Why do so many people on ATS hate Bush?

Originally posted by StrangeLands
I've no interest whatsoever is seeing this degenrate into a flame war. I didn't intend for my comments to be construed as a personal attack, and I'm man enough to ignore the fact that you attacked me by calling my post tripe. After all, this is the new pink and fluffy mudpit!

One thing, though: I notice that you took the time out of your day to quote and criticise my minor typographical error, but you didn�t say one single word against the conclusion that Junior is a lying, warmongering idiot who should impeached and imprisoned.

Isn't that interesting...

Now, now. I was careful enough to say that your post was tripe, not that you were. I agree that this is the new pink and fluffy mudpit!

But you seem to be intelligent, and educated. I don't understand why you would comment negatively on a class of people. It seems to be beneath someone of your caliber, and I'm not blowing smoke. And you must admit, enough denim-wearers voted for GWB in the last election.

As far as me not commenting on the merits of your reasons for hating GWB, this post is not about debating our reasons, just about listing them. There are a million threads trashing Bush here at ATS; we don't need another one.

The typo...well that was uncalled for. I couldn't help it, though, coming right after you referred to yourself as intellectual. My apologies.

You will find that whether or not people agree with me does not influence my thinking very much.

Thanks for keeping this out of the flame wars.

Originally posted by nyarlathotep

Wow. Is there any way you could be more vague? That is like saying the sky is blue. No s**t Sherlock. I know that people hate him, the question was: Why? What are the reasons people from all around the World hate Bush? Could you please elaborate?

Because he's a baby-eating shape-shifting reptile? Nah, seriously, what Strangelands said. I think he summed it up pretty well.

Originally posted by jsobecky
The typo...well that was uncalled for. I couldn't help it, though, coming right after you referred to yourself as intellectual.

My apologies.

Ah. I see why you thought that was pretty repellant. When I used the phrase "intellectual snob", I meant that I can be someone who is snobbish about a lack of intellect and education, not someone who is an intellectual and a snob...

... though I'm not sure I've made it any clearer!

And please understand - I have no problem with "stupid people". A person's intelligence or education does not define their value or worth. I know a great many people who have not been classically educated, but have skills and experience which leave me awestruck. In short, I wasn't attacking the "common man", I was attacking Bush's celebration of willful ignorance.

I just think that the Presidency is an intellectually demanding position, requiring wit, education, insight, rationality and clarity of thought. Based on the evidence I've read and seen, I don't think Bush is the guy for the job - not by a long shot. I'll happily debate the fact of his stupidity if anyone can present a contrary argument, but I think it's pretty cut and dried.

Originally posted by Homer Jay
I know people with MDs who routinely butcher the English language, so please don't fall back on that crutch. By the way, I'd rather have a President who uses the word "misunderestimate" than another President who needs to debate the meaning of the word "is".

Well, Homer Jay, we both know I could supply a page of quotes from Bush that don't just illustrate his inability to formulate a whole sentence, but also his ignorance of world events, history, economics, diplomacy, domestic and foreign policy, religion... the list goes on and on.

My particular favourite, by the way, was "the trouble with the French is that they have no word for entrepreneur." Beautiful. Just beautiful.

I could also wax lyrical about Dubya's blank, vacant expression, his stumbling style of oration (even when using an autocue), his multiple - and significant - business failures, or his staggering lack of tact, sensitivity or subtlety ("Crusade", anyone?). As I said before, I realise that some people bash Bush because it's fashionable, and call him stupid because it's become common knowledge; I, on the other hand, call him stupid because I have yet to see, hear or read a single sign of intelligence issue from him. Even the pro-Bush media outlets, even the hardest of hard-line Republicans, make no great claims for his intellect. His stupidity, for crying out loud, was part of his election campaign! "Don't trust the shifty intellectual, vote for the plain homespun all-American guy"? I'm paraphrasing, I admit, but not by much.

I can understand, too, your point about preferring an under-educated President to an over-educated President - that, as I understand it, was a contributing factor in Gore's near-defeat in 2000 - but the question to you have to ask is this: is Bush, with his failings, faults and inadequacies, forgiveable as they may be in someone who doesn't have the power to order the last superpower to war; is he capable of running the US properly?

I say not.

