George W Bush is a great president in my opinion. After all, he was elected president two times. In my opinion, people who hate Bush are retards, especially those who voted for him and hates him now. Bush did everything he promised and tried to help the economy. Let's not forget what limitations a president has, and there is always impeachment if a president destroys a country.

The issue of the War in Iraq. First off, the deal of bringing back our troops. Why? We are doing great right now in helping Iraq. They currently have a 80 billion surplus of money, but they only used like 14 billion on reshaping the country. That is a decent start. There is also not much terrorist attacks in Iraq anymore. You rarely see any bombing. Do you want to withdraw right now so the guerillas can come back and take over? That would make the whole Iraq war a failure.
We didn't just go to Iraq to destroy the weapons of mass destruction. There were other reasons too, which many Americans and other countries supported. That reason was the unhumane things that Saddam was doing. He would execute and torture civilians everyday.

The issue of our failing economy, rising gas prices, higher mortgages. None of these are Bush's fault. The president does not control the economy. Although isn't his problem, he has been doing to the best of his limited power to help the country recover. So far it's going great. His family might own a oil company, but that doesn't mean he has to involve his private life. The economic crisis is due to the fact of what the consumers are buying and selling.

People who crop only the parts that Bush made mistakes in are obviously true haters. Everyone makes mistakes but Bush is a president so everyone knows him, which means more people hates him for no reason. Most people hate him because they just do and they have no real reason, which is stupid.

Bush has done many great things for our country. One of them is the No Child Left Behind. Many other programs has been made by him. But because most people are ignorant, they blame the person on top, who technically doesn't have full power. So if anything, blame the congress, actually blame the people for not having an actual voice.

Which ever president wins in the election, America is going to be ruined. Don't accept the barcode chip!

The War in Iraq is a complete failure. The purpose of the war was profit, not to "help" Iraq. Profiting from the deaths of others is a crime.


What weapons of mass destruction? We went to Iraq to get oil.


The education in the United States is still very poor. We aren't a third world country, but we are no where near to where we should be.

Profit? We didn't go in and take away their oil. They used it for their own sake. As I mentioned, there was a 80 billion surplus from oil profits.

I didn't say that was the only reason. I rather be wrong than be at risk. Who knows, Saddam might've even shipped them out.

The President does not control education, nor can it force a certain study. It is the department of education's job. He only helped improve it. And from what I learned and everyone knows, teachers and schools don't help you learn anything. You learn from experience and your effort to learn.

I do not like how the bush admistration handled education You cannot learn if textbooks and other educational tools are not provided for you. (Budget cuts that effect education are bad) (isnt the Secretary of education in the bush adminstration?)
(example: I am currently self learning calculus without a teacher and if i did not have my calculus book which cost me 90 dollars i could not learn)
(If the president provided me with the calculus book i could have bought a nice new graphing calculator too )

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Aug 9 2008, 2:47 am by MasterJohnny.

I agree to this point; Iraq is in a better situation right now than it would be immediately following a US withdrawal. But you should look at the cost to the United States - over $560 billion and thousands of American lives. When you see that the budget deficit next year is almost half a trillion dollars, you must ask whether so much money was spent well. Sure, you could argue that we have tried to improve the lives of the everyday Iraqi, but if you truly support such altruism, you could sell your house, car, computer, donate almost all of your income to charity, and live in the sort of penury endured by those in third-world countries. It might be a highly moral gesture, but I don't think you would do so.

The same is true with the country: has it been worth the lives of 4,136 (and counting), not even to mention the tens of thousands of civilians who died as a result of US occupation? Has it been worth the hundreds of billions of dollars spent on it? I certainly don't think so. And Iraq today is far from being and stable, productive country. If we cannot withdraw, then we must continue to spend hundreds of billions of dollars and hundreds of lives to continue to rebuild the country. If you so fervently support this, you should at least join the military and support a tax increase to pay for the war.

Quote

We didn't just go to Iraq to destroy the weapons of mass destruction. There were other reasons too, which many Americans and other countries supported. That reason was the unhumane things that Saddam was doing. He would execute and torture civilians everyday.

