Please help! (If you're pro-Bush (George))

Quack Handle

I rest my case.

Freak

More like you rest your buttocks on another man's genitalia.

Quack Handle

If you'd prefer I did that to you, then yes.

Randy Orton

WC's Resident Alchoholic

bush is also appealing seeing as he stands behind what he says/does. You want somebody in office who stands behind action that they took and does not flip flop as to why they did something like kerry.

Phaxkus

Rambo, I agree with you. A good leader does stand behind what he says. Also, you're right about Kerry, he is quite the flip-flopper. Still, you can't just say, "I'm going to send my people into harm's way," then procede to do so and still be considered a good leader. It's not just all about sticking behind what you have said, you have to say and do the right thing as well. Bush hasn't exactly been the guy that has made too many good decisions.

Nothing is true. All is permitted.

Phaxkus

Maybe I shouldn't have used the "send my people into harm's way" example. I'm trying to make a point so it'd be better to use a more extreme example. For instance, George Bush wouldn't be a good leader if he proclaimed that he was about to kill everyone in California, then do it. Doing what you say isn't everything. Like I said, you have to say and do the right stuff.

Okay, the whole personality and character thing is true to a certain extent. However, the last couple Democratic nominees haven't exactly been, um, personality blessed. I think more-so it has to do with money and who you are. George W. Bush would not be president had it not been for his father. Can anyone debate that? There's no way anyone can get me too believe he is genuinely that passionate about politics and government. I think he was content with owning the fucking Rangers. He's much more of a baseball kinda guy anyways.

Back to the personality thing. My own mother made a comment about a week ago that was complementing George Bush because he's a, "Good ol' country boy." It's sad to think that people will give gim their vote because of that sole reason.

Nothing is true. All is permitted.

Invictus

Interesting points made Phaxkus and welcome to the board.

I am quite pro Bush for a number of reasons, first of all I felt that the way he handled the aftermath of 9/11 was well done. Despite being given a gung ho tag, he waited and waited for some time before launching any form of attack against Afghanistan, diplomatically or militarily. I thought this was well done showed that he was savvy leader when it came to these matters, unlike Bill Clinton who was more tempted to go for the knee jerk reaction, such as after the embassy attacks when he just sent over a number of Cruise missiles which didn;t do a great deal of anything.

Secondly, I also find his policy very clear, he wants to take on the global threat from terrorism. Now Kerry can piss and moan all he wants on how its all gone wrong but what exaclty has been his suggestion. Jack all to be precise, he wants a different strategy but can't work it out for himself. Bush is spearheading a campaign which is so important for world politics its untrue. If Bush or the uNited States was to back down after 9/11 then the repercussions on World Order and Terrorism would be profound. WHile the terrorists attacks have continued, I hold firm in my belief that they would be much, much worse if Bush had not taken the path taken after 9/11.

As for his domestic policy, forgive me I am not as upto speed, due to the lousy British press, however from what I have read it is a similar situation, Bush has done what he can and thinks is right, Kerry starts pissing and moaning again but his programme is to attack Bush, not his policy, which is a poor leader by any standards.

Don;t get me wrong Bush has made mistakes and he may not be the most able person to lead the United States, but over Kerry I'd take him every day and twice on Sundays.

Randy Orton

WC's Resident Alchoholic

Another thing I don't get is why people are forgetting we went to war with Iraq in the first place. Do we seem to forget Saddam failed to cooperate with like 15 U.N. resolutions. Plus he also kicked the inspectors out of Iraq. If he just let them be and they found nothign then I highly doubt the U.S. would've attacked but it is fishy if you do not let the inspectors stay in it seems like you are covering something up.

Bukowski

They're both cousins... They're Skull and Bones...

http://www.infowars.com

http://www.prisonplanet.com

Phaxkus

Yeah, it is fishy to kick the inspectors out of the country. However, that country was HIS country. Saddam's Country. Yes, it's no longer that way, but at the time it was. Anyways, here's my point. Saddam was basically using "You don't believe me? Well then, fuck you" approach. He saw no reason for the inspectors to be there, so, he told them to get lost. The same principle can be used for the reason he didn't leave when Bush gave him the chance to. Saddam felt he didn't deserve to be booted out of his country, so he stayed. Sure, a bad choice, but a choice that had to be made.

Genius, you bring up some quality points. Bush didn't do a bad job when it came to the aftermath of 9-11, but I don't think it's fair to assume how Bill Clinton would have handled 9-11 basing the assumption off of the horrible way he handled the embassy attacks. As you know, the two situations are much different. Even if at the root they are similiar, there's no way to deny they are looked upon at in a much, much different light. With that being said, I don't think any president would have been too gung-ho when it came to a post-9-11 strategy.

Finally, I just want to point out I'd rather see John Kerry win the election because I think the country is headed in a better direction with him. By that, I mean the future looks brighter when it comes to furture canidates. Bush and the Republican party are preventing any glance into the future of the White House look bright. Therefore, I'd rather go with the guy who isn't George Bush.

Nothing is true. All is permitted.