Reagen, by all accounts, wasn't the smartest guy who ever lived, but he didn't need to be. The same goes for any number of Presidents, great and mediocre - and the same applies to the past leaders of any country, come to that. Simple and straight-talking doesn't necessarily mean dumb - but Bush and his supporters are trying to pass off dumb as simple and straight-talking, and that just doesn't work.

Of course, this is getting off the topic - it's the lies, the warlike behaviour and the megalomania that cause people to hate Bush. His stupidity just makes him pitiful.

Originally posted by StrangeLands

Well, Homer Jay, we both know I could supply a page of quotes from Bush that don't just illustrate his inability to formulate a whole sentence, but also his ignorance of world events, history, economics, diplomacy, domestic and foreign policy, religion... the list goes on and on.

My particular favourite, by the way, was "the trouble with the French is that they have no word for entrepreneur." Beautiful. Just beautiful.

You didn't really answer my question about how he is "officially" stupid. If you're using statements he's made as your lone basis, here are a few more quotes from some more "Morons":

"A zebra does not change its spots"
- Al Gore

"The internet is a great way to get onto the net"
- Bob Dole

"They've managed to keep their unemployment low although their overall unemployment is high."
- Bill Clinton

"And now the sequence of events in no particular order."
- Dan Rather

"She's a wonderful, wonderful person, and we're looking forward to a happy and wonderful night -- uh, life."
- Ted Kennedy

"Capital punishment is our way of demonstrating the sanctity of life."
-Orrin Hatch

"Those who survived the San Francisco earthquake said, "Thank God, I'm still alive." But, of course, those who died, their lives will never be the same again."
- Barbara Boxer

"The world is more like it is now then it ever has before."
- Dwight Eisenhower

"I have opinions of my own --strong opinions-- but I don't always agree with them."
- George Bush, former U.S. President

"Solutions are not the answer."
- Richard Nixon

"Facts are stupid things."
- Ronald Reagan

and finally...

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman."
- Bill Clinton



[edit on 21-6-2004 by Homer Jay]

Strangelands and jsobecky, I would like to thank the both of you for keeping this an intellectual, mature and well thought out discussion. I am glad you two came to your senses, I was getting worried about you two

Thank you for your last post strangelands, that is the answer that I was looking for. Just saying 'cuz he dumb' is one thing, but I can now see your point of view more clearly. You know the Republicans haters *cough colonel cough* make their points ineffective and childish by resorting to name calling and personal attacks on the would be debater.

I will be the first to admit that I am biased towards Bush, and being so, blinds me to a lot of the negative facts on him. That is why I started this thread in the first place, to see what anti-bushers really thought.

Very funny, Homer Jay!

I apologise, but I thought I had made it clear that I don't rely on quotes and decontextualised incidents to judge Dubya's intellect. As I said, it's the utter absence of any signs of intelligence over a long period of time which led me to the inescapable conclusion that he's stupid.

If, just once, he'd said something erudite, insightful or wise, then I might reconsider. But I'm not going to hold my breath.

I'm not sure how one would assess his "official" intelligence - IQ isn't exactly a perfect measure of someone's intellect - so I'll just rely on the quick-and-dirty evidence of my own eyes and ears.

And thanks, nyarlathotep, for the kind words - you're right, this is certainly more interesting than the old tit-for-tat intransigence of the pre-fluffy mudpit.

I do not "hate" Bush, but I do dislike the fact that he is our president.
Main reasons for not liking Bush.... the election debacle, lies about WMD's, and that the man is basically responsible for declaring a war that there could never be an end to. those are my reason for "disliking" Bush as our president.

Originally posted by StrangeLands
I'm not sure how one would assess his "official" intelligence - IQ isn't exactly a perfect measure of someone's intellect - so I'll just rely on the quick-and-dirty evidence of my own eyes and ears.

Ok, that's cool. That's kinda the answer I was looking for.

As I read through the read, with genuine interest, I noticed one recurring, and disturbing theme... hyperbole and rhetoric. People continue to repeat the same old mantras while none of this has been proven and much has even been disproven.

Before I begin I would like to preface my statements with the fact that I am a moderate Independent. I am hardly partisan and I NEVER vote along political party lines. I did not vote for Bush in 2000 and will likely not vote for him in 2004. That said, however, he is our Commander-in-Chief and I will do my best to support him during these difficult times.

