Do you support Bush?
 

I suppose this is an overlap of many topics, but i hope this thread will help me understand more opinions.

OVERALL i support Bush. I've always thought the WMD reason was a mistake for the USA to hang its motives on. I wanted us to remove Saddamn because HE WAS AN UNACCEPTABLE THREAT TO NECCESSARY MIDDLE EAST STABILITY.

And concerning the phone tapping stuff, I think many don't have their priorities in order. Yes, it would be best if such sticky actions were free of constitutional issues, but it's most inportant that WE ARE FINDING TERRORISTS THAT ARE PLANNING TO KILL US EN MASSE. The white house has stressed that phomes are only tapped against those that are credible suspects. I WANT THIS TO CONTINUE. DON'T YOU? And honestly, i couldn't care less if the goverment is listening to my bad beat phone stories. I have nothing to hide.

Your thoughts?

Re: I support Bush.
 

You forgot "think of the children". Bush is making the world safe for the children to live in. You don't want your children growing up in a dangerous world, do you?

Re: Do you support Bush?
 

"HE WAS AN UNACCEPTABLE THREAT TO NECCESSARY MIDDLE EAST STABILITY."

None of his neighbors in the region perceived him to be a threat.

"WE ARE FINDING TERRORISTS THAT ARE PLANNING TO KILL US EN MASSE."

We can do this without breaking the law. The consitution does not have to be a casualty in the so called war on terra.

"The white house has stressed that phomes are only tapped against those that are credible suspects"

They lie all the time.

"And honestly, i couldn't care less if the goverment is listening to my bad beat phone stories. I have nothing to hide."

Move to China if you like facsism so much.

Re: Do you support Bush?
 

[ QUOTE ]
"HE WAS AN UNACCEPTABLE THREAT TO NECCESSARY MIDDLE EAST STABILITY."

None of his neighbors in the region perceived him to be a threat.



[/ QUOTE ]

i dont mean to be confrontational, but its common knowledge that EVERYONE in the middle east considered him a threat.

Re: Do you support Bush?
 

Sometimes common knowledge = propaganda in the US

The president of the United Arab Emirates described U.S. threats of military action as "bad and loathsome," and declared that Iraq does not pose a threat to its neighbors.

Re: Do you support Bush?
 

I'll need to check the UAE fact myself, but Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Israel (of course), and IRAN definitely considered Saddamn a threat.

Re: Do you support Bush?
 

[ QUOTE ]
None of his neighbors in the region perceived him to be a threat.

[/ QUOTE ]
Then why did we still have the No-Fly Zone in effect or the sanctions in place?

Re: Do you support Bush?
 

As far as the "wire tapping" issue, I have seen and read that it was only numbers that:

a) Were contained in material seized from captured terrorists.

b) Were coming from or to known terrorists.



The Dem's are just "playing politics" with our national security once again. Al Quaeda members DO NOT HAVE PROTECTIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION!!! Why isn't there an investigation into which official leaked this?

Why isn't there an outrage about President Clinton when he used the spy satellites to spy on Americans? Because the ACLU (all crazy liberals united or all crazy lawyers united) is a liberal activist group.

Re: Do you support Bush?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
None of his neighbors in the region perceived him to be a threat.

[/ QUOTE ]
Then why did we still have the No-Fly Zone in effect or the sanctions in place?

[/ QUOTE ]

For the same reason we still have sanctions and restrictions on Cuba: because it was politically advantageous for him to be perceived as a threat.

Re: Do you support Bush?
 

Do I support Bush on:

The war on terror - mostly yes
Foreign policy - mostly no
Protecting the environment - NO
Global warming - NO
Energy Policy - NO
Privatization of Social Security - NO
Abortion - NO
Health Care - NO
Immigration - NO
Tax Cuts for the rich - NO
Bringing religion back into Government - NO
Teaching ID in Science class - NO

Re: Do you support Bush?
 

