock is ticking, and certain commands may only come from the President. Time is of the essence, every second counts. We elect men into office that will act without fear, and without hesitation. I would expect my Commander in Chief to be swift in such a crisis. President Bush sat there for seven minutes. It's quite easy to calmly excuse yourself from the room without alerting anyone.

Just to be fair, the Secret Service agent that informed him of the incident only said "A plane has crashed into the World Trade Center."

Beyond that, I don't know though. *Shrugs*

 

[Kiva128]

Just to be fair, the Secret Service agent that informed him of the incident only said "A plane has crashed into the World Trade Center."

Beyond that, I don't know though. *Shrugs*

Wow...that makes everything so much better. Because you know, planes crashing into the tallest buildings in america is quite common now-a-days, he must have chosen to ignore it.

(please note the sarcasm).

 

[bliink]

Just to be fair, the Secret Service agent that informed him of the incident only said "A plane has crashed into the World Trade Center."

Beyond that, I don't know though. *Shrugs*

was it the 1st plane, or the 2nd?

 

[CptStern]

Hello!?! Here be reasons

 

[qckbeam]

Just to be fair, the Secret Service agent that informed him of the incident only said "A plane has crashed into the World Trade Center."

Beyond that, I don't know though. *Shrugs*

I'll look for the exact quote again, but I'm positive the aid said something along the lines of "Mr. President, a second plane hit the World Trade Center. America is under attack". He knew about the first plane going into the school.

 

[Yakuza]

It is obvious that religion is number one in the eyes of Bush. According to Bush himself, it was divine intervention that brought about the invasion of Iraq, not those pesky WMD's. If a man belives god is speaking to him personally, and that man then acts on this voice only he can hear, he belongs in a home, not the oval office.

Tell that to Roosevelt.

 

[qckbeam]

Tell that to Roosevelt.

Come on now, I know you are a religious person, and that's great, but you must see that we actually lock people up for taking violent actions under the command of some voice in their head, right?

Bush says he went to war because God told him to. His orders have killed thousands, and they were given with the belief that god, god himself, was the one who wanted this done. God wasn't just guiding Bush, god was commanding him. That is close to being a lunatic if it doesn't already qualify.

Now if we are to follow your logic (which seems to be "This is ok in my book" from what I can tell) that women who beat two of her three sons to death with a rock in Texas was innocent and pure, because she did what god told her to. Is that right? Where do you draw the line between a prophet and a nutcase?

A man who would let god, a being some believe in, while some don't, a being that we cannot even prove exists, call the shots is not a man I would want in that office. I don't want some religious zealot acting on behalf of some voice in his head. I want a man who follows the rules of logical thinking.

 

[Raziaar]

I hope he wins just so I can hear four more years of your guys bitching.

 

[Viperidae]

Where do you draw the line between a prophet and a nutcase?

Or in this case, an idiot and a monkey.

 

[Raziaar]

You guys honestly wanted all those kids to cry that he was reading a book to, huh?

 

[qckbeam]

You guys honestly wanted all those kids to cry that he was reading a book to, huh?

Are you being serious?

 

[Yakuza]

Come on now, I know you are a religious person, and that's great, but you must see that we actually lock people up for taking violent actions under the command of some voice in their head, right?

yep, we actualy crucified one of em.

Seriously though I know what your talking about. And I agree to a point. I was only commenting on where you said

If a man belives god is speaking to him personally, and that man then acts on this voice only he can hear, he belongs in a home, not the oval office.

. As we can see many men acted out what they believe God has said to them, I used Roosevelt but we could also use Abe L. I do however believe the whole IRAQ thing is questionable. I think he was right on the money about Afganistan and goign over there, but then it was like, Now that we have them distracted lets go to IRAQ. I am a man of the bible, But another one of my favorite books is the ART OF WAR. I wish it was one of Bushes too for he might have learned somthing from it.

