| Welcome to The Anti-Madonna Discussion Board. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Critical of George W Bush | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Dec 19 2005, 09:34 AM (538 Views) | |
| maddyhater | Dec 19 2005, 09:34 AM Post #1 |
|
Duranie Madonna Hater
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Bush makes me gag.... he's one of the biggest morons ever elected into office. It makes me angry when I hear people saying how WONDERFUL he is... this is the same jerk that took us from having a budget surplus to having a HUGE budget deficit. He lied to the whole world so he could send our troops to war in Iraq, without having a defined plan on how to rebuild the country. The thing that peeves me the most is that he blames so much terrorism on Iraq, yet the largest threat to the US (no it's not Hussein, it's still Bin Laden) is nowhere in sight. Isn't it funny how we put so much more manpower on destroying a country that never did anything to us, yet we never used those resources to find and destroy Bin Laden???? What an a**h***... MH |
![]() |
|
| The 1 Not Fooled | Dec 20 2005, 03:26 PM Post #2 |
![]()
Licensed & Board-certified!
![]()
|
I never did understand how Hussein is supposedly responsible for 9/11... |
![]() |
|
| flea dip | Dec 20 2005, 06:32 PM Post #3 |
|
Rock Star From Mars
![]()
|
He didn't lie - the intelligence was incorrect, which wasn't his fault. Many Democrats supported the war in Iraq initially and also cited the SAME intelligence reports that Bush quoted from and utilized, but some of these same Dems later flip flopped on the issue and withdrew their support when the far left had a cow. You may enjoy a page by a liberal (a "progressive") who does not like the Bush administration who none-the-less also holds the Democratic Party accountable for Iraq WMD intelligence, and who points out that Democratic President Clinton was not exactly forthcoming with the American people: The Democrats and Iraqi WMDs: Bush is Right, Sort of… - by Stephen Zunes Here's an excerpt from that page: Bush made higher grades in college than Clinton or Gore (or at least Gore, I'd have to double check on Clinton). George W. Bush graduated from some Ivy League school, yes? He's actually pretty intelligent. He also happens to be a down home country kind of boy, and some of his critics confuse that or mistake it for stupidity. Give me Bush over Clinton (the immoral, womanizing, perjuring swine and ineffective commander- in- chief) any day! (You have no idea how much the military hated Clinton. My dad was serving while Slick Willie was in office, and my dad and his colleagues HATED the man, had no respect for him.) The plan - the Bush administration's plan - was to bring democracy to Iraq, get the Iraqis to form their own govt., and after things stabilized, bring the troops home. Bush has never kept that plan hidden, and it's self-evident, really. About bringing the troops home from Iraq. Very odd complaint. We still have, after World War 2 is long over, U.S. military staged in Japan, Germany, and I think we still also have troops in Bosnia. It's actually quite normal for us to keep our troops stationed overseas for a long time. There was another election in Iraq recently. Anyway... BTW, Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman supports the Iraq war, and Hillary Clinton, who is another Democrat (Senator NY), is (pretending) to support the Bush administration's approach in Iraq. - what an Idiot! I posted links to pages that discussed it, back in the old consp. theory threads. You can hunt down those links, I'm not gonna do it.
|
![]() |
|
| maddyhater | Dec 21 2005, 08:27 AM Post #4 |
|
Duranie Madonna Hater
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I just love this whole "us versus them" thing. First of all, just because I believe in mostly Democratic viewpoints doesn't mean I vote for all Democratic candidates. It's also laughable to criticize Clinton for being a " immoral, womanizing, perjuring swine and ineffective commander- in- chief" when these same actions happen EVERY day in all sectors of the government, Republican and Democratic alike. So what if Clintons opposed a war, what the heck does that matter? The whole idea that I need to bow down to every military group's ideas is stupid. There are alot of places in the world our troops SHOULDN'T be. This whole Iraq thing just makes another country we are sending men and women into for no good reason. I don't see us going into Africa to help keep women and children from being killed on a daily basis. Why? You know darn well why, there's no oil there. Seems funny to me that unless we have a economic reason (in our own best interests) we leave other countries alone. Those people don't want us there, it's been shown time and time again. The reason Dems agreed to this in the first place is because they were being fed the same lies that we all were fed. To say that the Congress has the same intelligence as the President is absurd. Bush has more knowledge of what really goes on that anyone else, and he can skew that intelligence to his own advantage. Let's face it Flea... we are all lied to by our government. If you choose to believe the lies when the truth stares you in the face, that's your own fault. There's barely a mention of Bin Laden anymore. I'm guessing you never saw Fahrenheit 9/11 to see the information Michael Moore discussed. Why is the Saudi embassy the ONLY embassy to have Secret Service protection???? And why was the Saudi family allowed to leave the country when even Bush's own father couldn't fly? School grades mean about as much to me regarding a president as what kind of gum he chews. Honor should mean something, but both sides have shown that's no longer a valued trait. None of these presidents seem to be able to speak without having cards in front of them