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

I'm tired of name calling and unexpanded cries of "tyranny" and "impeachment" and "he sucks"... can a Liberal actually document, in a rational way, why they don't like Bush with FACTS to back it up and not just rhetoric or emotion? In every election since the founding of our nation, SOMEONE has been the loser, but we seldom see such violent, emotional outbursts as we see now.

I don't claim to like everything Bush has done, and I would love to see an actual Democrat candidate (or independant) with a legitimate platform and set of principles... but lately it seems that they concentrate on bashing Bush, not on explaining themselves.

(And don't worry, while I admit to a Conservative leaning -- actually more Libertarian --, I plan to bash them as well in future questions, so try not to get your panties in a twist.)

2006-08-15 16:38:34 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Government

I'm not going to address specific commments made by answers so far, but I do feel a little need to defend myself :-D

I'm not unaware of some of his issues and details that I do in fact disagree with... I guess a better question might have been why does everybody (OK, a generalization, but bear with me) including most "alternate candidates" focus on the vehement rhetoric and not on the facts, some of which you people have posted (and some that I question the objectivity of, but that's what makes a poker game)? Why is what is popular both here and in the media, just the outbursts? If the facts are "unquestionable", then why not post them instead?

2006-08-15 17:11:41 · update #1

And yes, I am "focusing" on the outbursts because that is what I'm trying to understand... why were unpopular presidents of 30 years ago just considered unpopular unlike the "He's not my president" crap we get today?

2006-08-15 17:16:07 · update #2

10 answers

1. He lies and flip-flops a lot. www.thetruthaboutgeorge.com

2. He's anti gay-marriage, it doesn't affect him, he should shut up.

3. He's anti-abortion, he's trying to control a woman's uterus, he should shut up.

4. He taps phone calls.

5. He's anti stem-cell research, PRO-Life MY ***!

And many more...

2006-08-15 16:46:13 · answer #1 · answered by RATM 4 · 0 1

I can argue, but if you don't like my point of view, don't report as a spam, it is so frustrating....tell me ill come erase myself my post !

Actualy if not democrat neither...

Please, you asked as question, so take the time to carefully look at ALL THE LINKS AND ARCTICLES, and you will at least, even if it don't change your mind, it will full answer to your question which is why....some peoples don't like Bush...

I really hope it help ! A. Kinnon
They are the Illuminatis, and they own you,
This is the New World Order, and it is your future if the world don't wake up :

And this is what Bush’s minions had to say in 2000;-
"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor"
Project for the New American Century (2000)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

“Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”
Hermann Göring(Nazi) 1946 Nuremberg Trials

"We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order."
David Rockefeller: Statement to the United Nations Business Council in September 1994

"For more than a century, ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with other around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure - one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it." David Rockefellers memoirs (2002)

Patriot Act : http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/default.html
The Bush's helped finance the Waffen SS and SA.
The Bush family has had dealings with Saddam Hussein involving oil drilling and real estate.
The Bush family has connections to the Bin Laden family. This includes a close partnership in the Carlyle group and Arbusto oil. The Bin Ladens and the Bush's have had a long close relationship.
However I don't know if they actually had money taken away being the Bush family has been known to bribe politicians.
t's funny how the Bush family has business dealings with people and governments who kill Americans. The people who are the biggest threat to our national security are friends and partners with the Bush's.
Makes you wonder who's side the Bush's are on.http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww...
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww...

2006-08-15 23:46:43 · answer #2 · answered by The Patriot 4 · 2 1

you clearly haven't been paying attention... Kerry had a much more in-depth platform than Bush did, focusing on MANY, MANY ISSUES... it was large and available on his website?

if you didn't agree with his platform... that's one thing, but to say no one has had one is naive and shows how little you pay attention

but anyway... to answer your question:

it's not one thing, but all of them together... sure anyone can make a mistake here or there... but again and again he's made mistake after mistake... some examples... and far from all of them:

not taking al-queda seriously in first 9 months, ports, harriet meyers, not continuing to focus on Osama after attacks, No Child Left Behind, Medicare prescription program, CIA leak in his cabinet (at least), Brownie and the Hurricane, Bolton and the U.N., Powell and WMD, awarding those who screw up (tennant comes to mind), wire taps without a warrant, getting finance records without a warrant, treatment of "detainees" (which was over ruled by the Supreme Court recently), jack abramoff stopping off at the White House, support of NAFA, CAFTA and trade with China...

and I didn't even mention the "post-mission accomplished" debacle of Iraq...

you seem to paint with a broad brush... and you don't seem to be paying much attention... you watch those that scream loudest, assume they are the majority and ignore the facts of the situation...

EDIT: (using bold so it will stand out... I'm not trying to yell)
SOME PEOPLE DO... BUT MANY ON HERE ARE TEENAGERS ON BOTH SIDES AND HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT AND ARE NOT REPRESENATIVE OF THE PARTIES THEY TRY TO REPRESENT...

2006-08-15 23:55:18 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

Tax breaks to the wealthy while he tries to spend less on medicare, going to war with a nation who had no WMD's (though, North Korea did), domestic spying, the patriot act removing many essential liberties ("Those willing to give up essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberties nor safety" - B. Franklin), lack of attempt at alternative energy, and using the fear the terrorists caused to further his own campaign.

2006-08-15 23:50:19 · answer #4 · answered by Captain Socialism 2 · 1 1

Muggle, you have some good points about the Democrats bashing and not saying much with substance. However, Bush's fiscal policy is plain ugly. He is not a very good neoconservativen politician--he spends more money than even most Dems. can agree with.

2006-08-15 23:47:19 · answer #5 · answered by D H 1 · 1 1

Ofcourse they can't! I also haven't been able to figure these people out. You think people would appreciate a Pres not involved in extracurricular activities in the oval office. Though pretty rough around the edges and not a good speaker, I'll take someone with principle anyday.

2006-08-15 23:42:51 · answer #6 · answered by squeezeplay00 2 · 1 2

Not only the liberals that do not like Bush.. anybody with brain will.. and if what's happening now is not enough to make that clear to you.. then do not waste your time trying to understand... just support him and God bless American

2006-08-15 23:44:58 · answer #7 · answered by guy_from_there 3 · 1 1

I just think he's really stupid, I don't know him well enough to know if I like him or not.

2006-08-15 23:43:05 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

they dont have to

2006-08-15 23:44:13 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

I can!!!!

2006-08-15 23:45:57 · answer #10 · answered by kevin g 3 · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers