English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

i hear it ALLLLL the time, but usually the person can not give me specifics....
or i hear, Bush lost jobs for the USA, Bush raised gas prices.. blah blah blah... please tell me how he did these things ALONE if you believe them

don't bother ansering if you don't have a educated anwser

p.s. i have my opinion, i just want to know what the other sides is

2006-07-31 05:35:26 · 16 answers · asked by wisconbballgurl 2 in Social Science Economics

SO i have a question for everyone...

was is ok for us to go to war against Germany in World War II???

becuase you do know JAPAN attacked, not germany, and we declared war against Hitler, becuase we didn't like what he was doing to the jews,

umm... did you know sadam was gasing his people, and putting people who couldn't afford taxes, THROUGH SHREDDERS, feet first if it was real bad...... hmmmm... and the DID attack us, they flew OUR planes into OUR buildings...


also, with the unemployment... you do know that the economy NAUTRALLY goes through cycles.... just becuase our economy is in a dip right now doesn't mean it was bush's fault,
i would like you to show me HOW BUSH caused the unemployment, and don
t say out sourcing becuase you know that that shirt or vase or w/e you bought last week that was made in china.. would you like to have paid 2 or 3 times more for it just so we could have more jobs for americans????? i doubt it

2006-08-01 03:17:37 · update #1

16 answers

He is not a bad president at all if you look back at all of the things that has happened during his presidency and no matter who would have been president during this people would hate them since they do not have all the facts

2006-07-31 05:40:26 · answer #1 · answered by The original John Doe 3 · 0 2

With the emergence of "contact sport" news reporting, there is a huge demand for product to fill the airwaves, paper, or web. We would soon become bored if we did not have "Breaking News" or "News Alert" or "Crisis In The Mideast" blasting from every TV set or radio. You have to consider how much that has changed in 20 years before you start trying to analyze the merits of any President.

Where President Clinton benefited from a relatively peaceful world and a prosperous and growing economy due to the emergence of the internet and personal computers, President Bush barely got his suitcase unpacked before terrorists attacked our country. You might argue with his response to that issue and others, but one wonders what things would look like had that not happened. In addition to the terrorist attacks, the economy was already in decline in late 1999 and the effects of the China explosion have made a major difference in global economics and politics.

I don't think the history books will treat President Bush with kindness. His inability to inspire confidence and the constraints of our modern terrorist-filled world make it hard for him to look like a great leader. While it can be easy to look good when things are going well, he has lost any chance of that happening.

I prefer to get my history after the component of time has been added. Trying to decided "good or bad" at this point is guesswork without the benefit of a long-term perspective.

2006-07-31 09:34:02 · answer #2 · answered by united9198 7 · 0 0

the facts are that more people have jobs, the economy is doing better. Gas prices could very well be from his foreign policy but by staying in Iraq, they may be lower than if we didnt. We have secured some oil by going in there, if iran and iraq were to cut off the taps, we would be screwed over here. So at least we have iraq and saudi arabi and russia giving oil, venezuela and iran are still being defiant. So yeah, bush's hard *** approach to them could be why they are squeezing us at the pump a little, but we could be doing far worse. And some people say venezuela and iran dont have that much control, they are idiots because over there they dont pay more than 35 cents a gallon. Bush alone cant do anything, his administration maybe. But again, its too hard to say if we did things differently how we would be now

2006-07-31 05:44:16 · answer #3 · answered by alienorgy69 3 · 0 0

The problem is that he has knee-jerk reactions to foreign policy. He is not a diplomat, he wants to go and attack if he feels the slightest provocation.

As to his domestic policies, he is governed too much by big business. Remember, he was an oil man, and look at the price of gasoline now, and the amount of profits oil companies are making. There HAS to be a connection. Cry Mideast turmoil all you want, but the majority of our oil comes from the Americas, not the Middle East. Even his positions on the environment are governed by big business--he wants to allow drilling in Alaska, and he opposes any attempt to try to ease global warming because it would be too expensive for businesses to make the necessary changes. Never mind that it will eventually destroy the planet--keeping big businesses from having to shell out money is too important.

2006-07-31 06:23:16 · answer #4 · answered by cross-stitch kelly 7 · 0 0

Bush has nothing to do with gas prices. That's up to the OPEC nations. Jobs will alays travel. Unfortunately with NAFTA and CAFTA they can travel overseas where we can't follow (and yes I lost a factory job)
Did he lie to get us into war? Probably, but he has a presented a valid excuse, that information comes to him a bit at a time so he didn't have all the facts in, and another that one of the CIA informants was lying.
On the domestic spying he is breaking the law. The law says that for national defence he can wait up to 3 days after the act to get the warrant. His excuse is he has to move quickly, but he can already move right away, so there is something that he doesn't want to reveal at all, even 3 days later.

