Gr-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r.
2007-10-02 01:24:12
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
2⤋
The man is a war mongering imbecile who has made this country a laughing stock to to the rest of the world. Including some countries which were considered part of the third world not so long ago.
2007-10-02 09:48:50
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
0⤋
You mean vote him in a second time.
In 2000 he sued his way into office.
In 2004 he was voted in as a result of Americans' disappointing cowardice.
-------------------
Primoa (below), of course I'd prefer to have John Kerry or Al Gore in there right now. So would most Americans. Your statement is utterly ridiculous.
The great tragedy of our time is that Bush was President when 9/11 occurred. And imagine if Clinton had still been President when we got that wave of goodwill from around the world. The U.S. would be so strong by now that no-one would even think of threatening any of us.
=================
Lawrence ranted:
"For Paul S.: Let's review the facts:
1) A review of the votes that were cast in 2000, including the votes of the military that Al Gore didn't want counted, showed that Bush won by the popular vote and the electoral College. By going to court, the Democrat party was forced to abide by the decision of the electorate, something they are always loath to do"
False. There was never a complete count of the votes in Florida. The nearest thing to such a count - a compilation of the separate estimates - showed a Gore win. Your "a review showed" is silly - of COURSE some right-winger's "review" would claim that Bush won.
Regardless, remember that it was Bush who sued to stop the counting. That's a fact. Remember that it was the right-wingers who attacked the office in which the votes were being counted. That's a fact.
It's simply a lie to say that it was the Democrats trying to stop the democratic process.
"2) In 2004, Bush won because it was revealed that John Kerry-Heinz is a flip-flopper and a liar. He was found to have not earned the ribbons and medals he sports. "
That's lies from start to finish. John Kerry earned his medals, and if you are so intent on dishonoring the U.S. military, you can feel free to get out of the U.S.
On top of that, Bush was proven to be a serial liar, a fact that has caused a rather major and obvious problem in his Presidency. Even were Kerry also a liar, why hold it against him but excuse Bush? The right-wingers never bother to explain that little detail.
"If Bill Clinton were president when Osama had his men attack the U.S. The results would have been so much worse. In the first case, the strong possibility exists that there would have been no attack, as Osama would have been happy with Clinton being in there"
Bull. Bush and Osama have a symbiotic relationship, and Bush's attack on Iraq was the best present Osama could have ever wished for. If you voted for Bush in 2004 you might as well have put an "Osama for President" sign up in your yard. Supporting Bush is supporting Osama bin Laden.
2007-10-02 08:22:37
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
8⤊
4⤋
I think it would be good. He'll have a newly minted Republican Congress, in light of the dissatisfaction with this Socialist Congress.
For Paul S.: Let's review the facts:
1) A review of the votes that were cast in 2000, including the votes of the military that Al Gore didn't want counted, showed that Bush won by the popular vote and the electoral College. By going to court, the Democrat party was forced to abide by the decision of the electorate, something they are always loath to do.
2) In 2004, Bush won because it was revealed that John Kerry-Heinz is a flip-flopper and a liar. He was found to have not earned the ribbons and medals he sports. Even when he hurled his medals over the White House fence, he didn't even throw his own medals. He threw someone else's. He was found to have voted on both sides on many issues, depending on which way the political wind was blowing.
If Bill Clinton were president when Osama had his men attack the U.S. The results would have been so much worse. In the first case, the strong possibility exists that there would have been no attack, as Osama would have been happy with Clinton being in there.
If there were still an attack, Bill would not have addressed it in any meaningful manner. There would have been a great outpouring of love for the terrorists, lamenting the conditions that led to their desperate act in trying to draw attention to their plight. Clinton would have apologized for anything and everything that the U.S. would have been perceived to have done to bring about the attack.
After all that, just to show he was a man, Bill would butch up and bomb another aspirin factory.
Finally, we would be probably under the thumb of the U.N., having lost our sovereignty.
Yeah. It would be SO much better with him.
2007-10-02 09:04:13
·
answer #4
·
answered by †Lawrence R† 6
·
0⤊
6⤋
Oh my goodness! Heck No! I could not even think of it! Our country is Trillions of dollars in dept. It will take many years for us to recover! He just asked for another 2 Billion today for his blood thirsty war! We are loosing up to 10 of our American youth each and every day! Do the math! I can't wait for him to be out of office! I wish that he would be impeached! Then thrown into prison for war crimes! For you loyal Bushies out there Iraq did not attack us on 9/11.
2007-10-02 13:57:36
·
answer #5
·
answered by pamkayvan 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
He stole the election in 200 and in 2004 Kerry threw the election. Thankfully he can't run for a 3rd term!
2007-10-02 20:19:09
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
You must be joking around here.He's the clown of the world.Recently called APEC leaders the OPEC leaders.And then tried to cover it up by saying he was invited to OPEC next year.He has the worst track record of any US president in our history.
2007-10-02 12:15:44
·
answer #7
·
answered by Trish 6
·
2⤊
1⤋
Only if he runs against William Jefferson Clinton. Because that's who I'll be voting. Me and probably the rest of the country too.
2007-10-02 08:25:20
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
6⤊
2⤋
I am sure that Bush himself would love that. I however a counting the days until he is out of office.
2007-10-02 08:32:49
·
answer #9
·
answered by Pamela V 7
·
4⤊
2⤋
That'd be great.
I mean, I think seeing Bush get his hiney kicked would be nearly as delicious as the third term of Bill Clinton.
2007-10-02 08:24:20
·
answer #10
·
answered by LabGrrl 7
·
3⤊
3⤋
bush doesn't need a third term he already accomplished what he wanted in two now he can go home to his oil fields and rake in the doe.
2007-10-02 08:26:07
·
answer #11
·
answered by 777 6
·
4⤊
3⤋