Dictators in many countries execute and persecute their people all the time. Like I said above, I can support the morality of attempting to stop them, but what about the cost? We invaded Iraq unilaterally, without the sanction of the United Nations, to do what we alone saw as moral justice. And no, there were not (officially) other reasons. The sole stated reason for the invasion of Iraq that was voted on by Congress in 2003 was to prevent the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction. I think it has become painfully obvious since then that Iraq posed no threat to our national security, and that invading Iraq has probably caused far more damage to the United States than not doing so.

Quote

Although isn't his problem, he has been doing to the best of his limited power to help the country recover. So far it's going great.

I strongly disagree. Obviously not everything that happens in the economy is as a result of Bush, but I think many of the economic policies under Bush have clearly contributed to the problem. When Bill Clinton left office in 2001, the country faced a $1 trillion surplus over the next ten years, and the national debt stood at about $5.8 trillion. With the unerring fiscal responsibility of the Reaganites, Bush came in and promptly rolled back taxes, granting massive amounts of money to the rich, and at the same time launched an invasion of Iraq, which has severely sapped government funds: military spending in recent years has been between $150 and $200 billion per year. Obviously the economic downturn would have shortened the surplus forecast Clinton faced, but I have never been able to see the logic of balancing a budget by vastly increasing military spending and lowering taxes. Less income + More expenditures = balanced budget? Perhaps you can help me out with the math here...

Today, we face a White House that proposes a record $490 billion deficit for the fiscal year 2009. That means we're losing $490 billion in one year. Today, you, as a citizen of the United States, may rest assured that you personally owe rather more than $31,439.58 to our nation's creditors, largely foreign. Do you have that money around to take the chip off your shoulder? The federal debt stands at over $9,573,000,000,000 - and perhaps writing out all those zeroes will emphasize just how far we are in the red. And yes, the budget is very much indeed the fault of our President Bush and his ruling Republican Party in Congress.

Quote

One of them is the No Child Left Behind. Many other programs has been made by him.

I'm not going to go into detail on the No Child Left Behind Act, but it has generally and widely been considered a failure. It has held schools accountable to unrealistically high standards, then given the federal government direct control of the "failure" schools. Of course, if Bush decided to fund education with some money...

If you just read some columnists on the No Child Left Behind Act, you will see that it is no groundbreaking piece of miracle legislation.


So yes, I think President Bush has done a very poor job of leading this nation. Do I hate him? No. But I disapprove of the way he does his job.

If there was a budget cut, it would be the school's job to use the funding in the best possible way. I've heard something from my school secretary. My school got a cut in funding but our principal put an emphasis on paying the teachers first, not their paycheck, but their bonuses. My secretary was really disappointed in this.

Sure, our country is in debt, but whenever we were in war we were in debt, and the future generations felt the problems in paying higher taxes to help pay it off. Our generation is most likely to handle it. But not all of the debt was Bush's fault. Bush doesn't even control the money system in our country. Let's not forget we are talking about George W Bush only, not the government and the people in the adminstration.

foolish EcHo when we talk about George W. Bush we have to take about the people in the adminstation because George W. Bush nominates cabinet members and then the senate Approves or not. George W. Bush is sort of responsible because he picked certain people. You cannot disregard the Bush adminstration and just talk about bush because bush put together his adminstration.
(self learn U.S. Government plz ^.^)

DT_Battlekruser pretty much summed it all up.

Know this, EcHo, ever heard of the quote "Only worry about yourself"? Comparing that quote to the nation, the United States should only worry of itself than affecting another country or it will be damaging its own. George W. Bush should not even declare war in the first place...

And yes EcHo, "Iraq" may be in 'good condition' for now but it will NOT repay over 655,000 deaths (That is, if you care) and the national debt. Pushing in only further will just make matters worse for the United States.

That is such a dumb statement KrayZee. That causes a fall of a nation. If it wasn't for the french, there would be no America. If it wasn't for the American's, there would be no EU or Europe. As much as this doesn't matter, get your facts straight. It is currently 654, 965, but even 1 human death is important.

As of June 2006 it is "654,965". A few years before World War II, President Franklin D. Roosevelt tries to remain neutral. The United States will be smaller if Napoleon Bonaparte did not make a Louisiana Purchase deal. Get YOUR facts straight.

