Has Bush peaked early?


PDA






telewinz
March 4, 2003, 05:04 PM
Things could turn around in a day (or week) if they need to but how do you feel Bush is doing as President?

If you enjoyed reading about "Has Bush peaked early?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Monkeyleg
March 4, 2003, 05:20 PM
I doubt that GW has ever "peeked." Clinton maybe, but not Bush. ;)

blades67
March 4, 2003, 05:20 PM
Has Bush "peeked" at what? Maybe you meant "peaked".:rolleyes:

This thread should be in Legal and Political. And proofread.:banghead:

XLMiguel
March 4, 2003, 05:29 PM
Don't know, but I wish they'd quit talking and get on with it. All in all, I'm underwhelmed with the foot dragging, and the fustercluck with Turkey doesn't give me a good feeling about W having his ducks in a row.

telewinz
March 4, 2003, 06:13 PM
peaked, peaked, peaked, peaked, peaked,peaked,peaked,peaked, peaked:D

blades67
March 4, 2003, 06:36 PM
Well, I don't know about anybody else, but I'm happy now.;) :D

Jack19
March 4, 2003, 06:41 PM
I'll never be happy with his stance on creating a "Palestinian" state. He wants to punish terrorists on one hand but reward terrorism on the other. Can't have it both ways. Unless a real Constitutionalist runs in 2004, I'll vote for Bush again; but, he's going to have to decide who's side he's on in this war.

Still, he sure beats the heck out of Gore, or any of the Democratic Socialists for that matter.

RCL
March 4, 2003, 06:50 PM
I'll vote for him again. The man has a pair.

telewinz
March 4, 2003, 07:08 PM
My work here is done. I can not die and rot away.:D

faustulus
March 4, 2003, 07:20 PM
Let's look at Bush's accomplishments.

He has federalized airport screeener.-- when has the government EVER been able to do something better than private industry?

Increased the size of government. -- See the aforementioned airport screeners and the creation of the Homeland Security Department.

Carved serious inroads into our Constitutionally protected rights. --You want scary imagine Nixon or Clinton with the powers the Homeland Security Act enables.

Pushing for a war with Iraq, when North Korea has nukes and bin Laden is still at large.-- I think Iraq is bad, but not as bad as NK or even a big a threat as India and Pakistan.

Pissed off the French-- okay this one I like.

Bush was the lesser evil. But all adjectives aside he is still evil.

blades67
March 4, 2003, 07:38 PM
I can not die and rot away.:D

I'll bet that's not true.:neener:

Marshall
March 4, 2003, 07:47 PM
Telewinz,

You did fine, we're not secretaries, we all make mistakes! ;)

I'll vote for him again! He does indeed have two large hairy ones!

telewinz
March 4, 2003, 08:29 PM
Would you believe I am a college graduate from the old school? Would you believe I go thru a book in about 10 days? Would you believe I have been reading at this rate and better for over 35 years? Would believe I am a PRINTING Supervisor!?:what: OH the shame of it all!

Would you believe I wanted to say "now I CAN die and rot away".:banghead:

Blackhawk
March 4, 2003, 08:32 PM
Bush is a man for the times.

HABU
March 4, 2003, 08:43 PM
Ok, who likes Gore? :what: Fess up!

grampster
March 4, 2003, 09:27 PM
Two explainations for the "footdragging":

1. Clinton screwed up the military so much in 8 years that it took us this long to mobilize.

2. Gave the military ample time to set everything up very well while (a. identifying who our "friends" really are (internally and externally) and (b. allowing no one to be able to say that we did not give the U.N. another chance to self destruct.

pax
March 4, 2003, 09:52 PM
Gore might have been better.

Sure, he'd have tried to ramrod through the "Patriot Act" or something like it.

But if he were in office, the Repubs would have at least made a show of fighting it.

Me? I'm so bitterly disappointed in the Bushies that I will probably never again vote for a Republican.

pax

To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. -- Theodore Rooselvelt

Woodchuck
March 4, 2003, 09:53 PM
I didn't vote for G.W.Bush, but right now I sure am glad he's the pres.. I can't imagine Al Gore dealing with the International issues. He's a wuss. G.W. is the right guy at the right time. I think God must have a hand in the future of this country. He's looking out for us. G.W.'s got nads, big nads.

Quartus
March 4, 2003, 09:59 PM
I suyre hope he hasn't peaked! There's a lot of room for improvement!


Am I glad he's in and not Gore? Hmm. I think so. But time will tell. As has been nicely pointed out, he's done a lot of damage to the Constitution.