to read off from, and can't answer a question without an advisor on hand. I don't give two craps about what the military thinks of any presidental candidate. I'm sick to death of spending cuts in education, social programs, and medicare. Every time our government wants to fund something stupid like a needless war or tax cuts for the rich, the poor get screwed first. That makes as much sense to me as these huge companies paying a CEO millions of dollars a year, yet laying off thousands of workers to "save the company money". It's obvious that Hussein was all talk and no action. He made threats with nothing behind him to back it up. He was trying to be a bully on the world playground, while Hussein ran his mouth about how he'd beat up this person or that person, Bin Laden stood back, plucked kids from the crowd, and tortured them. That's my analogy of the situation. Do we punish the abuser or the loudmouth? Hmm, how did that work out????? I haven't seen a good political candidate for years now on either side of the fence. It's no wonder voting has such a small turnout, and why the poor don't get involved. Noone cares about them anymore, why should they vote for people that don't care either? Voting the lesser of two evils is what it comes down to. I voted against Bush because he's a two-faced bigot that isn't smart enough to answer his own questions without an advisor. I don't like Kerry either. Noone in politics has impressed me except for the Senator Barack Obama that spoke at Kerry's Democratic nomination. That man I would vote for in a heartbeat. He seems honest, intelligent, and articulate. Most of all, you can tell he speaks from the heart, which is rare these days. MH |
![]() |
|
| The 1 Not Fooled | Dec 22 2005, 03:16 PM Post #5 |
![]()
Licensed & Board-certified!
![]()
|
I agree with so much of what you said, MH. BTW, I'm taking the "Pro Conspiracy Theory" sub-heading out because that mainly refers to me; I'm not sure you would want to be identified as such. |
![]() |
|
| Ironshadow | Feb 21 2006, 08:01 PM Post #6 |
|
#1 mandona hater
![]()
|
Bush wants to turn several major seaports over to a UAE STATE -owned company, which means that they would be under direct control of a foreign nation for the first time in U.S. history, and has threatened to veto any efforts to dismantle the plan. He's lost his mind. There is no rhyme or reason to this. |
![]() |
|
| anshirk | Feb 22 2006, 01:57 AM Post #7 |
|
madonna go away
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
france is not allowing this type of takeover? http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=62371 France fighting Mittal because he's Indian? Reuters Posted online: Friday, February 03, 2006 at 1259 hours IST Paris, February 3: France's opposition to Mittal Steel's bid for Arcelor is not due to the fact that its owner is Indian-born, Finance Minister Thierry Breton said on Thursday, brushing off alleged French arrogance towards an outsider. France's conservative government and the Socialist opposition have stepped up rhetoric against steel magnate Lakshmi Mittal's $24 billion bid for Arcelor, sparking criticism by an Indian minister and some commentators. "This has nothing to do with India or anyone else," Breton told Europe 1 radio. "This is a European company. The nationality of the shareholders has nothing at all to do with this. I appeal to everyone to be reasonable." France, where more than 26,000 jobs could be affected by a takeover, has condemned the hostile offer for Arcelor -- the product of a three-way merger four years ago between Spain's Aceralia, France's Usinor and Luxembourg's Arbed steel firms. |
![]() |
|
| maddyhater | Feb 24 2006, 06:16 AM Post #8 |
|
Duranie Madonna Hater
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I'm surprised that Flea hasn't commented on this, since Bush is his boy. We've known for years that Bush has been funded through his life with oil profits and Arab money, this just cinches it for me. There is no good reason why we should let anyone own or control our sea ports. I haven't heard a good arguement yet to sway me to think otherwise. Maybe he's looking for something to happen, so he can start another war and get his approval ratings back up again. Such a slimeball, I wish he and Cheney would just drop off the face of the Earth. MH |
![]() |
|
| maddyhater | Feb 24 2006, 06:19 AM Post #9 |
|
Duranie Madonna Hater
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
well, that's not entirely correct Ironshadow, from what I heard on the news, a British company controlled the ports prior to this. What I don't understand is why? Why wouldn't we be doing that ourselves, instead of handing it over to some foreign company in the first place? Oh yes... the almighty dollar, especially when it's lining a politicans pocket.... MH |
![]() |
|
| Tonygirl | Feb 25 2006, 03:07 PM Post #10 |
![]()
|
Yes, these ports have already been under foreign control and up until now, no one has cared. It's not like the ports are being sold to Iraq or Syria anyway. The UAE is VERY Western European/American type of place. Dubai for example is nothing but 5 star hotels and restaurants, and a place where the wealthiest people in the world hang out. They don't have terror attacks because they will not tolerate it, they are a very prosperous, commerce oriented area and don't want 10th century ragheads ruining it. I am more worried about our lax borders with Mexico than ports being sold, as we didn't even own them to start with. The same people will work and run the ports. But with our borders, who knows who or what is being brought in hidden in cars and semis. If the UAE really wanted to destroy us, they could have done it by now. They didn't have to spend like 7 or 8 BILLION dollars to buy a port to do so. Besides, no one yelled when Clinton sold them a bunch of F-15 fighter jets... Regarding the Middle East, our main problem is Iran wanting to start a war with us. The UAE owns ports all over the world, it is a company that, well, runs ports! If they decided to bomb us, wouldn't it kind of ruin their business in all those other countries all over Europe where they have ports? It doesn't seem like it is in the UAE's interests to spend billions to bomb us and ruin their entire business, countries, economy, etc. I have met people from all over the Middle East. The Syrians for example, I wouldn't trust for nothing. The people from Qatar, Dubai, those UAE countries are a lot like the Japanes. Very forward thinking and business oriented. |