To be honest, the United States EXISTS by England's expedition, not the French. France is to Canada, England is to United States and Spain is to Mexico.

Still it resulted in it. America finally decided to go in and together the Allies defeated the Axis. Also, the French aided in battles against the Red Coats. I'm talking about who helped who. So what I said was right. Let's not go off topic into that now okay?

Our country has been in debt, and will always be in debt. The way that our banking system is set up, the country is always in increasing debt.

That does not prove anything. As knowing President Franklin D. Roosevelt part of the democratic party, and he knows what is best as he is named as the top five best Presidents of all time. He knows what went on in Europe and with Europeans asking aid from the United States, he tries to remain neutral until World War II began. The French aided the United States because the United States not only asked but an obvious known rivalry between France and England for a long time, especially the hundred years war.

The Iraq War on the other hand, Iraq did not 'ask' for help. In fact, a poll asking Iraqi citizens themselves said that the United States should not get involved in the first place. So that defeats your argument of 'allies' and 'aiding'.

I hate Bush because he looks and talks like a monkey.

The Iraqis couldn't ask for help because everyone was following Saddam Hussien by force. Do you see North Korea asking people for help? No, they just praise Kim Jung Il unwillingly.

The funding of schools is done largely by the state governments, so the actual ability of schools to pay their staff is mostly a state problem. However, if a federal mandate adds additional pressure to the schools, it will further stretch funds. I'm not saying that No Child Left Behind was a horrible piece of legislation, but it did not do much to help the education in this country.

Quote

Sure, our country is in debt, but whenever we were in war we were in debt, and the future generations felt the problems in paying higher taxes to help pay it off. Our generation is most likely to handle it.

This is exactly the philosophy of the Republican party and why I so despise Republicans. I will not deny it: the men and women currently holding political office in America will not have to face the consequences of their actions. If they bring about environmental destruction or an eventual great depression (such as might happen if federal credit becomes no longer good), they won't live to suffer it. If taxes need to skyrocket to keep us alive and we will barely be able to buy food, it will be our (the children) generation, our the generation after that which suffers. So I cannot deny that most of the bad of what Bush has done will not affect men of his generation.

But playing NIMBY with your children is, in my opinion, one of the most despicable things you can do.

Quote

But not all of the debt was Bush's fault. Bush doesn't even control the money system in our country. Let's not forget we are talking about George W Bush only, not the government and the people in the adminstration.

Krazy said it; if we consider George W. Bush, we must also consider the men in his administration (whom he supports fully and largely selected), and the Republican leaders in Congress whom Bush also supports. Remember that Bush may not originate every lousy piece of legislation that has been passed, but he signs it in to law.

Quoted for truth.

Also. I think the first post (Echo's) is satire. Seriously. I read it and it was like... just entirely wrong but stated in such an obvious way that the only way it could have been written by a competent person was that it had to be satire. Since I think Echo is a reasonably sane person, then this topic must be satire.

There are many things about Bushy that make him seem like a terribad president - for me, the figures are enough. Double national debt, weak annual GDP growth, skyrocketing prices (yes, believe it or not, the president of the USA assumes some responsibility over those, too..) on gas and food. The thousands of dead soldiers are honestly nothing - there's no draft in the US, and in terms of warfare, 3000 isn't a lot. However, under Bush the economy has been stretched, the military's been doing poorly, and worldwide influence of the US has really lowered. Not that I think that's a bad thing for the world, but it probably IS a bad thing for the US.

Condo Rice's also a jackass .

The war was for profit, not for America as a whole, but certain companies and people.
Just like the taxes that DTBK mentioned, benefiting the rich again.
Then you look at how gas prices went from 1.50 to 4.50 (in my state at least) and somehow, the oil company posts a god damn huge ass profit. You would think rising oil prices would HURT their profit margin as people would buy less. Yet somehow, that is not the case.
No child left behind = stupid.
Failure (or the act of) 9/11.

I don't know one positive thing bush / bush administration has done.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlgTE3y3MNc
Gogo Mr. President. Bush is a bumbling incompetent. Anyone who blames all his failures on the circumstances... well, I don't want any hard feelings, so I'll leave it at that.