[ QUOTE ]
As far as the "wire tapping" issue, I have seen and read that it was only numbers that:

a) Were contained in material seized from captured terrorists.

b) Were coming from or to known terrorists.


[/ QUOTE ]

Riddle me this Batman- if there was evidence that they were terrorists, why not go to a judge and get a warrent?

Re: Do you support Bush?
 

I support Bush, inasmuch as I hope that his policies work out well for Americans. I generally disagree with most of his policies, and I am disappointed in his unwillingness or inability to raise the level of discourse in this country. (I am disappointed in most other public officials for this same trait.)

EDIT: Regarding domestic spying, I do not approve of the disregard shown for the courts based on the information I know now. I am open to more information becoming available during the course of the hearings that occur and changing my opinion, but I believe that the claimed benefit of disregarding the established procedures is much smaller than the possibility for abuse by either this administration or a future one.

Re: Do you support Bush?
 

"OVERALL i support Bush. I've always thought the WMD reason was a mistake for the USA to hang its motives on. I wanted us to remove Saddamn because HE WAS AN UNACCEPTABLE THREAT TO NECCESSARY MIDDLE EAST STABILITY."

Do you consider Iraq to be more stable currently than it was during the previous 10 years of saddam's regime?
Could the billions spent on the war have been spent more effectively on stabilizing the middle east?

"Yes, it would be best if such sticky actions were free of constitutional issues, but it's most inportant that WE ARE FINDING TERRORISTS THAT ARE PLANNING TO KILL US EN MASSE."

So why not go to a judge and have a legal amount of oversight? If need be set up a court where a judge is on call 24 hrs and can review the evidence within an hour or two and render a decision.

Re: Do you support Bush?
 

I find that WHEN I TYPE IN ALL CAPS I FEEL AS IF I JUST LANDED ON AN AIRCRAFT CARRIER WITH A BIG "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" BANNER. Don't you agree?

Re: Do you support Bush?
 

[ QUOTE ]
If need be set up a court where a judge is on call 24 hrs and can review the evidence within an hour or two and render a decision.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we already have this...and if you're in a rush, why don't you wait 3 days after you start tapping?

The legislative and judicial branches need to get some balls and reign in the executive branch.

Re: Do you support Bush?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Riddle me this Batman- if there was evidence that they were terrorists, why not go to a judge and get a warrent?

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you suppose a NOC/black ops agent could get a warrant from a federal judge to monitor a terrorist?

Re: Do you support Bush?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"HE WAS AN UNACCEPTABLE THREAT TO NECCESSARY MIDDLE EAST STABILITY."

[/ QUOTE ]

None of his neighbors in the region perceived him to be a threat.

[/ QUOTE ]

Getting my ass kicked in Omaha/8 so I'm in a fowl mood [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]. This is simply an unbeleivable response considering he waged war on Iran and Kuwait and if memory serves launched some scud missles in the direction of Saudi Arabia. God only knows how many Kurds and Shias he was responsible for murdering and you claim neighboring countries didn't perceive him as a threat?

Also it's incredible to me that so many posters on this forum value stability of autocratic, despotic, murderous dictators. For crying out loud North Korea is stable too does that make their government desirable or even legitimate? The Shah of Iran was stable for a long period of time. Hell the Soviet Union was stable for many, many years.

Re: Do you support Bush?
 

I don't like George Bush, but do you realize that mentalities like yours aren't helping the cause when it comes to pointing out his serious flaws?

[ QUOTE ]
Global warming - NO


[/ QUOTE ]

What does that even mean? George Bush, to my knowledge, hasn't come out in support of global warming.

I could go on, but I don't care to. These cookie-cutter liberal jabs at Bush, IMO, do more to distract from the real reasons he's a bad president than anything else.

Re: Do you support Bush?
 

chessforlife - How many times have you clicked "Yes"?

Re: Do you support Bush?
 

As i understand no groups that would have problems gaining a warrent have jurisdiction to function in the US.