![]() |
|
| Ironshadow | Feb 26 2006, 03:52 AM Post #11 |
|
#1 mandona hater
![]()
|
yeah, and the Japanese tried to buy baja from Mexico not that long ago. The British company that had the contract before was privately owned, the one that bought it out (how, was not discussed) is GOVERNMENT owned. Vast difference, and they must not let it go through, period. |
![]() |
|
| Tonygirl | Feb 27 2006, 01:02 PM Post #12 |
![]()
|
Baja California is owned by someone/a country? I didn't know that one. Wonder why the Japanese wanted it, maybe to put up some companies or hotels? I'm surprised they haven't made us an offer for Hawaii! |
![]() |
|
| maddyhater | Feb 27 2006, 01:13 PM Post #13 |
|
Duranie Madonna Hater
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
my husband would be PEEVED if Hawaii was ever given up, he wants to go back there badly, but his paranoid wife won't fly or go on a ship, so once teleportation is perfected, that's his only possibility! MH |
![]() |
|
| flea dip | Feb 28 2006, 06:21 PM Post #14 |
|
Rock Star From Mars
![]()
|
maddyhater,I have stopped worshipping at my Altar Of Dubya long enough to make this post and let you know I'm not a male. Also to say... I don't have a strong opinion on this story either way. On the surface of it, yes, it sounds bad to allow an Arab- / Muslim- based company have any say-so in American ports. This transaction was first reported several months ago (the port going from British control to UAE control), first in the Times of London (I think) and then in the WSJ, but nobody had a cow about it until now. I also don't understand the Democratic hypocrisy on this. They resent any and all implications that "Arab = Terrorist" (or "All Muslims = Potential Terrorists"), and they don't like tax money (or energies or attention) being spent on national security/homeland security issues, but here they are doing these very things, or insisting on these very things. As Charles Krauthammer put it |
![]() |
|
| maddyhater | Mar 1 2006, 05:54 PM Post #15 |
|
Duranie Madonna Hater
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
with your Republican leanings, you're not a guy??? Say it ain't so!!!!*laugh* sorry for any insult I may have caused there Flea.... off to read the rest of your post.. MH |
![]() |
|
| flea dip | Mar 10 2006, 12:53 PM Post #16 |
|
Rock Star From Mars
![]()
|
Dubai-owned company drops ports plan Dubai pulls out of ports contract |
![]() |
|
| flea dip | Jul 20 2006, 08:12 PM Post #17 |
|
Rock Star From Mars
![]()
|
Many of the 9/11 hi-jackers were from Saudi Arabia, and one of their targets was the Pentagon. Unless I hear a great reason behind this (other than the somewhat vague "it will help the Saudis fight terrorism"), I'm unconvinced this is a good idea: Pentagon OKs $6 bln in arms sales to Saudi Arabia Then there's this: Responding to an old post by Maddy Hater (actually, I think I responded to this in another thread - or maybe I'm having deja vu):
1. It's your opinion that the war is "needless." I do not agree that it is "needless." (I have to wonder if in your view any war is needed or justified.) 2. It is your opinion that the only reason the USA went to Iraq is for economic reasons (when one of the stated reasons among several had to do with fighting terrorism; I don't recall oil being brought up.) (BTW, I'm not entirely against the USA going to war over oil - I don't regard that as immoral. In Gulf War 1, Hussein went to war over oil, and our troops went in to stop him; we also went to help the Kurds / Kuwait. You do not want the oil - which all of us are so dependent upon, including you - to fall into the hands of one Middle East dictator who hates the West.) 3. To your party (Democrats) anyone who makes over $30,000 a year is "rich." BTW - one reason many conservatives are unhappy with George W. Bush is because his administration has been spending funds like a drunken sailor, even out-spending Clinton. Links about it: - [Regarding Fiscal Policy] Is Bush worse than Clinton? - How George W. Bush Outspends LBJ - 'Conservative' Bush Spends More than 'Liberal' Presidents Clinton, Carter
What does that even mean? ![]()
It should be obvious. My writing is very clear, why do I have to re-word my previous posts? You're ragging on a Republican administration for sending troops to Iraq, and yet - 1. Bill Clinton - a Democrat - sent our military to Iraq to bomb it during his administration (he also used our military for other campaigns), but I don't believe you've referred to those as "needless" or that you have charged Clinton with doing so for "oil;" 2. Hillary Clinton - a Democrat - supports the war in Iraq (so that she can appear to be a moderate). John Kerry - Democrat - initially supported our troops being sent to Iraq (as did several other Democratic Congressmen). I don't believe you've criticized Hillary Clinton or other Democrats who support the Iraq war, or who initially did (but then flip-flopped) The point is -(and I shouldn't have to explain it, I think my writing is clear enough)- you seem critical of how the Republican party uses the military, but apparently you have no words of criticism for how the Democrats (mis)use our military.