Now if we are to follow your logic (which seems to be "This is ok in my book" from what I can tell) that women who beat two of her three sons to death with a rock in Texas was innocent and pure, because she did what god told her to. Is that right? Where do you draw the line between a prophet and a nutcase?

A man who would let god, a being some believe in, while some don't, a being that we cannot even prove exists, call the shots is not a man I would want in that office. I don't want some religious zealot acting on behalf of some voice in his head. I want a man who follows the rules of logical thinking.

That contradicts what God says in the bible. As a Christian the bible tells us to question every voice in our head ( or as we all have, that voice on our shoulder) to test and make sure that what we hear is the truth. We have the bible to back this up. God wont tell us anything that will contradict what he says in the bible.

 

[Viperidae]

Ok, say the prime reason for him not getting up is because of the kids. On the one hand, we've got some potentially tearful children that will run amuck (presumably) when the president gets up and says, 'Sorry kids, presidential business. Hope you don't mind; I wasn't really doing anything here anyways.' (quote may vary: my imitation of Bush-speak is pretty bad)

On the other hand, the U.S. was under attack by (at the time) an unknown quantity of terrorists, who could (for all we knew) have had any type of weapons, nuclear, biological, etc.

Personally, and this could just be me,

I think the kids would get over it.

 

[othello]

He solves his conflicts with guns. I think that's a good reason. We have to live together, not fight ourselves.

his conflict? so george bush just woke up one day and decided to attack iraq? come on people... get real. as i said earlier, the very methods you criticize bush of not using (trade embargo's, co-op with the UN, "peace", etc) in iraq were given 10 years, following the end of the Gulf War. it led to saddam raping, torturing, and slaughtering millions of his own people, and the most horrific act of terrorism the world has ever witnessed.

 

[f|uke]

Oil production is declining. Demand is increasing, not only due to population but all these poor fools in their SUVs and oversized trucks. Gas prices are only going to get higher. The American Economy is in peril, and the only solution is war. We must steal energy from soverign nations by proclaiming them to be terrorists. This is the story of Iraq.. the story of the American and Iraq lives lost to the cause.

We're outsourcing jobs and using more and more oil as it becomes harder and harder to supply. This overconsumption has a ripple effect over the entire economy, as goods must be transfered, and so everything becomes more expecive. The result is that everybody is going to become poorer and poorer, except for the elite, and especially the oil companies, who will still manage to profit by price gouging.

This is all inspired by the "America first, **** everyone else, I'll do what I want" attitude of the Bush supporters. And all these mother****ers with their "Viva Bush" bumperstickers on their hummers dont have a clue how they are personally responsable for the decline of the American dream.

"Viva Bush",. like hes a ****ing king. How scary is that?

So deny it while you can,. in the years to follow, it will become undenyable. Nothing can stop this, and its only going to keep getting worse. Hold on to your seats, boys,. we're in for one hell of a ride.

(hows that for a reason)

 

[Viperidae]

...the most horrific act of terrorism the world has ever witnessed....

And that's another thing the administration has done. They taken the word 'terror' and made it into the reason, excuse, fault, scapegoat, and adjective for every thing that happens in the US now. It is so incredibly broad it means basically anything.

Some Americans are 'terrorists' because they're not patriotic.

 

[f|uke]

Some Americans are 'terrorists' because they're not patriotic.

And not patriotic because they dont support Bush. Whats happened to democracy? ;(

 

[bliink]

You guys honestly wanted all those kids to cry that he was reading a book to, huh?

oh god forbid that happen! the children would have cried if the president had to leave!


seriously, they would have forgotten by lunch time because some kid had a new pokemon card or something..

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Here's my biggest reason:

I will pay 150$ to anyone who can give a single valid secular reason to write anti-gay discrimination into the secular constitution.

So far, not even Bush himself deserves a penny of that prize.


Also:

The war in Iraq should have been done as a co-ordinated and extensively planned effort after Al-Queda was obliterated.