Me? I'm so bitterly disappointed in the Bushies that I will probably never again vote for a Republican.


pax, I'm surprised at you. You ain't no dummy. If you are disappointed in Bush, you weren't paying attention to his campaign. He never sounded anything like a true conservative! I think he means well, but he hasn't a clue about the Constitution.


Unlike Al, though, I think he is a genuine patriot, though misguided. (As in: Guided by all the globalists who surround him.)

Zander
March 4, 2003, 10:03 PM
Bush was the lesser evil. But all adjectives aside he is still evil.So much for the "rational"...

Woodchuck
March 4, 2003, 10:03 PM
Originally posted by: Faustulus
Let's look at Bush's accomplishments.

He has federalized airport screeener.-- when has the government EVER been able to do something better than private industry?

Increased the size of government. -- See the aforementioned airport screeners and the creation of the Homeland Security
____________________________________________________

The government can do a lot better than low bid private industry. Take a look at the screeners they had before. Most were not citizens, could not pass a background check and were theives. What else could you expect from $5.00/hour with no benefits workers. Many could not even speak english.

The homeland security dept. was necessary to bring all the departments together instead of competing with each other (for status and appropriations).

pax
March 4, 2003, 10:08 PM
Quartus,

I didn't vote for him because I thought he was a conservative.

I voted for him because I thought he was an honorable man who would take his oath of office seriously.

It turns out I was wrong. The oath actually reads: "I, name, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and I will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

I think Bush thought it read: "I, name, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and I will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the United States.
Either that, or he's a slime.

In any case, he has not honored the oath he gave; nor is his behaviour inconsistent with what we have seen from other Republicans (with minor exceptions here and there).

pax

That’s not a lie, it’s a terminological inexactitude. -- Alexander Haig

Kahr carrier
March 4, 2003, 10:16 PM
He ok in my book ,he is doing a great job.:)

Zander
March 4, 2003, 11:31 PM
Gore might have been better.Where were you when Al "no controlling legal authority" Gore abandoned his core "principles" to pander to the illegal contributors who facilitated the transfer of crucial nuclear secrets to our mortal enemies, the Red Chinese? Where were you when Algore broke federal law while raising campaign funds from his re-election offices?

I'm so bitterly disappointed in the Bushies that I will probably never again vote for a Republican.There's always the option of going to the trouble to do the research as to whom is the best possible candidate for a given elective office.

Assuming, of course, that you won't be inconvenienced or discombobulated by the effort. :rolleyes:

You may not want to accept the factual, but here it is:

The Democrat Party is primarily populated by socialist thieves, race-baiters and congenital liars. They are in a panic because they fear that their hold on their base of blacks, Spanglish-speaking immigrants [the majority illegals] and squat-for-brains liberals [useful idiots] is in peril.

I drive by Algore's Belle Meade residence several times a week. Do you suppose that he is finally a "Tennessee native"?

He's no more a resident than he was when his daddy [a crook, too...and a racist] enrolled him in the most elite of private schools for the offspring of the DC "elite".

Albert Arnold Gore, Jr. was, in point of fact, raised in a suite in a DC hotel, went to the most private school for the private and privileged in the DC area and launched himself into a distinctly undistinguished undergrad effort.

His truncated "tour" in South Vietnam was calculated to help his daddy's re-election campaign [a miserable failure] and his subsequent enrollment at Vanderbilt U. was a disaster, even if his "major" was "Religion"...which offered him an additional military exemption.

Al Gore, Jr. [yep, he's actually a "junior"] is a fraud, a hypocrite [you should see the EPA evaluation of his farm] and the author of a book which hints at mental unstability. His "Earth in the Balance" asserts that the internal combustion engine is the greatest threat to the world's population. :rolleyes:

So...do you think that Albert, Jr., the proven fraud, has something to offer us citizens in fly-over country?

I don't think so...

pax
March 4, 2003, 11:58 PM
Zander,

Everything you say about Democrats is true enough. Gore is a pampered so-and-so who belongs to a party which proudly proclaims that it wants to control almost everything in America.

Everything Claire Wolfe says about Republicans here (http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Lofts/2110/E_LandMines.html) is also true, as far as I have been able to discover. I got burned by voting for Bush last election because I didn't want to accept the factual.

I notice that you left out the main part of my last post, to wit:
But if he [Gore] were in office, the Repubs would have at least made a show of fighting it.

Instead, the people who are most inclined by nature to put the brakes on bigger gov't and more gov't power, are cheering it on in bloodthirsty mobs -- because it's one of their own who is proposing it, this time.

Bush is worse than a disappointment. He is a disaster for our freedom.

pax

This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector. – Plato circa 400 B.C.

10-Ring
March 5, 2003, 12:23 AM
Nope, GW is still going strong and is doing a fine job in this troubled times. As I ask my liberal "friends" who is a better alternative, Gore?

MitchSchaft
March 5, 2003, 12:43 AM
Gore might have been better.

LOL, You have GOT to be kidding me! There's a reason why we in TN did not vote for him!

Marshall
March 5, 2003, 03:38 AM
I shun to think what our freedoms would be if Gore was in office! He would have had no earthly idea what to do with foreign affairs after 911 and, would have been a pushover for all the liberals and their social agenda's here at home. We had a dem senate too remember, I shake my head when thinking about it. :rolleyes:

But, it turned out the best it could have so, :D !

MoNsTeR
March 5, 2003, 12:15 PM
How about:
"I voted Libertarian in 2000, and will again in 2004, and BTW Dubya is doing a terrible job just like every president this century."

Phyphor
March 5, 2003, 12:48 PM
The only problem with voting Libertarian, (or... GAG GREEN,) is your vote seems all but wasted. given that neither party has a chance in hell of getting into office anytime soon....

Leatherneck
March 5, 2003, 12:57 PM
Pax,
I share your disappointment, but nowhere near as strongly as you. I think GWB is a good man, who, due to his lack of federal experience, and at his parents' urging, relies heavily on Cheney, Rice, and Rumsfeld. They are single-minded men who have no particular appreciation of, or fondness for, individual rights. They believe in their agenda and can't imagine one of their close cohorts abusing the ever-wider encroachment on the BOR. I truly don't worry much about what the current administration will do with its newfound authority; I do worry considerably about what a future dem president and cabinet might do with the residuals they inherit.

TC
TFL Survivor

NewShooter78
March 5, 2003, 02:05 PM
I don't like Bush, but I think he said the right things after 9/11 and then didn't back them up as much as he should have. I really think the administration should be looking towards NK right now considering they LOCKED ON to one of our military aircraft in international waters and came damn close to recreating the disaster that happened not too long ago when one of their fighters came a bit too close.

Malone LaVeigh
March 5, 2003, 02:23 PM
Gore might have been better.I'll buy that, with heavy emphasis on the "might." When anyone brought up Bush's lack of a foreign policy resume during the election, the response was always that he had been surrounded by seasoned world-class diplomats who would be able to avert any disasters he could get us into. It turns out that the old hands like Cheny, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, etc., and their neo-conservative arrogance have so alienated the world that now we can't even get an old knee-jerk ally like Turkey to support our efforts.

In this case, that's a good thing, since our effort is misguided, IMO. But I seriously doubt that Gore would have had the same problem getting the Europeans and Arab nations on board. Maybe I'm assuming he would have carried a little more of the Clinton legacy than is true. If Clinton was still prez, the French would probably be leading the charge. (Well, maybe not "leading," they are still French, after all.)

As it is, Bush has managed to squander all of the good will the US had following 9/11 by chasing after unrelated hobgoblins and pursuing a foreign policy of coersion, bribery and insult. All the while enviscerating our civil rights at home and driving the economy into the worst recession since Daddy got us into an unnecessary war. Seems some folks never learn.

JPM70535
March 5, 2003, 02:58 PM
All the Bush bashing isn't going to alter fhe fact that if Al "Mr personality" Gore had been elected president the 2nd amendment would by now have been deleted from the Constitution and the right to keep and bear arms would be just a far distant memory.

While Bush may not be letter perfect as Prez. he is so far ahead of anyone the Democrats espouse that there is no comparison.
I will vote for any Conservative, regardless of party affiliation, just show me a Democrat who stands foresquare against gun control and loudly proclaims his belief in the RKBA. Any who stood up and were counted could kiss their chance of being nominated as their party's candidate.

In the meantime I will vote for Bush as many times as I can.

Carlos Cabeza
March 5, 2003, 03:58 PM
I think Al Gore would have made a fine Pres.......Er uhhhh PUPPET !!!!!!!!! Yeah that and his beard looked STUPID !!!:D

faustulus
March 6, 2003, 02:04 AM
Woodchuck,

The government can do a lot better than low bid private industry. Take a look at the screeners they had before. Most were not citizens, could not pass a background check and were theives. What else could you expect from $5.00/hour with no benefits workers. Many could not even speak english.

