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

Seriously. Please, no ignorant answers saying "Bush lied!" Or... "Bush is a fascist Bastard!!"
I want serious answers. Think about the question. Consider the checks and balances. Think about something besides Iraq, when coming up with a response.
(Think about how Clinton had Osama in custody back in the 90's.)
If your shoe size is higher than your IQ, then don't even click to answer this question.
Please. I'm serious. This is for serious discussion.

2007-01-14 10:57:21 · 19 answers · asked by koepnick012787 2 in Politics & Government Law & Ethics

Ok.... to specify for those of us with limited capacity when it comes to the english language...

I'm not saying you can't mention Iraq. I'm saying use something besides just that. Give me multiple reasons. Please don't tell me thats the only reason you have for blaming Bush for everything else.

2007-01-14 11:08:18 · update #1

Fantastic intelligence. Remember my "shoe size" remark? That still stands. Cool people who can guess my age using my screen name... probably should pass this one up.

And for the record.... I'm a registered Libertarian.

2007-01-14 11:26:32 · update #2

19 answers

That's what the Dem Libs do. They blame, and Bash President Bush, because that's all they've got. They've got no solutions to the issues they whine about, and no real legitimate explanation as to why they voted for the war, but don't support the war. They remind me of little kids that get caught smoking in the bathroom---"Oh, it wasn't my fault, they were his cigarettes..."

2007-01-14 11:14:12 · answer #1 · answered by mojojo66 3 · 0 4

because they have been spoon fed the lies that their party leaders tell them. Howard Dean suggested his purely plan changed into to bash Bush. The liberal don't have a unmarried mission of their own all they could do is stand with information from and watch further and extra elections lost to Republicans. The congressional race in California changed into going to be their bellwether election. They were going to win, yet they did not. Now all they could do is problem and whinge. save in recommendations at the same time as they were(and nonetheless are) saying Bush is an fool? seems that he scored better on his IQ than D student Kerry. They whinge about the warfare, yet they voted for going. They whinge about FEMA, yet they voted to placed that less than position of start protection. They even blame Bush for the undesirable economic equipment at the same time as it is superior now than contained in the perfect 4 years. They whinge about not having any money, yet unemployment is purely 4.3% They whinge about not sending the nationwide safeguard to New Orleans, however the Democrat Governor did not ask for them. they say bush's pollnumbers are low, yet so changed into Clinton's for the period of his 2d time period and they are lots better than Kerry's or Gore's today and Congress. they have even complained about global Warming and melting ice at the same time as it changed into hotter contained in the 1800's earlier there have been many factories and they fail to point that the south pole and the Sahara Dessert were once tropical rain forests.

2016-12-02 06:37:20 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

This last midterm was a referendum on Mr Bush and his war.
I am still convinced we had no valid reason for invading Iraq.
I remain convinced the MCA signed into law abolishes habeas corpus protection for any one, AMERICAN or otherwise the president designates ... with no chance to challenge it.
I remain convinced the 2000 election was stolen and I remain convinced Bush's response to Katrina was absolutely inadequate and I am convinced Bush is not intellectually capable of being anything other than a figurehead for neocons.
Other than being an enemy of church and state separation, first amendment rights and world peace, ... I suppose he is marginally adequate. I remain convinced Bush is a hypocrite.
Did he nor did he not FINISH has time in the TANG and why didn't he go to Nam ? If he wants to be the war president, it would be better if he actually saw combat instead of posing on a flight-deck in a flight suit.

2007-01-14 11:13:40 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

Mainly just Iraq and the economy.. Don't know about "everything".

We should have never went whether you agree or not. But it seems democrats take more heat for not supporting the war than the man himself takes for going in the first place. I personally, don't think he should get a bye for that..

I also have a heck of a differant view on how tax cuts and spending should be handled. He wants to spend more than any other president in history yet cut taxes for millionares. In a country that panders to the rich, I think it's wrong. I believe cutting taxes for the people that need and will spend the money will create the jobs. Not giving it to corporations so they'll have more money to give their CEO's 30 million dollar christmas bonuses..

Also, he's done a terrible job on foreign relations. The whole "either your with us or against us" thing makes "us" look really bad in my opinion..

2007-01-14 11:07:17 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

Bush is a major obstacle to peace in this world. His method that treats war as an answer to every problem is destabilizing the entire world. He is a real danger to this country and the world. He and Cheney must be impeached and removed from office before they can start yet another war for ideological reasons. He should have never been placed in office by the Supreme Court. That august body truly soiled itself for even deciding on Bush v. Gore, and they have tarnished thier institution irreparably by doing so. I suspect they knew as much, since they made their decision non-binding on future decisions. But that was a pretty lame attempt to mitigate the prostitution those justices engaged in. If you support Bush, you are probably mentally ill . . .science has demonstrated that.

2007-01-14 11:21:01 · answer #5 · answered by Mak 1 · 1 1

i don't blame everything on bush,nor do i give him credit for things he doesn't control. but questions like yours are the answer. attempts from both sides at blame. the whole lib/con thing is divisive. childish,insulting questions/answers are not good for america. a serious question around here is ridiculed. the good thing is yahoo cons and yahoo libs are not a reflection of the majority of americans. i would hope some here don't carry their attitude away from the computer.

edit. the answers that you have recieved is why i end up withdrawing serious questions. any serious question leads to more fingerpointing,insults and division.

2007-01-14 11:08:24 · answer #6 · answered by kissmy 4 · 1 0

(Think about how Clinton had Osama in custody back in the 90's.)
Why do many republicans insist on blaming everything on clinton?
Bush did lie to us repeatedly. first the war was to find osama. then it was weapons of mass destruction. he doesn't even remember why he went to war. why would i support a war that has no specific reason?
why would you want to know why we don't agree with him and then tell us that we're not allowed to state certain reasons?
If you want to know our thoughts on certain issues. tell us. don't expect us to read your mind.
besides i'm sure you hated clinton when he lied to america about his sex life. but you still support bush when he lied numerous times about the reason our soldiers were fighting.
edit:
"to specify for those of us with limited capacity when it comes to the english language..."
You speak with the language and tone of a very young and angry man. Insulting people with name calling and put downs is not mature. I bet your just a teenager. maybe 20. am i right?
so to explain my views would be wasted on your limited understanding that there is more than one side or even two sides to politics.

2007-01-14 11:05:44 · answer #7 · answered by summer love 3 · 2 1

Because it is easier to blame Bush than to account for all of the actions by previous administrations, left and right, that led us to where we are today. Perhaps if Clinton and Congress had done more in the 1990s, the 2000s would have turned out very differently.

2007-01-14 11:06:14 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2 2

How about the economy?

Fact: Bush's tax cuts are responsible for almost 50% of the national debt. And that's according to conservative estimations.

Fact: Those same tax cuts also extended the recession by almost two years. Again, that's by conservative estimations.

Fact: Bush's Drug plan rewards drug companies. My mom is disabled and on Medicare. Before this law was passed her drug expenses were $27 a month. After it was passed, she now has to pay $150 amonth. In no way did this law reduce the out of pocket expense as was promised. And this is common.

Fact: Under Bush Social Security and Disability payments have decreased.

Fact: The No Child Left Behind Act, has hindered more than it has helped. My friend is a teacher and he has to lower his standards in order to meet the requirements of this piss poor law.

Fact: The schools Bush cited as shining examples were found to have doctored their records. In fact they were worse than those schools they were compared to.

2007-01-14 11:28:54 · answer #9 · answered by darkemoregan 4 · 1 2

I blame everyone who is responcible.

I blame liberals for not fighting back enough and for trusting people who've already lied time and time again.

I blame Bush and his people for the horrible mistakes they've made.

I blame republicans and democrats who forgot that we are mostly the same, with a few differences.
which now makes many of us think we are mostly differnent and are against each other, with one or two similarities.

2007-01-14 11:18:54 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

Because he's fair-game now that his Iraq policy has gone bad (was it ever a good policy?). Sorry buddy, but there's not much besides this.

I guess also because he and his administration never listened to anyone and went into Iraq with such arrogance and self-assurance. He set himself up for a big fall.

What annoys me are liberals who supported Bush in invading Iraq, now wanting to cut and run. The US now has a moral obligation to put things right in Iraq, no matter what cost to the US in money and lives.

2007-01-14 11:10:24 · answer #11 · answered by pantocool 1 · 2 2

fedest.com, questions and answers