Now, to the point... Many people hate Bush based on partisan rhetoric, as I mentioned previously. One such partisan slant is that Bush "Stole" the election. Now, being interested in Constitutional law I have taken great pains to look into this personally. I have thoroughly reviewed the FEC bylaws governing elections as well as the articles of the Constitution that define the electoral process. Throughout this I was unable to discover any instances where Bush and co. violated the law of the electoral process. In fact, the only infraction that I was able to uncover is that the SC violated the FEC deadlines for declaring a winner in the elections by allowing repeated recounts... as requested by the Democrats, not the Republicans. Anyone with any concrete evidence to refute this would be welcomed. Please, though, take the time to carefully craft a cogent argument outlining EXACTLY how Bush violated constitutional law and "Stole" the election. After all, you're making the claim, so the burden of proof should be upon you to explain how this occurred.

Next is the old "Bush lied" nonsense. Again, where is the proof of this? I have seen none. What I have seen is a complete failure of our intelligence services. Keep in mind that many of the premises Bush outlined against Saddam the Democrats were using back in 1998 when Clinton signed a Bill calling for regime change in Iraq. No one in the UN came forth with evidence to the contrary. Nearly every memeber of the security council agreed, in kind, with the intelligence assessment, they merely disagreed on the course of action. So, again, if someone can show concrete evidence that Bush did, in fact, lie, I would welcome that also. Keep in mind, to "Lie" one has to knowingly falsify the truth in a deliberate attempt to deceive. Specualtion will not suffice... please provide solid examples to back your claims.

There are countless other examples of such hyperbole and rhetoric, but for the sake of keeping this post brief, I will not bother to explore them at this point. On a final note, people hate Bush, in my opinion, because he espouses ideas that are not consistent with their own. It is fine to disagree with the President as he is supposed to be representative of the people who elected him. That it why it is important to engage in logical and well-reasoned political debate on the merits of the presidency so that we, as a nation, may move FORWARD and ensure that we are electing people that represent the direction that we, the people, desire the country to go. Hate mongering will NEVER get us there.

I don't hate bush, but I will like to see him hang, skinned, boil, striped naked in public with a big diaper and make a pyramid with Cheney, Power and Rumsfield.

And you think I hate him? no!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Really I don�t.: ham:

This is just a joke.

Well, kozmo, here we go...

Bush stole the 200 election because - and pay attention, this is complicated - he got fewer votes than Gore. He then gained office by manipulating the letter of the law while ignoring it's spirit. Did he break the law? I believe he did. Do we have evidence of this? Not yet. Did he act against the best interests of the American electorate? Indisputably. Did he drag the democratic process through the gutter? Absolutely. Did he screw the American people? Yes, yes and yes again.

And, lest you think this is just oration, I'd like to refer to the way the GOP pressured election officials in Florida to accept blatantly unacceptable ballots - of the 2,490 overseas ballots, 680 were unacceptable according to election law. Had they been dismissed, as they clearly should have been, Gore would have won Florida, and the Oval Office. QED.

That is just one of the questionable acts taken by the fledgling Bush Regime in the days before and after November 2000.

And as for the lies - ATS doesn't have the bandwith to carry the full weight of this idiot's dishonesty. Your assertion that the lies about Iraq weren't lies but intelligence errors is - frankly - crap. Bush has twisted intelligence reports, decontextualised insignificant information in an effort to support his pre-determined course of action, and announced on several occassions that WMDs have been found when the intelligence services reported no such thing.

And that's just the tip of iceberg. In November 2002, as part of the build up to Gulf War II, Bush said "Saddam Hussein is a threat because he is dealing with al Qaeda." Following Enron, Bush claimed that he had first met Ken Lay in 1994 - conveniently "forgetting" the fact that they'd been buddies since the 80s. He has lied about and evaded questions about his shady past, and lest we forget, once said that "the Hungry Caterpillar" was his favourite childhood book, despite the fact it was published when he was daydreaming his way through college. And worst of all, following the 2000 "election", Bush said "I will work to earn your respect."

Just another nugget of untruth brought to you by a President who was so desperate to a) finish up Daddy's little war, and b) make himself a movie-star war hero that he fabricated evidence, told lie after lie after lie, and invaded a foreign country with no good reason.

I realise you're probably just playing devil's advocate, kozmo - after all, no intelligent person could have listened to Bush for the last four years and believed even half the things he's said, surely?

And finally, there's one more thing I'd like to object to...

That said, however, he is our Commander-in-Chief and I will do my best to support him during these difficult times.

That is probably the single most frightening statement you could make. I cannot believe that in the wake of September 11th, Bush has actually made opposing his faux-Presidency unthinkable for the majority of patriotic Americans!

Kozmo - and everyone else who's said the same thing - I beg you, think. Bush has done nothing to deserve your support. He has squandared the lives of American soldiers and countless civilians in a wasteful, pointless, selfish war. He has made your country even more vulnerable to the threat of terrorism. He has robbed your country of it's dignity, he has cynically abused and thrown away the enormous amount of good will and compassion given to America by countries all around the world following the WTC tragedy.

And, as I've shown above, he's a big cheating lying idiot.

Don't give him your support. He doesn't deserve it. And every day that he stays in the White House, he's making things worse.



(Edited to remove excessive bile - okay, just typos)

[edit on 22-6-2004 by StrangeLands]

Originally posted by StrangeLands
Bush stole the 200 election because - and pay attention, this is complicated - he got fewer votes than Gore. He then gained office by manipulating the letter of the law while ignoring it's spirit. Did he break the law? I believe he did. Do we have evidence of this? Not yet. Did he act against the best interests of the American electorate? Indisputably. Did he drag the democratic process through the gutter? Absolutely. Did he screw the American people? Yes, yes and yes again.

[edit on 22-6-2004 by StrangeLands]

I tip my hat to you for taking the time to present your case. That was a very well thought-out and reasoned response. First, and I'll work backwards, in the case of Bush lying... I agree. However, a caveat, ALL politicians lie to some extent. What we need to focus on is whether or not his "lies" rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors, an impeachable offense. Yeah, yeah, I know... The President should never lie and with that I agree. However, with respect to his lying about Iraq, I'm still not convinced. Whereas I do agree that he fervently pursued the notion of attacking Iraq and argued vehemently on the merits of his intelligence, I'm still not certain that his arguments for the war were a purposeful act of deceit, although it is possible that it may have been. There is no question, however, that he advocated a war with Iraq long before 9/11.

Now, with respect to the election... In the United States we have something called the Electoral College that actually determines who wins an election... not the sum of the popular vote. For moreon the Electoral College visit: www.fec.gov... . Also pay very special attention to Article II, Section 1 of the Constitutional Provisions with respect to national elections which can be found here: www.fec.gov... and finally, a more detailed account of the Constitutional Provisions are posted here: www.archives.gov...

Yes, devil's advocate I am, seeker of the truth and administrator of integrity I aspire to be. I am hopeful that the above links help you to better understand our completely convoluted electoral process.

Strangelands, again thank you for the intelligent rebuttal. However, I think Kozmo is asking for proof of what you are saying. At least provide some type of link to back up what you are saying. Otherwise, it is just your opinion, even though you present an intelligent thought provoking one.

Most of what you says is unsubstantiated and therefore questionable. Take for example the book thing, can't you at least provide some link or anything? I'm not saying it is not true, but the burden of proof is on you.

Please don't take this as a personal attack, because it is not. You have made this thread an interesting and thought provoking one and I wish your continued participation. I just have a hard time taking someone's word on the net especially when it comes to the anti-Bush debate.

Edit: Also, SL, winning the popular vote does not mean winning, even though extremely rare. As Kozmo pointed out, it is the Electoral College that ultimately decides.

[edit on 6-22-2004 by nyarlathotep]

Thanks for the links, Kozmo - very interesting reading. I was passingly familiar with the workings of the electoral colleges before, but this really gives me some in-depth stuff - and I'll never pass up the opportunity to learn something new!

However, after further investigation, I stand by my original point. Gore lost Florida, the pivotal state of the election, by 537 votes. If the 680 unacceptable Floridian ballots (all pro-Bush) had been dismissed, as they should have been according to the laws which govern such things, then Gore would have won the electoral college votes for that state, and therefore the entire election. I'm prepared to concede the point in the face of superior analysis, but I'm confident I'm right.

When you add the other questionable activites the Republican party - and Bush's minions in particular - were engaged in prior to and immediately following the election, I stand by my comment regarding the devaluation of the American democratic system.

And thanks too for the kind words, nyarlathotep - I'm also finding this debate stimulating and interesting. Kudos on running a tight ship!

