Difference between revisions of "Debate:Is President Bush good for America?"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
m
Line 6: Line 6:
 
:: Typical leftwing rant to trash Bush. No credit for 2000+ days without a terror strike on the homeland. I would say his strategy maybe working. Thats too much for a regressive liberal to accept or give thanks for.
 
:: Typical leftwing rant to trash Bush. No credit for 2000+ days without a terror strike on the homeland. I would say his strategy maybe working. Thats too much for a regressive liberal to accept or give thanks for.
  
:::Yes.  Terrorists don't have to come all the way over here to kill Americans.  We sent Americans to them.  Perhaps there was a way to do it without having so many people die. (By the way, even on here you're going to have trouble associating "liberal" with "regressive."  That's a hard sell. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 02:44, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
+
:::Yes.  Terrorists don't have to come all the way over here to kill Americans.  We sent Americans to them.  Perhaps there was a way to do it without having so many people die. (By the way, even on here you're going to have trouble associating "liberal" with "regressive."  That's a hard sell.) [[User:Myk|Myk]] 02:44, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
  
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Revision as of 00:44, 6 April 2007

! THIS IS A DEBATE PAGE, NOT AN ARTICLE. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of Conservapedia.
Your opinion is welcome! Please remember to sign your comments on this page, and refrain from editing other user's contributions.
New Users: Please read our "Editing etiquette" before posting
Conservlogo.png

Ever since his contested election of 2000, the rest of the world has gone stark mad with hatred toward anything President Bush is involved with. If you ever had your doubts about the man, think of this. In 2000, the Supreme Court awarded the Presidency to GWB on December 12th. That is also the feast day of Our Lady of Guadalupe, patron Saint of the Americas. Coincidence? Give Bush the benefit of the doubt. Divinity could be playing a larger role in America.--jp 04:35, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

I do believe that God chose George W. Bush to be our president. In these days of pesticides and antibiotics, plagues of locusts and boils just don't have the impact they used to, so instead He sent us Bush. --BDobbs 16:48, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
Typical leftwing rant to trash Bush. No credit for 2000+ days without a terror strike on the homeland. I would say his strategy maybe working. Thats too much for a regressive liberal to accept or give thanks for.
Yes. Terrorists don't have to come all the way over here to kill Americans. We sent Americans to them. Perhaps there was a way to do it without having so many people die. (By the way, even on here you're going to have trouble associating "liberal" with "regressive." That's a hard sell.) Myk 02:44, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

NO

just what if...... We put GWB on the nuremburg war trials? Result? convicted of two counts of illegal invasion and other war crimes. having a criminal as a president is most definatly bad for a countryAmpasand 19:28, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

No doubt having a criminal for a president is bad for a country, as we learned from 8 years of Clinton running around the Oval office. But let me see if I understand, are you attempting to compare President Bush with nazis who slaughtered millions of innocent people? Is this a joke? Are you saying that one of the counts of illegal invasion is Afghanistan or are you thinking of Waco? (That was Clinton) There are not many people who agree that the invasion of Afghanistan was illegal. Question: what about all of the democrats who voted for the war in Iraq, what if they were tried? Would they be criminals too? With Bush in office there have been no successful terrorist attacks on our soil since 9/11. Also, Bush was not "awarded the presidency" by the supreme court. He won the electoral race, hence his election. Bohdan 16:40, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

No. If he hadn't gone into Iraq, he would have gone down is history as a great (or at least fine) president, but now he'll be remembered for dragging us into this unending Iraqi quagmire. His policies have slashed the social services budget (schools, health care, etc) and are bad for the environment. Sadly, he's been playing the 9/11 card as an excuse for everything. History, and history alone will show who's right. Czolgolz 10:07, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

You're assuming there we BE any history. http://www.theonion.com/content/node/52331
And I'd argue Bush would still not have been remembered favorably--he's the only President I know of who's let an entire city get washed into the Gulf of Mexico. --BDobbs 16:48, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
There you are again trashing Bush. Blame Bush for Katrina. Always pointing the finger. Maybe you should rethink your America is the bad guy scenerio.

No. He hasn't vetoed an entire spending bill. The national debt will destroy our economy once China wants to cash in. Bush is no conservative. MountainDew 16:52, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Someone disagrees with you, MD: Conservative Myk 16:57, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
Yet so many Conservatives stampeded to vote for him both times, defended his every press-conference as though it'd come down off of Mt. Sinai, and denounced anyone who criticized him as VILE TERRORIST-LOVING TRAITORS.... And now they're denouncing him. Why the sudden change of heart? The Kool-Aide get too watered-down all of a sudden? --BDobbs 16:59, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Why are you lumping me in with that group? How do you know my past opinions? MountainDew 17:01, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

It doesn't seem like he did, MD. Everything in his post was about "them" not "you." Myk 17:05, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
Okay, apologies.

I seriously don't know what I'm going to do in 2008. I haven't ruled out voting third party out of protest if I don't like the nominees. MountainDew 17:11, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

My ideal ticket that isn't likely to make it is McCain and Powell. I believe they actually have the knowledge and understanding of what it is to be in war and how to deal with a company that is in one rather than what is currently being done. Additionally, I believe that it is important to have at least one house of congress to be held by the other political party (whoever that is) - one needs the checks and balances. With the old congress it wasn't much more than a rubber stamp to the president which lead to no idea of compromise or what is best for those who voted them into office. --Mtur 21:43, 2 April 2007 (EDT)