President Bush - Page 7

**devonin** · 06-17-2007, 02:24 PM

"I have proof, but I'm not allowed to tell you" does not constitute any kind of proof at all. I'm sorry if you thought it did.

OMGfat123 · 06-17-2007, 02:41 PM

All i can say is im glad this is his last year.

trillobyite · 06-17-2007, 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by devonin

"I have proof, but I'm not allowed to tell you" does not constitute any kind of proof at all. I'm sorry if you thought it did.

Wait are you talking to me? Or that other guy?

cathergirlhaley · 06-17-2007, 09:55 PM

um no,not perhaps the smartet but he did make a few afew decent decisions.

cathergirlhaley · 06-17-2007, 09:55 PM

smartest

**devonin** · 06-17-2007, 10:20 PM

As a note, there is an "edit" function for posts where you can go back and fix such typoes without doubleposting.

ljw5021 · 06-21-2007, 02:12 PM

While I may not agree with everything President Bush does, I support him and the war. Democrats and anti-war fanatics are always talking about "bringing our boys home" (and girls), but they overlook that by not believing in what they are fighting for, it takes all the spirit out of our troops.

**devonin** · 06-21-2007, 03:11 PM

If the people at home don't believe in what they are fighting for, perhaps that should suggest that they ought not to be fighting for it...

ljw5021 · 06-23-2007, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by devonin

If the people at home don't believe in what they are fighting for, perhaps that should suggest that they ought not to be fighting for it...

The people have no say now. The people elected George W. Bush President of the United States of America in 2000 and in 2004. When you elect someone, they're not going to run everything by the common population. They're going to make decisions with the power you gave them.

The people of the United States have no one to blame but themselves if they disagree with Bush's actions.

**devonin** · 06-23-2007, 03:59 PM

A president who is in their second term has no business just disregarding what their public wants simply because they aren't able to put themselves up for re-election. Their duty is to serve the will of the people. When less than 30% of your country approves of what you're doing, saying "Well screw them, they voted me in!" doesn't make a democratic president, it makes a tyrannical dictator.

ljw5021 · 06-23-2007, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by devonin

A president who is in their second term has no business just disregarding what their public wants simply because they aren't able to put themselves up for re-election. Their duty is to serve the will of the people. When less than 30% of your country approves of what you're doing, saying "Well screw them, they voted me in!" doesn't make a democratic president, it makes a tyrannical dictator.

The people have the power in the sense that they elect who they want. Could you imagine how slowly the government would respond to things if they needed the majority of America agreeing with them first? You have to take the approval rating with a grain of salt. I'm willing to bet between 50-55% of the United States has an IQ lower than 115, which I don't approve of when looking for opinions.

**devonin** · 06-23-2007, 04:36 PM

So you're prepared to just dictate standards for who -counts- when it comes to having a valid opinion? That strikes me as more than a little problematic.

Further, there is a difference between "You must seek a majority population vote for each and every polocy decision" and "When a very large percentage of your country is actively telling you that they disapprove of what you are doing, maybe you ought to consider not doing it."

Your statement here seems to simply not account for an elected leader taking things in a direction that the people no longer approve of. If you elect someone because they are in favour of a policy you support, if they suddenly also advocate for a policy you find extremely problematic, you honestly feel that the -right- answer to that is "Suck it up, you voted for them"?

When your term is 4 years long, what happens when 2 years in, the person you elected suddenly starts acting in a way you simply do not support? You shrug and say oops?

ljw5021 · 06-23-2007, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by devonin

So you're prepared to just dictate standards for who -counts- when it comes to having a valid opinion? That strikes me as more than a little problematic.

Further, there is a difference between "You must seek a majority population vote for each and every polocy decision" and "When a very large percentage of your country is actively telling you that they disapprove of what you are doing, maybe you ought to consider not doing it."

Your statement here seems to simply not account for an elected leader taking things in a direction that the people no longer approve of. If you elect someone because they are in favour of a policy you support, if they suddenly also advocate for a policy you find extremely problematic, you honestly feel that the -right- answer to that is "Suck it up, you voted for them"?

When your term is 4 years long, what happens when 2 years in, the person you elected suddenly starts acting in a way you simply do not support? You shrug and say oops?

Basically. What, in your ideal world, would happen? Tell me, because I'd really like to know how someone would realistically resolve this a year and a half before the next election.

Necrophage · 06-23-2007, 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ljw5021

The people have the power in the sense that they elect who they want. Could you imagine how slowly the government would respond to things if they needed the majority of America agreeing with them first? You have to take the approval rating with a grain of salt. I'm willing to bet between 50-55% of the United States has an IQ lower than 115, which I don't approve of when looking for opinions.

What, and people who are just a little on the slow side cannot grasp the concept of right and wrong? Even a person with severe mental handicaps can distinguish between right and wrong, I'm sure. So, someone with an Iq of 115 can surely say 'Hey, I don't agree with that.' Like...the war in Iraq, mayhaps?
Yeah, I'm sure there are many patriots out there rooting for our troops. Good for you, and good for them. I believe in standing up for what you believe in and if they believe its right then go them. Personally...I think the monkey in office is just trying to finish what his daddy couldn't.

MilfeulleSakuraba · 06-23-2007, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ljw5021

The people have the power in the sense that they elect who they want. Could you imagine how slowly the government would respond to things if they needed the majority of America agreeing with them first? You have to take the approval rating with a grain of salt. I'm willing to bet between 50-55% of the United States has an IQ lower than 115, which I don't approve of when looking for opinions.