But instead It was inept in almost every aspect. Rushed out the door, in what I can only see as a bid to gain the votes of the 70% of americans who, at the time, thought Saddam caused 9/11.

It has reduced focus on the true enemy, Al Queda, and has essentially backfired by convincing more and more moslems that America is a threat to them. A 'war on terror' that has caused a net gain in terrorist recruitment.

Also:

Dick Clarke's book: Against All Enemies. If you are convinced that the Bush administration is infallible, you should at least read this. It basically agrees with everything I've ever said about Bush's war strategy, and it was written by the republican-appointed head of counterterrorism for the last 30 years.

Also:

He's lost every debate.

Also:

Along with the gay marriage thing, he is letting his religious beliefs infringe on his secular duties in the realms of abortion rights, international policy, stem cell research, and god knows how many others.

Stem cell research could save lives. Bush's position: "give up because we only might save lives."

Also:

Extensive exploitation of 9/11 and terrorism as "threats for the vote". Saying that Al-Queda will kill you if you don't vote for his protection, and then attacking Saddam who had basically no ties to Al-Queda while letting countries with major Al-Queda ties do whatever.

Also:

Complete denial that Iraq was in any way a failure. WMD evidence was outdated by about 3-5 years. WMD evidence was not suficiently proven. WMD evidence was discounted by the UN. UN inspectors weren't allowed to finish inspecting. etc, etc.

Also:

Kerry is stronger in international alliances, as opposed to Bush's snubbing the UN repeatedly.

Also:

The patriot act. 'Nuff said.

...and more!

Hello!?! Here be reasons

Edit: Thanks go to Cpt.Stern for providing the 'more' that I mentioned.

 

[Neutrino]

Give me one reason why i shouldn't vote to re-elect george bush... in your own words, not a copy and paste job. come on... give me one valid reason.

Oops, missed this thread.

Anyway, sure I'll give it a go in my own words:

Foreign Policy:

1) He basically ignored the threat of terrorism until 9/11/2001 when it suddenly became the most important part of his presidency.
2) He failed to catch the main terrorist responsible for that tragedy.
3) Instead he took us to war with Iraq without trying all avenues of diplomacy. War should be a last resort, he did not use it as a last resort. If instead he had listened to the UN and continued with the inspections we would have found out that Iraq had no WMD program, the reason why he went to war with them.
4) This war, which was based on faulty justification, killed 1000 American soldiers, thousands of Iraqi civilians, and cost the US $120 billion dollars to date.
5) By going against the UN Bush undercut it's authority, a dangerous thing to do in today's international climate in my opinion. Furthermore, he deeply hurt support for the US internationally. This is made worse by the fact that after 9/11 we had practically the whole worlds sympathy and support. A couple years and a war later that sympathy and support is pracitically non-existent, thanks mostly to him.
6) He won't admit he was wrong about the war, an incredibly dangerous attitude for a President to have I think. About the only current justification he can come up with is that Iraq might possibly come to have WMD's eventually, a claim that is not supported by the current intelligence reports. Question: were the lives of a thousand soldiers and the lives of several thousand Iraqi's worth losing over an unlikely possibility? Because that's what the President seems to think now. To sum it up, the Bush administration has no justification for why it went to war. Granted it was based on faulty intelligence, but to claim that the war was not a mistake is spitting in the face of reality and sets a bad prededent for similar future decisions. Pretty much every single time Bush or Cheney have tried to defend their postion on Iraq in the debates they have been caught lying by non-partisan fact checks.
7) He supports reduction of nuclear arms throughout the world, yet doesn't do much about it at home. In fact he supported the idea of developing tactical nuclear missiles, which would made the use of nuclear weapons practical and lead to a greater temptation to use them in conflicts.
8) He refuses to work with scientists and the international community on the issue of global warming.

Domestic Policy:

Economics:

1) We have reached record deficit levels under his administration. Granted, this is not entirely within his control by any means. However, it is not helped by the fact that he got us into a $120 billion war, offers tax cuts to the rich that is costing us billions, and refuses to veto any spending by congress.
2) He offers tax cuts that mostly benefit the rich. 53% of those cuts went to the top 10% of individuals and families, while only 13% went to the bottom 60% of individuals and families. Just the tax cuts for those who make $200,000 and above alone will cost the US government $860 billion over ten years, during a time economists predict even higher deficits.
3) He wants to privatize social security, which would cost somewhere between $1 trillion and $2 trillion over the next ten years according to the Bush administration. This is on top of the cost for his other programs of course.
4) He will be the first president in 72 years to preside over a job loss.

Other issues:

1) He supports an unconstitutional ban on gay marriage. This is a religiously, and probably politically, motivated move that goes againt the first amendment. In addition it would be the first time in US history the constitution would be amended in support of discrimination.
2) He refuses to open up funding for all current lines of frozen embryos for use in stem cell research. Note that these embryos have no chance of ever developing. They will either remain frozen or be destroyed eventually. This also doesn't make sense in light of the fact that he already supports other lines. How does he justify supporting some but not others? It doesn't make sense.
3) He fully supports the Patriot Act and according to him in one debate the public shouldn't feel our rights are being infringed on by it. This is a scary position for him to take in my opinion when many many people disagree with this and think the Patriot act does indeed allow the government to infringe on our rights as citizens. It needs to be examined carefully in light of this and changed if need be. Bush doesn't seem to think so though. I personally would prefer the US president show a bit more concern for my rights.

Well those were the one's I could think of off the top of my head. Hope it offers you some help.

he went to a war? george bush himself sent us to war? are you sure it wasnt a bi-partisan vote from congress

Congress authorized the use of force as a last resort. Bush went to war when it was not a "last resort".

 

[bliink]

Also:

The patriot act. 'Nuff said.

oh yeah.. how could you forget that piece of work!?

 

[The Mullinator]

He blocks stem cell research due to his religious beliefs which is creating big problems for medical research and delaying potential cures for many diseases and injuries by many many years.

Also would you like to elect someone that will automatically no matter what he does cause much much more anti-americanism in the rest of the world? Think about that for a second, most americans are pretty angry and disheartened when they hear about anti-americanism in the rest of the world so personally I would rather try and start reversing it.

 

[bliink]

Also would you like to elect someone that will automatically no matter what he does cause much much more anti-americanism in the rest of the world? Think about that for a second, most americans are pretty angry and disheartened when they hear about anti-americanism in the rest of the world so personally I would rather try and start reversing it.

I would agree with mullinator there... Bush tends to make you look worse than say, Clinton did. (at least he was a bit of a diplomat, and had the rest of the world in his mind when he did things)

 

[othello]

He rushed to war. Didn't let the inspectors do their jobs.

wrong... saddam was given 12 years to comply with over 15 resolutions put forth by the UN. everytime he either lied or refused. bush gave him a 6 month ultimatum and stated that if he did not disarm, then we would lead a coalition to disarm. sounds like a fair enough warning to me.

and Lost credibility with the world and divided our country.

how so? i disagree. and besides, our nation is always divided lol

Health care is in shambles.

and im sure thats all bush's fault... mrs. clinton's pathetic little reforms had nothing to do with it im sure.

The environment is doing horrible.

hmm... nearly every single environmental act proposed by the bush administration as been backed and supported by the democrats. ted kennedy even commended bush for giving them (dems) what they wanted, in regards to the environment.

My friend(s) could die any day in a war that he (they) doesn't believe in because of a back-door draft, among other things. He believes terror can be defeated, and I wonder how many american deaths it will take for him to realize it's an unwinnable battle.