2006-07-31 05:48:04 · answer #5 · answered by nursesr4evr 7 · 0 0

considering he cant even answer reporters questions about economics improvements proves he don't know what the hell he is doing. i believe he should try to take a chance on trying to make something better for Americans while we are in a time of disstress. we have 80 year old men and women still working unmerciful hour because social security doesn't pay enough for them to take retirement and us (as in this generation) has to pay off all debt that he put us through. bush just shoot the economy straight to hell. HE IS A TERRIBLE PRESIDENT.

2006-07-31 15:51:16 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Is this a question about Bush , the Bush administration or the collective responsibility of the House of representatives?
I will answer as if it was the former.
Many folks, when asked to pinpoint Bush's deficiencies, mention his callous disregard for human life, his need for remedial English classes and his plutocratic pedigree hastily painted over in John Deere green. But most former presidents, plenty of Democrats among them, have shared in some or all of those follies.

What rankles me most about Bush is a subtle shading in the way he sees this world. I think I see him willfully averting his eyes from the world's complexity and instead basing policy on black-and-white distinctions made by an ever-shrinking handful of experts.

There is nothing more dangerous than a powerful man who sees a simple system when he looks at a complex one.

In daily life, to be sure, the most useful rules of thumb are the simplest ones. And the great religious laws of the world, like the Golden Rule, draw their strength and ubiquitous instinctive appeal from their simplicity, their directness, their lack of moral clutter.

If leaders followed the Golden Rule, of course, the world would be a different place. They don't, and that's why the world is a complicated affair. Geopolitics is a huge tangled mess of ambivalent alliances, blustery mutual denunciations, marriages of convenience, a few genuine belligerent threats, and a great deal of posturing -- also known as diplomacy. In Bush's world, all these ambiguous forms of interaction must be sorted into one of two categories: With Us, or Against Us.

Diplomacy isn't the only field Bush oversimplifies. He has also tried to roll back the domestic regulations that protect us, claiming they are too complicated.

While promising to "get government off our backs", the Bush administration has gradually removed watchdogs from the henhouses of the nation until the only one left is the fox. Scientific committees charged with reviewing federal regulation of lead or timber have been staffed with "former" lobbyists for the lead and timber industries. Dirty power plants have been encouraged to police themselves, as have drug companies.

Environmentalists, charged with protecting those who can't speak up for themselves, have had a particularly hard time in Bush's oversimplified world. We've seen repeated attempts to shorten public comment periods or do away with them altogether. We've seen formerly public meetings secluded behind closed doors where industry representatives negotiate for control of the people's forests and coastlines. We've even heard USDA executives announce that e-mail comments from any environmental group will be deleted unread as "spam."

We know from fairy tales that we must be careful what we wish for. Bush's wish for simplicity may soon come true.

The more we demand that countries side with us or against us, the more we'll find them obediently lining up against us, enabling us to enjoy the simple martyr-like worldview of, for example, Osama bin Laden. As we strip away regulations and let the free market take its course, we may soon find, to our dismay, that we have precious little left to regulate. And as the current wave of extinction sweeps over the globe, the world becomes biologically simpler and much, much poorer.

I await your retort.
Chris

2006-07-31 05:49:04 · answer #7 · answered by kipp[axkid 3 · 0 0

Because he's not a good president, maybe.

I just coined a new word for the game he and Blair (UK) play, it's called pOILitics, because with their so-called leadership, they brought on the current oil crisis and RISING prices, by invading Iraq.

In fact, Bush and Blair are forming a new political party called BLUSH.

2006-07-31 05:41:28 · answer #8 · answered by Cham G 3 · 0 0

Hey Wisconson, you need to check all the history of this guy. Here in Texas, as governor, the state went into a spiraling deficit while he held office. He has done the same for our country as president. People should have checked his record in office before voting for him, not just vote that way because of his father's name. Sadly, we are to blame for our ignorance in not researching before we vote. Know before you vote!

2006-07-31 05:44:47 · answer #9 · answered by mark_jw2006 2 · 0 0

Considering he got his Saudi buddies to arrange dupe terrorists to fly two planes into the twin towers just so he could have his stupid war, yeah... he's actually an evil president.

2006-07-31 06:52:36 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

I'm afraid you letting yourself wide open for the nutty Liberials to respond, not that they can't, but they will. I believe Bush is a very good president myself, and I used to be a Democrat.

2006-07-31 05:43:56 · answer #11 · answered by Boogerman 6 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers