Is Bush burned out?

Just my two cents...it sure is hard work being a dictator.

Never, since the presidency of FDR has the power of the Federal Government grown so large and so fast as it has under the reign of King George Bush. He and his (UN)Patriot(IC) Act have done more to usurp individual liberty than any President prior. He has empowered a Police State that would make Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, or Mao very, very proud.
 
Wait a minute, Danzig.

"He has empowered a Police State that would make Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, or Mao very, very proud."

Point us all to death chambers, or killing fields, or mass graves, or millions upon millions of Americans executed and slaughtered.

You cannot.

And, when you try to establish some sort of moral parity between Bush (or Clinton, or Reagan, or Carter) and those despicable leaders, you diminish the catastrophes they caused. In doing so, you diminish the deaths. And, in diminishing the deaths, you actually make it more acceptable to the public, and increase the probability of such events happening again.

Disagree with GW all you want. But don't stoop to such low-handed tactics.

That's what Howard Dean is for.
 
Death toll may be lower...but the mindset is not. Ok, maybe that statement was a tad over the top..but the fact remains that no president since FDR has expanded the scope and magnatude of fedgov power as much as King George and let's not begin to talk about the amount of spending this guy has done with the public purse!
 
Danzig said:
He and his (UN)Patriot(IC) Act have done more to usurp individual liberty than any President prior. He has empowered a Police State that would make Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, or Mao very, very proud.
Click to expand...

Okay, this whole "teh evil Bush wrote and shoved the Patriot Act down our throats!" crap is just annoying.

The USAPatriot act is a load of crap for sure, but it was clearly written LONG before 9/11 (many of its provisions where things that Clinton tried to pass), it was passed OVERWHELMINGLY by both Dems and Repubs without reading it after the biggest terrorist attack on US Soil.

Do you honestly believe that Clinton, Gore or Kerry wouldn't have signed that thing just as fast as GW did? Do you honestly believe that had a Democrat signed it that they wouldn't be defending it as staunchly as GW is?

To listen to the Bush haters, you would think the patriot act was Bush's life-long goal, that he'd written the thing in a shack in Crawford, Texas before the election and was just waiting for the perfect time to spring it. :rolleyes:

The thing that frightens me is what president Hillary will do to us with the USAPatriot act in place ... had it been in place when OKC was bombed? ... *shudder*
 
"no president since FDR has expanded the scope and magnatude of fedgov power as much as King George"

It was a little before your time, but LBJ's Great Society surely puts him in the running. Here's a taste of just some of what he brought us...

Achieved the goals of the Fair Deal.
Achieved the goals of the New Frontier.
Introduced Medicare programs.
Passed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
Legislated a Housing and Urban Development program.
Ratified the highway beautification act, a pet project of Lady Bird Johnson, the First Lady.
Installed clean air and water regulations.
Ended the immigration quota system of the 1920s.
Set forth new city planning programs.
 
Yeah, that was a bit before my time...but I appreciate the history lesson. Every president has done something to stomp on Liberty.

But here's the situation as I see it:

Clinton (socialist that he is) may have done more harm had it not been for for the fact that he did not have the support of The House and the Senate. Bush on the other hand has been able to cause a lot more harm because he DOES have the support of a Congress that is composed of a majority of members of his own party. He has been ALLOWED to get away with more.

That doesn't absolve him of his own guilt. But that does mean that their are many others guilty of complicity in his wrongdoing.
 
...I wonder if today's America has the stomach to fight a real large-scale war with lots of casualties and not cry Uncle all too soon....Its been a LONG time since we had to see KIA in numbers like Vietnam or Korea or WW2 ..etc...
 
Heck, looking at all the pacifists online at forums like TFL and THR...

One would think they'd pass out from seeing their own blood after a boo-boo in the kitchen, let alone stomach a full-scale war. I find it amazing we even went all the way to victory in WWII, you'd think as a country we've become pussified and gone soft and squishy in the middle. And yes, I've been deployed several times to Iraq in the latest actions, so don't ask me how much stomach I've had for it. I'd go back again in a heartbeat. Matter of fact, some of the Iraqis I've met have more stomach to see the Ba'ath party removed and their new democratic government installed than many Americans I've talked to since returning from the Green Zone. :(
 
I am more than willing to fight to the death to protect the lives and freedom of my family, my friends, my neighbors, and my fellow Americans. But not to fight a preemptive war against another country that is no threat to those I mentioned above. And I especially am not willing to die for someone else's idea of what we as a nation should be doing.

Those that believe that Saddam was such an evil man that he just had to be removed from power should pick up their weapons and make that happen. But they do not have the right to order the sons and daughters of America to die for their beliefs.

And if they can't find enough people who believe as they do..and who are likewise willing to pick up arms for that belief..then their cause is lost and should be abandoned.
 
Is Bush burned out?

Nope just the reality of a second term.
--Nixon--second term trouble
--Carter--first term trouble
--Reagan--Second term trouble
--Bush--first term screw up
--Clinton-- Second term trouble

--Bush--Pick the trouble or screw up of your choice. The way things are going, we may not have seen his best work.

Detect any pattern here?

Looks to me like the optimun term for president is 6 years. Trouble seems to sprout its fruit in the final two years. We just seem to lose interest in a president about 6 years after he is first elected.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top