But in the same post you stated,
Yet in another post, you refer to George W. as being a 'moron' and as being stupid. Anyhow... Clinton didn't have any honor. Clinton (on a personal level) is by far the smarmiest, most disgusting puke that's ever been in office. George W. Bush doesn't get blow jobs from 20 year old girls in the oval office - if he does, at least he's smart about not getting caught. Several women stepped forward to say they were either raped by Clinton or almost raped by him. Clinton is a total perv. ~That you would just brush this aside as "oh, well neither political party has perfect people in it" is. . . Well, let me explain this to you as I do my sister's liberal boyfriend. Yes, there are people in both parties who have done or said immoral things. (Seems to me that most of them are in the Democratic Party or are liberals, however. Look, for example, at the males in the Kennedy family, for one. You have an entire family of career Democrat politicians, most of whom are womanizing, drunken slobs.) At any rate, I look to the values that each side stands for. Conservative Democrats aside - Democrats / Liberals stand for and defend values which I find either appalling or unwise, such as (these are just a few):
Uh, maddy hater - Bin Laden was not our only target. Bush stated in several of his speeches that we are at war against Islamic terrorism, and any nation or group who supports or harbors terrorists, and that includes Iraq, Iran, and others. |
![]() |
|
| flea dip | Jul 25 2006, 10:09 PM Post #18 |
|
Rock Star From Mars
![]()
|
For those of you who like to refer to Bush as stupid or moronic, take a look at this thread: The IQs of Politicians ~~~ EDIT BELOW ~~~ Seeing as how there's some in-fighting among conservatives / Republicans over a few issues, including over George W. Bush's capabilities and so forth, I don't see how anyone can say that Republicans walk in lock-step, are incapable of thinking for themselves, etc. Here we have an editorial by well-known conservative W. F. Buckley insisting that George W. Bush is not a conservative: Bush No Conservative - (it's critical of GWB) But then, conservative David Limbaugh chimes in with President Bush is No Neo-Con ~~~~ Sept 1, 2006 EDIT ~~~~ ![]() No, no, no. Dubya, do not cave into CAIR! CAIR, which btw, -Tones down war rhetoric to appease Muslim groups Excerpts from article (there are many good links at the bottom of this page, too) The "Islamic world" has hated the USA before Bush ever used the phrase "Islamo facism," so bite me. Continuing: So don't hand me this crap that anything Bush says "will" or "might" start a religious war - it's already started, and it's been started by the Islamic side. Bush needs to stick with the "Islamic facisism" turn of phrase, as that is exactly what we're up against. |
![]() |
|
| flea dip | Jan 5 2007, 04:48 AM Post #19 |
|
Rock Star From Mars
![]()
|
It's too long for me to post in full, so please click the link: Outrage of the Day It starts out |
![]() |
|
| flea dip | Dec 19 2008, 01:24 AM Post #20 |
|
Rock Star From Mars
![]()
|
As this article touches on several different topics (and it is critical of George W Bush), I wanted to cross post it to different threads in this forum (including this one- obviously). Pro-Homosexual Media Going Bankrupt - original article Pro-Homosexual Media Going Bankrupt - article hosted on discussion board ----- |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Global Outlook · Next Topic » |






![]](http://z5.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)






- what an Idiot!
with your Republican leanings, you're not a guy??? Say it ain't so!!!!


1:31 PM Jul 11