So, just for you, some substantiating links:

CNN Report: GOP pressured Florida to accept flawed ballots

Whitehouse Press Conference - Bush Says Saddam Is "Working with Al Queda"

Bush Interview with Polish TV - featuring the factually-deficient line "We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories."

Whopper of the Week: Bush's "Ken Who?"

My personal favourite: Bush can't get enough of 'The Very Hungry Caterpillar'

And with regard to my final point in the previous post: Bush Hears No Dissent

You are welcome and it is always a pleasure to enage in such stimulating debate with open-minded people, such as yourself.

I run the risk of changing the direction of this thread entirely, so I will be brief and concise. BOTH the Dems and Repubs engaged in countelss questionable pre-election practices. This could consume an entire thread on it's own so I won't bother with details here, but I have them.

With respect to the 2000 election, what definition are you using when you claim that those ballots were faulty? What was faulty about them?

One of the articles that you linked to states: "The newspaper also reported that an expert on voting patterns and statistical models estimated that if the flawed ballots had been thrown out, Bush still would have won, although his margin would have been reduced to 245 votes." Story here: www.cnn.com...

Same story states "The newspaper said it is not known for whom the flawed ballots were cast, but that "four out of five were accepted in counties carried by Mr. Bush."

So this "Bush stole the election" thingy is really supposition by those who do not support Bush.

[edit on 23-6-2004 by kozmo]

[edit on 23-6-2004 by kozmo]

Ah, I may have inadvertently posted a link which doesn't fully support my argument. Now there's a generous act! In addition, I stated in my previous post that all 680 of the spoiled overseas ballots were votes for Bush. I have subsequently discovered that this is incorrect: 544 of the votes were for Bush, the remainder for Gore. Even taking this into account, Gore won the Florida election by 7 votes. As for the standards of said ballots...

From the New York Times: How Bush Took Florida
Many of the 680 flawed ballots in the analysis of the overseas envelopes had multiple defects, so the total number of flaws exceeds the number of defective ballots. The following questionable ballots were found:

344 ballots with no evidence they were cast on or before Election Day. They had late, illegible or missing postmarks.

183 ballots with United States postmarks.

96 ballots lacking the required signature or address of a witness.

169 ballots from voters who were not registered, who failed to sign the envelope or who had not requested a ballot. A request is required by federal law.

5 ballots received after the Nov. 17 deadline.

19 voters cast two ballots, both of which counted.

... all of which are make the ballot unacceptable according to election law.

The exact figures for the final, accurate count vary, as one would expect, according to the exact standards you demand from a ballot, but the arguments cannot disguise the shocking truth that the ballots listed above were actually counted in the first place!

It's also worth glancing at the Miami Herald - unfortunately, I only have a seocnd-hand link for this story, but you can find it here.

"Had discarded ballots in two counties that bore marks no different from others accepted been counted, Gore would be in the White House today."

"By a standard many Republicans, including the Florida Republican Party, advocated, Al Gore would have won the election by an indistinguishable three votes."

"Bush's lead would have vanished ... if the recount had been conducted under severely restricted standards advocated by some Republicans."

Or, to simplify, had Dubya been judged by his own standards, he would have lost. Had he shown an ounce of the integrity he promised he would "bring to the Oval Office", he would have conceded defeat. I think it says a lot for Bush's presidency that his morals go out the window when there's a chance his "authority" will be challenged.

Add to this the report in the Palm Beach Post which said that 5,330 voters - predominantly elderly and Jewish - intended to vote for Gore but accidentally voted for Pat Buchanan due to the way the ballot paper was laid out.

That's five thousand elderly, Jewish voters who cast their ballots for Pat Buchanan. Sound likely? Even Buchanan himself said that there must have been a mistake!

If you're feeling really brave - and maybe just a little bipartisan - try this site. Try as I might - and remember, I'm not a paid up Democrat or an American citizen - I can't fault their logic or their mathematics. And that last photograph is particularly interesting...

I don't think that the outcome of the Florida election is supposition - I think there is ample evidence to indicate that Bush's presidency is illegitimate. As I said before, it's clear to the dispassionate observer that he flouted the spirit of the law, even if he cynically obeyed the letter. If you accept the strictest standard of ballots, Gore won the election by seven votes. If you analyse who the good people of Florida actually voted for - the will of the people - Gore won by thousands.

I accept there is - at present, at least - no concrete evidence which would allow Bush to be impeached over the result in Florida, but, even if the evidence I was provided doesn't convince you, the questions raised must surely make you wonder:

Is this petty, cynical, grasping little man really fit to stand in the White House?

And out of interest, Kozmo, what did you think of the other links I posted?

Originally posted by worldwatcher
I do not "hate" Bush, but I do dislike the fact that he is our president.
Main reasons for not liking Bush.... the election debacle, lies about WMD's, and that the man is basically responsible for declaring a war that there could never be an end to. those are my reason for "disliking" Bush as our president.

Whoa! Hold on there. I think that you are "Not hating" a man for some prettynefarious reasons... like media programming. As I've already discussed in detail earlier in this thread... Bush had nothing to do with the election... the electoral college and the articles of the constitution governing election procedures are to blame. Secondly, there is no evidence that Bush lied about WMD or anything else. Remember, the entire UN agreed with the intelligence that we presented but the disagreed with the notion of going to war over it. In other words, Bush was citing incorrect intelligence. That, however, is not a lie. And finally, it takes an act of Congess to declare war. The president cannot do this on his own, no matter what you may have heard. Congress authorized the declaration of war with only a handful of your representives dissenting.

I liked your other links... very informative.

The final crux of the matter. A ballot entered is a vote cast. Period. The intent of the voter can only be judged by the chad removed on the ballot. Period. The articles of the constitution state very clearly how and when a winner is to be declared on behalf of the electorate. This was violted by the SC in allowing yet another recount. If the winner had been declared under the constitutional guidelines, Bush would have won with over 5,000 votes.

Vote counting is a lot like statistics... torture the numbers enough and you can get them to say anything. Gore's continual recount of predominately Dem counties is a form of torturing the numbers... this should have never been permitted.

I love Bush, don't agree with all things, but for the most part he's a LEADER...
A good LEADER. And I respect the president, a good ol American tradition. Respect, something we're lacking in these far too precious days.


People on this board are borderline socialist if not socialist, and half of em don't even know it.

I believe they take their freedoms for granted, they don't have a clue whats going on, logic has obviously disappeared from their thinned out skulls, which I believe makes them create situations and issues more difficult and negative from what they really are.

A simple example of that would be they believe a is b or c or d.
not just A is A.

Many of these people are drama queens and have become overly sensitive because they got picked on too much in their lives, or their ego tistical pricks who have their heads shoved so far up their ass they just care about themselves and what they can get from their liberal party.
Many other reasons I won't mention because it's a waste of my time.

Excuse me while I go try and kick start my brain.

Just thinking about these dumbasses numb my mind.

Not theirs, oh no... Their minds have atrophy which is the cause of many illogical fallicious comments and ideologies.
Yup thats the excuse i'll give em... Run with it liberals, not too many people will give you an excuse except for yourselves.

Originally posted by kozmo
Vote counting is a lot like statistics...

Agreed, kozmo, but it doesn't change the fact that this raw figures imply disturbing things about Bush's legitimacy.

As I said, we don't have concrete proof of these lies and dodges - yet - but that's not really the point. There is, I believe, enough circumstantial evidence to come to a considered judgement - and that judgement is that Bush is not worthy to lead the American people.

And, after all this, I'll return to the point of thread. For all the reasons I've listed, because of all the evidence I've provided and linked to, for all these things and a thousand more, people around the world are united in their hatred of Dubya.

I don't expect you to undergo a sudden revelation and provide a link to www.JohnKerry.com in your signature, but I believe any intelligent person has to come to the conclusion that Bush is bad for America - and that, after all, should be everyone's chief concern.

It's been a pleasure, kozmo.

Originally posted by TrueLies
And I respect the president, a good ol American tradition. Respect, something we're lacking in these far too precious days.

You mean "respect the Office, not the Man"? How about when the Man has made the Office a global joke? When the Man has betrayed the very things the Office represents? When the Man has used the Office to pursue his personal vendetta?

Or how about when the Man doesn't deserve to be in the Office in the first place?

Bush isn't a leader. He's a parasite.

Respect still has to be earned, TrueLies, even when you've stolen the White House.

...they just care about themselves and what they can get from their liberal party.

Yeah, you're probably right. Because no-one ever voted Republican out of cynical, navel-gazing, money-grabbing selfishness, did they?

Oh. Just all of them, then?