One the hijackers got on the plane with BOXCUTTERS do you really think it would have made a difference who paid them before Sept. 11? Think of how many times you have had stuff lost by the airlines and how many times you have had stuff stolen by the guy who checked your luggage, then tell me who are thieves. And as far as what language they speak... I am not even going to go there. There is no logic to it at all. Let me just say if someone is building me a car or a house I would rather they NOT speak english. But even after all that you didn't give me an example of where government did better than private industry.
How about investments, lets look at the stock market since 1945 vs. Social Security. After all the government does such a good job with the INS or the BATF or the drug trafficking.
Yes we all see what a good job government employees do. Does the term "good enough for government work." ring any bells. That is not to say that the government doesn't ever do things well they just have deck of bureaucats stacked against them.

The homeland security dept. was necessary to bring all the departments together instead of competing with each other (for status and appropriations).

Now what about the department of Homeland security has changed that? the CIA and FBI are still seperate departments as is the NSA. These were the guys not talking before. If he had disolved those and united them under the HS maybe there would be an arguement. In fact he just created a bigger office which can now compete with the others. and if you think they won't I have this nice bridge you may be interested in...

The only problem with voting Libertarian, (or... GAG GREEN,) is your vote seems all but wasted. given that neither party has a chance in hell of getting into office anytime soon....

This mentality scares me. Isn't it time we stood up for what we believe and not worry so much about being on the "winning side." We tell ourselves it is the only way. But year after year we are seeing our rights eaten away, we just seem to pick and choose which ones we want to lose.

WilderBill
March 6, 2003, 02:09 AM
I think Dubya has apair to be sure and is the right guy for the office at this trying time.
Could he be better?
Couldn't we all?!
I do wish he would stop trying to keep the stupid UN somehow relavent. He needs to let the UN show how useless it really is and just get on with it.
I expect that once Iraq has been decisively dealt with, a lot of bad attitudes will improve and NK will either become more humble or cease to exist.

Phyphor
March 6, 2003, 02:13 AM
This mentality scares me. Isn't it time we stood up for what we believe and not worry so much about being on the "winning side." We tell ourselves it is the only way. But year after year we are seeing our rights eaten away, we just seem to pick and choose which ones we want to lose.

Hell yea, we gotta stand up for what we believe in. But sometimes the options that would lead to the best outcomes aren't quite clear.
I do agree that one should vote wherever their conscience takes them, nevermind my expression of disheartedness(sp?)

I guess I'm just frustrated with the current political situation....



:banghead:

Quartus
March 9, 2003, 10:46 PM
pax, I think GW is upholding the Constitution...


...as he understands it.


Therein lies the problem - he doesn't understand it. He is honorable, but ignorant. And the crowd around him is not going to help him understand it, either.

ahadams
March 9, 2003, 11:10 PM
I'm one of those conservative Christian sorts of guys so gun rights isn't my only criteria for voting for someone. As such I couldn't vote for anybody other than GWB, since nobody else who held anything close to the same value set had any chance of winning.

I'll vote for him again, as there's nobody else even close to being able to win who meets my standards.

Malone LaVeigh
March 9, 2003, 11:42 PM
He is honorable, but ignorant.I used to believe that. But if this were ignorance, he would be a mongoloid idiot.

No, I am convinced he knows very well what he is doing. He's surrounded himself by these neo-con "American century" types because he really want's to do away with the Republic and bring on the Empire. Of course, he doesn't put it that way, even in his own thoughts. He just believes in American superiority with the same arrogant assurance that the Romans believed that they were bringing the light of civilization to the rest of the world. And, from a detached perspective, there is truth to that. Most of the conquered tribes did benefit in many ways by Roman conquest. The Romans also became wealthier and more secure for a while. All both groups gave up was their autonomy.

Monkeyleg
March 9, 2003, 11:50 PM
Malone: :rolleyes:

If what you suggest is true, then Canada and Mexico would now be colonies, and we'd be taking oil for free from Venezuala at the point of a gun.

For the last three or more years, I've listened to the anti-UN types complain about how the UN was going to dominate the US. Now, Bush is making it clear to the UN that the organization may become history, and many of the same complainers are now accusing Bush of trying to establish a unilateral Empire.

It can't be both ways.

faustulus
March 10, 2003, 04:55 AM
I agree with monkeyleg, it isn't Bush that scares me it is who comes after him.
As I have said before, think of a Nixon or a Clinton with all these new powers.

Scary.

Ed Brunner
March 10, 2003, 06:17 AM
He hasn't peaked yet. Think for a minute how we got where we are and who would be better in the long run for Americans. If anyone could seriously prefer Gore, then one of us is missing something.
The biggest enemy Constitutional USA has is the current crop of Clinton Democrats who put party and politics ahead of the nation's well being. Look at their desperate opposition to GWB and tell me they are Americans for America.

If you enjoyed reading about "Has Bush peaked early?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!