Those are a couple of my reasons.

my dad just got back from baghdad and might get called back up. my best friend of 8 years is being shipped to tikrit in less than a month. 2 of my good friends just signed up for the marines and could be shipped at any moment after completeing basic and AIT. the question is, is it worth it? it really sucks that weve lost over 1,000 soldiers over there. do you realize that we lost over 1,000 soldiers just training for D-Day? casualties are a horrible and sad symptom of war. going to war is a very unpopular, yet sometimes necessary decision (as it is cleary in this instance). i admire our president for his strength in the face of adeversity.

 

[rkef]

He may be the Anti-Christ

People close to the Pope claim that amid these concerns, the Pontiff wishes he was younger and in better health to confront the possibility that Bush may represent the person prophesized in Revelations.

In all seriousness, whether or not the Pope actually feels that way, the account of Bush mocking someone on death row like that is pretty sick. Assuming it's true of course (I like to investigate things that seem outrageous, but it's late and well... it would be wholly unsurprising, given his character; I'll look into tomorrow maybe).

 

[othello]

he's the 'commander in chief'

thats great. congress sent us to war with a bi-partisan vote.

 

[othello]

Congress gave him the power to go to war (meaning, they didn't vote to go to war, they voted to give the descision and ability to bush), most likely believing it would be used as a last resort. It was hardly a last resort.

sure it was, in some ways. after the 6 month ultimatum it was clear that saddam had no intent of complying with the UN inspections. i mean, hes been refusing them for 12 years, what makes you think hed have a change of heart now?

 

[bliink]

sure it was, in some ways. after the 6 month ultimatum it was clear that saddam had no intent of complying with the UN inspections. i mean, hes been refusing them for 12 years, what makes you think hed have a change of heart now?

Saddam isn't the only one to ignore the UN.

 

[The Mullinator]

how so? i disagree. and besides, our nation is always divided lol

err... Take a look at the massive protests in Europe, take a look at all the hate in the middle east. Take a look at the massive protests in the US. Take a look at how split the country is with polls. etc.

 

[othello]

We found weapons of mass destruction?

yup... wont hear that on the clinton news network.

I don't give a damn who voted for it, I don't want to be in Iraq. But what is done, is done, and we need to finish the job there the best we can (which won't be very good )

Just because they were warned, doesn't mean we should be there.

it matters the situations leading up to iraq, because many people (namely, liberals) have a very short, yet accomadating, memory. you're right though, whatever the reasons in questions, we are there and we need to finish the job. so why switch horses mid-apocalypse? thats absurd.

btw, why shouldnt we be there?

 

[bliink]

yup... wont hear that on the clinton news network.

uhh.. ok then, which non-'clinton' news network has a link i can read.. (not fox news hehe)

 

[Neutrino]

wrong... saddam was given 12 years to comply with over 15 resolutions put forth by the UN. everytime he either lied or refused. bush gave him a 6 month ultimatum and stated that if he did not disarm, then we would lead a coalition to disarm. sounds like a fair enough warning to me.

Disregarding the tiny little fact that he had already "disarmed" 10 years before any of this happened. Kind of invalidates your use of "disarming" as a reason to go to war, doesn't it?

going to war is a very unpopular, yet sometimes necessary decision (as it is cleary in this instance). i admire our president for his strength in the face of adeversity.

Whoa, necessary? How in the world can you justify the war in Iraq as necessary? There were no credible links to Alquida and there were no WMD's. So tell me again how it was "necessary."

thats great. congress sent us to war with a bi-partisan vote.

Congress did not send us to war. Congress voted on an authorization of force. Bush decided when to send us to war.

 

[Dulrough]

Othello I dont know why you started this thread without an open mind, as has already been stated, you seem to refuse to even conseider something may be wrong with the man, I know so many people like this "George is a perfect president". Everyday I hear this crap from people who watch Fox news for five minuets and belive they understand everything about politics.

There are those in each party who honestly belive that their way will better America, then there are those who belive what they are told to belive, while ironically beliving that they act through their own thoughts.
I am afraid that in my eyes you fall frimly into the second category, as you have given me no reason to think otherwise.