Then theoretically you should be worried that Bush was chosen in the first place.

ljw5021 · 06-23-2007, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Necrophage

What, and people who are just a little on the slow side cannot grasp the concept of right and wrong? Even a person with severe mental handicaps can distinguish between right and wrong, I'm sure. So, someone with an Iq of 115 can surely say 'Hey, I don't agree with that.' Like...the war in Iraq, mayhaps?
Yeah, I'm sure there are many patriots out there rooting for our troops. Good for you, and good for them. I believe in standing up for what you believe in and if they believe its right then go them. Personally...I think the monkey in office is just trying to finish what his daddy couldn't.

No actually he's trying to finish what Clinton started. Clinton sent over a cruise missile or two after the bombings in the WTC and said "eh, better not do that again". Well guess what, they did it again on 9/11, and it was plopped on Bush's lap. Clinton's problem, Bush's resolution. If you don't like it, blame Clinton and yourselves.

ljw5021 · 06-23-2007, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MilfeulleSakuraba

Then theoretically you should be worried that Bush was chosen in the first place.

Why is that? Bush has an IQ of somewhere around 130, while Kerry is just a bit lower.

Don't tell me you believed that hoax that said his IQ was 91! I thought you had a bit more sense than that. That was debunked.

MilfeulleSakuraba · 06-23-2007, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ljw5021

Why is that? Bush has an IQ of somewhere around 130, while Kerry is just a bit lower.

Don't tell me you believed that hoax that said his IQ was 91! I thought you had a bit more sense than that. That was debunked.

No.

You said you're "willing to bet between 50-55% of the United States has an IQ lower than 115, which [you] don't approve of when looking for opinions." Bush was elected by the citizens of the United States, over half of whom, by your claim, have IQs under 115 and thus have opinions you don't consider worthwhile. Aren't you then worried that they made the wrong choice?

jewpinthethird · 06-23-2007, 09:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ljw5021

No actually he's trying to finish what Clinton started. Clinton sent over a cruise missile or two after the bombings in the WTC and said "eh, better not do that again". Well guess what, they did it again on 9/11, and it was plopped on Bush's lap. Clinton's problem, Bush's resolution. If you don't like it, blame Clinton and yourselves.

BUT, Clinton was elected. So, therefore, you have to suck it up and accept his mistake...since it is also your mistake. I mean, going by your logic.

Quote:

The people elected George W. Bush President of the United States of America in 2000 and in 2004.

You are only half right. Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000. Al Gore was elected by the people, not George W. Bush.

With your kind of patriotism, the United States would still be under British rule. If you want to live under a dictator, move to Iran.

marxandlennon · 06-23-2007, 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ljw5021

No actually he's trying to finish what Clinton started. Clinton sent over a cruise missile or two after the bombings in the WTC and said "eh, better not do that again". Well guess what, they did it again on 9/11, and it was plopped on Bush's lap. Clinton's problem, Bush's resolution. If you don't like it, blame Clinton and yourselves.

Actually, the whole "saddam pulled off 9-11" thing was disproven a loooooong time ago.

06-17-2007, 02:24 PM	#121
devonin Very Grave Indeed Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Ontario, Canada Age: 40 Posts: 10,098	Re: President Bush "I have proof, but I'm not allowed to tell you" does not constitute any kind of proof at all. I'm sorry if you thought it did.

06-17-2007, 02:41 PM	#122
OMGfat123 FFR Player Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Canada FTW! Posts: 208	Re: President Bush All i can say is im glad this is his last year. __________________

06-17-2007, 09:55 PM	#124
cathergirlhaley FFR Player Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 6	Re: President Bush um no,not perhaps the smartet but he did make a few afew decent decisions.

06-17-2007, 09:55 PM	#125
cathergirlhaley FFR Player Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 6	Re: President Bush smartest

06-17-2007, 10:20 PM	#126
devonin Very Grave Indeed Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Ontario, Canada Age: 40 Posts: 10,098	Re: President Bush As a note, there is an "edit" function for posts where you can go back and fix such typoes without doubleposting.

06-21-2007, 02:12 PM	#127
ljw5021 FFR Player Join Date: Jun 2007 Age: 35 Posts: 40	Re: President Bush While I may not agree with everything President Bush does, I support him and the war. Democrats and anti-war fanatics are always talking about "bringing our boys home" (and girls), but they overlook that by not believing in what they are fighting for, it takes all the spirit out of our troops.

06-21-2007, 03:11 PM	#128
devonin Very Grave Indeed Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Ontario, Canada Age: 40 Posts: 10,098	Re: President Bush If the people at home don't believe in what they are fighting for, perhaps that should suggest that they ought not to be fighting for it...

06-23-2007, 03:59 PM	#130
devonin Very Grave Indeed Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Ontario, Canada Age: 40 Posts: 10,098	Re: President Bush A president who is in their second term has no business just disregarding what their public wants simply because they aren't able to put themselves up for re-election. Their duty is to serve the will of the people. When less than 30% of your country approves of what you're doing, saying "Well screw them, they voted me in!" doesn't make a democratic president, it makes a tyrannical dictator.

06-23-2007, 04:36 PM	#132
devonin Very Grave Indeed Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Ontario, Canada Age: 40 Posts: 10,098	Re: President Bush So you're prepared to just dictate standards for who -counts- when it comes to having a valid opinion? That strikes me as more than a little problematic. Further, there is a difference between "You must seek a majority population vote for each and every polocy decision" and "When a very large percentage of your country is actively telling you that they disapprove of what you are doing, maybe you ought to consider not doing it." Your statement here seems to simply not account for an elected leader taking things in a direction that the people no longer approve of. If you elect someone because they are in favour of a policy you support, if they suddenly also advocate for a policy you find extremely problematic, you honestly feel that the -right- answer to that is "Suck it up, you voted for them"? When your term is 4 years long, what happens when 2 years in, the person you elected suddenly starts acting in a way you simply do not support? You shrug and say oops?

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)