Re: Do you support Bush?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Also it's incredible to me that so many posters on this forum value stability of autocratic, despotic, murderous dictators. For crying out loud North Korea is stable too does that make their government desirable or even legitimate? The Shah of Iran was stable for a long period of time. Hell the Soviet Union was stable for many, many years.


[/ QUOTE ]

Didn't you know, regimes run by autocratic, despotic, murderous dictators aren't evil, because its "much more complicated" than that?

Apparantly, the liberty and freedom of "other" people doesn't matter, so long as there is "peace" in the world.

Re: Do you support Bush?
 

I think the most enlightning thing about politics today is that Bush himself has greater support then his various policies.

Re: Do you support Bush?
 

Like another liberal, "Al Franken", I do support the troops.

Definitely NOT the Bush administration however!

Cheers.

Re: Do you support Bush?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I suppose this is an overlap of many topics, but i hope this thread will help me understand more opinions.

OVERALL i support Bush. I've always thought the WMD reason was a mistake for the USA to hang its motives on. I wanted us to remove Saddamn because HE WAS AN UNACCEPTABLE THREAT TO NECCESSARY MIDDLE EAST STABILITY.

And concerning the phone tapping stuff, I think many don't have their priorities in order. Yes, it would be best if such sticky actions were free of constitutional issues, but it's most inportant that WE ARE FINDING TERRORISTS THAT ARE PLANNING TO KILL US EN MASSE. The white house has stressed that phomes are only tapped against those that are credible suspects. I WANT THIS TO CONTINUE. DON'T YOU? And honestly, i couldn't care less if the goverment is listening to my bad beat phone stories. I have nothing to hide.

Your thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]

My thoughts? I see no problem with the white house obeying the FISA law. Unfortunately, the current white house thinks that it is above the law. Go figure....

Re: Do you support Bush?
 

Approximately 50% of the electorate voted for Bush in 2000 and again in 2004.

The administration agrees with your reason for opposing Hussein. WMDs and 9/1 were excuses, not reasons for the invasion. They thought they were making the world safe for us to prosper in it. They see the Middle East as the key to remaking the world in their image.

As for the phone tapping, the administration could have accomplished whatever it wanted going through the FISA court, which has approved tens of thousands of wiretaps while rejecting only a handful. The fact that they didn't lends one to believe they have something to hide. They can protect us from terrorists using the FISA system. The idea that the president has inherent powers to wiretap or because of the congressional resolution to use force in the wake of 9/11 is a naked, undemocratic power grab. This was stated very clearly by Vice Presidnet Cheney on his way back from Iraq when he said we need to increase the powers of the president.

If we let paranoia about our enemies effect us so that we allow our leaders inordinate power over our lives, we will face a bigger problem at least as big as the terrorists.

Re: Do you support Bush?
 

[ QUOTE ]
As for the phone tapping, the administration could have accomplished whatever it wanted going through the FISA court, which has approved tens of thousands of wiretaps while rejecting only a handful. The fact that they didn't lends one to believe they have something to hide.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most likely it was that they knew the Dems would play politics with it if they found out the administration was requesting permission to spy. So they hoped they could get away with it. I'm not a fan of violating the constitution, but I'm more concerned about obeying the spirit of it rather than the proper technical procedure.

Due process does exist for a reason, but I'm happy to let this one slide because frankly there are more important things to be debating right now.


Also I'm surprised this poll is as high in support of Bush as it is (25% when I checked). His approval rating is hovering around the low-30s and I would think the selection bias of an internet forum (generally younger, more urban people.... especially a poker forum) would have a bigger impact.

Re: Do you support Bush?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Due process does exist for a reason, but I'm happy to let this one slide because frankly there are more important things to be debating right now.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's just scary that you could feel this way about the constitution of the US. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

Re: Do you support Bush?
 

"Most likely it was that they knew the Dems would play politics with it if they found out the administration was requesting permission to spy. So they hoped they could get away with it."

I don't buy this. The FISA court had been used thousands of times. For example, in 1996, under a Democratic president, the FISA court approved over 800 surveillance and physical search orders. If the Republicans didn't make hay with that against Clinton, why would they have worried about the Dems doing that against Bush? Especially in the wake of 9/11, I don't see how the administration could have thought the Dems could make political hay with this.

The problem with obeying the "spirit" of the law, rather than the "proper technical procedure," it that the spirit is open to each person's personal interpretation of that spirit. According to Attorney General Gonzalez, the president has the inherent right to wiretap without a court order to protect the country. If that's the case, why do we even need a FISA court? I thought the Constitution protected us from warrantless wiretaps, not that it gave the president the inherent right to do it when he decided it was OK.

Re: Do you support Bush?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As far as the "wire tapping" issue, I have seen and read that it was only numbers that:

a) Were contained in material seized from captured terrorists.

b) Were coming from or to known terrorists.


[/ QUOTE ]

Riddle me this Batman- if there was evidence that they were terrorists, why not go to a judge and get a warrent?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well Robin, for the same damned reason it is all over the news now. The more people that know about it, the more likely The New York Crimes and the rest of the liberal rags are going to print it. As of this morning, the attorneys that are representing the terrorists that have been caught are planning to use this as a defense. Why aren't you worried about Clinton when he spied on the people at "Ruby Ridge"?

For the record, it's "warrant", not warrent.

Re: Do you support Bush?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"HE WAS AN UNACCEPTABLE THREAT TO NECCESSARY MIDDLE EAST STABILITY."

[/ QUOTE ]

None of his neighbors in the region perceived him to be a threat.

[/ QUOTE ]

Getting my ass kicked in Omaha/8 so I'm in a fowl mood [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]. This is simply an unbeleivable response considering he waged war on Iran and Kuwait and if memory serves launched some scud missles in the direction of Saudi Arabia. God only knows how many Kurds and Shias he was responsible for murdering and you claim neighboring countries didn't perceive him as a threat?

Also it's incredible to me that so many posters on this forum value stability of autocratic, despotic, murderous dictators. For crying out loud North Korea is stable too does that make their government desirable or even legitimate? The Shah of Iran was stable for a long period of time. Hell the Soviet Union was stable for many, many years.

[/ QUOTE ]

#1: move down in stakes, try play money

#2: there is volumious evidence to suggest that the middle east is LESS stable without Saddam than it is with it. Why wouldn't our allies, Turkey and Bahrain, let us use their counties as staging grounds if Saddam was such a threat to them?

#3: The US government loves brutal dictators, as long as they are friendly to us.

Gusher
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'll need to check the UAE fact myself, but Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Israel (of course), and IRAN definitely considered Saddamn a threat.

[/ QUOTE ]Iran opposed the American invasion most clearly -- and repeatedly pointed out the hypocrisy of Washington in going to war against a regime they were supporting in the Iraq-Iran War. Jordan opposed the invasion, as well, and tried to mediate the crisis.

Of course, Kuwait* and Saudi Arabia welcomed the invasion, a position which has destabilized the Kingdom, perhaps for good.

But I was surprised about Israel! Are you sure about that? I mean, Israel opposes the invasion of Arab countries, right?.. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

___________


* Note that Kuwait, in both geographical and historical terms, rightly belongs to the ruler of Mesopotamia. Saddam's original demands were very much justified, in the previous Gulf War! A fact which was tacitly recognized by the U.S. Ambassador to Baghdad at the time -- or, at least, not contested. Check the history books : The ridiculous borders in the fertile crescent of modern Mesopotamia were drawn by the French and British --represented by a woman!-- colonialists in the early years of the 20th century, and were mostly dictated by the respective oil companies, in accordance to what they knew then about oilfields!

Re: Gusher
 

Divide and conquer, baby.

This is a gem:
http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20051218.htm

Noam Chomsky: In other words, suppose that the parliament, instead of being an elite force, dominating the population, suppose the parliament represents popular will, say the popular will of 80 percent of Iraqis who want the occupying forces to withdraw, according to the British Ministry of Defence. Suppose that happens? Well then the occupying forces should immediately initiate withdrawal and leave it to the Iraqis. Now there's a good reason why Washington and London are not contemplating that. It has nothing to do with the fate of the Iraqis, quite the contrary. Just think for a minute. What would an independent Iraq be likely to do, an independent, more or less democratic Iraq? Think. I mean if you're going to have a Shi'ite majority. Therefore the Shi'ites will have a lot of influence in policy, probably a dominant influence. The Shi'ite population in the south, which is where most of the oil is, would much prefer warm relations to Iran over hostile relations to Iran. Furthermore they are very close relations already, the Badr brigade, which is the militia that mostly controls the south, was trained in Iran. The clerics have long-standing relations with Iran; the Ayatollah Sistani actually grew up there. Chances are pretty strong, they'll move towards a some sort of a loose Shi'ite alliance, with Iraq and Iran. Furthermore right across the border in Saudi Arabia, there's a substantial Shi'ite population, which has been bitterly oppressed by the US-backed tyranny in Saudi Arabia, the fundamentalist tyranny. Any move towards independence in Iraq is likely to increase the efforts to gain a degree of autonomy and justice. That happens to be where most of Saudi Arabia's oil is. So you can see not far in the future a loose Shi'ite alliance controlling most of the world's oil, independent of the US. Furthermore, it is beginning to turn toward the East. Iran has pretty much given up on Western Europe, it assumes that Western Europe is too cowardly to act independently of the US, well it has options. It can turn to the East. China can't be intimidated. That's why the US is so frightened of China. It cannot be intimidated. In fact, they're already establishing relations with Iran and in fact even with Saudi Arabia, both military and economic. There is an Asian energy security grid based on Asia and Russia but bringing in India, Korea and others. If Iran moves in that direction, having abandoned any hope in Europe, it can become the lynchpin of the Asian energy security grid.

Doom 2
 

[ QUOTE ]
Do I support Bush on:
<font color="white"> . </font>
The war on terror - mostly YES
Foreign policy - mostly NO
Protecting the environment - NO
Global warming - NO
Energy Policy - NO
Privatization of Social Security - NO
Abortion - NO
Health Care - NO
Immigration - NO
Tax Cuts for the rich - NO
Bringing religion back into Government - NO
Teaching ID in Science class - NO

[/ QUOTE ]

Next question : If you are judging a man's potential for future performance on the basis of past performance, and that performance is being measured by 12 criteria -- and he fails in 11 outta the 12 criteria, do you think that the man is more likely to perform well in the future or less likely ?

Re: Do you support Bush?
 

OVERALL i support Bush.

I don't know about the "overall" part, but I support the war.

Yes, it would be best if such sticky actions were free of constitutional issues, but it's most inportant that WE ARE FINDING TERRORISTS THAT ARE PLANNING TO KILL US EN MASSE

To paraphrase Ben Franklin "anyone who would sacrifice some piece of his liberty for a small measure of security deserves neither and soon will lose both."

And as to killing us "en masse", stop being a wimp. On 9/11/01, 1/1000 of 1% of our population was killed. I'd hardly call that "en masses."

The terrorists hate us for our open, secular, free, mercantile society. Every reduction in liberty in the name of security is a victory for Osama bin Laden, et. al.

As 2-time presidential Candidate Harry Browne put it, "We need to put forth our best efforts to bring those responsible to justice, and the best way to do that is to avail those suspected of every constitutional protection afforded all Americans."

2700 deaths do not warrant the loss of one ounce of liberty for 270,000,000 people.

Re: Do you support Bush?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't buy this. The FISA court had been used thousands of times. For example, in 1996, under a Democratic president, the FISA court approved over 800 surveillance and physical search orders. If the Republicans didn't make hay with that against Clinton, why would they have worried about the Dems doing that against Bush?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not talking about the Reps doing the same thing to Clinton or claiming one action is more justified than another. You're making the assumption that what I would condone for Bush I would condemn for Clinton. I'm not partisan enough for that to be the case.

[ QUOTE ]
Especially in the wake of 9/11, I don't see how the administration could have thought the Dems could make political hay with this.

[/ QUOTE ]

HA! Yeah, because the wake of 9/11 has really stopped them in the past....

[ QUOTE ]
The problem with obeying the "spirit" of the law, rather than the "proper technical procedure," it that the spirit is open to each person's personal interpretation of that spirit.

[/ QUOTE ]

I realize, and as far as my personal interpretation goes, Bush didn't violate the spirit of the law. If someone else thinks differently, then they should feel differently. I went on to say "due process exists for a reason", and that reason is to protect our rights. In this case it is my opinion that such protection would have been moot, and as a result I'm not gonna worry about it.

Re: Do you support Bush?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Do I support Bush on:

The war on terror - mostly yes
Foreign policy - mostly no
Protecting the environment - NO
Global warming - NO
Energy Policy - NO
Privatization of Social Security - NO
Abortion - NO
Health Care - NO
Immigration - NO
Tax Cuts for the rich - NO
Bringing religion back into Government - NO
Teaching ID in Science class - NO

[/ QUOTE ]

The war on terror- YES
Foreign Policy- YES
Protecting the environment by NOT signing Kyoto treaty-Yes
Global warming (wich doesn't exist)- not applicable
Energy Policy-Yes
Privatization of Social Security- Yes
Health Care-Yes, it isn't the gov't's responsibility to provide it.
Immigration-The fence should have been built a long time ago.
Tax cuts for the rich(e.g. "supply side economics") Yes
Because he has faith in God-Sure
Health Care-Absolutely.
Giving billions to Africa to fight AIDS- HELL NO
Teaching ID in science class as an opposing theory to evolution, why not?
Abortion- Don't really care.

Re: Do you support Bush?
 

Bush, may he ever be right, but Bush right or wrong!

er . . uh . . I meant . . .

Re: Do you support Bush?
 

Do I support Bush on:

The war on terror - yes
Foreign policy - mostly yes
Protecting the environment - no
Global warming - no
Energy Policy - don't know
Privatization of Social Security - yes
Abortion - no
Health Care - yes
Immigration - no
Tax Cuts for the rich - this isn't a fair labeled topic
Bringing religion back into Government - no
Teaching ID in Science class - no

but the most important is the Iraq war. we need a strong leader right now.

Re: Do you support Bush?
 

[ QUOTE ]
The war on terror- YES
Foreign Policy- YES
Protecting the environment by NOT signing Kyoto treaty-Yes
Global warming ( wich doesn't exist )- not applicable
Energy Policy-Yes
Privatization of Social Security- Yes
Health Care-Yes, it isn't the gov't's responsibility to provide it.
Immigration-The fence should have been built a long time ago.
Tax cuts for the rich(e.g. "supply side economics") Yes
Because he has faith in God-Sure
Health Care-Absolutely.
Giving billions to Africa to fight AIDS- HELL NO
Teaching ID in science class as an opposing theory to evolution, why not?
Abortion- Don't really care.


[/ QUOTE ]

Can't tell you are a red-blooded Republican can we.

The scientific academies in almost every country of the world say global warming is a fact. Bush and Rush Limbaugh disagree. Wonder who is right?? Global warming is not in dispute - what is disputable is what the effect will be. But that is another topic.

Re: Do you support Bush?
 

[ QUOTE ]

but the most important is the Iraq war. we need a strong leader right now.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why is the Iraq war more important than every other domestic or foreign issue to our country? And, how much difference does a "strong leader" make in that war?