4 More Years For Bush--A real Leader!

I'm so sick of seeing these I HATE GEORGE W. BUSH threads. It's driving me nuts. I even read in one post that somebody wanted to hang him for treason and drag him through the streets. I mean come on people. All John Kerry has done in his campaign is take the opposite stance to Bush (and sometimes he can't decide if he wants to do that).

And you're all like LISTEN TO BUSH AND CHENEY RANT ABOUT A FUTURE OF DOOM AND GLOOM. These guys are REALISTS. Unlike Kerry/edwards, they're telling you the way things are gonna be for the next 4 years. They're gonna be a rough 4 years, and we NEED a tried and true leader in the white house. War is going to breakout again in this next presidential term, there's no doubt about that (Iran, NK, Syria). Is Kerry going to do what's best for the country, or what's best for the world (The UN)?

Although i don't agree w/ some of the republican ways and some of GW's stances on things, i feel safe w/ him in office. 3 years after 9/11, a major attack hasn't occured, due in large to the fact Bush has put hundreds of billions of dollars towards thwarting another huge attack.

I'll leave you all with an analogy: There were two houses, one was made of brick and one of sticks. When the wind started howling, the house of brick stood strong and the house of sticks fell apart. Bush is the house of brick, Kerry is the house of sticks, and terrorism and rogue nations are the wind.

Does anybody feel the same way???

[edit on 8-10-2004 by John bull 1]

The worst terrorist attack on the USA in its history occurred on Bush's watch, yet you feel safe with him as president?

Originally posted by Kwintz
3 years after 9/11, a major attack hasn't occured, due in large to the fact Bush has put hundreds of billions of dollars towards thwarting another huge attack.

And HOW many major attacks had occured BEFORE September 11 without "hundreds of billions of dollars" being spent on stopping this huge attack??

in the same fashion with the same intelligence he showed during the last debate, the whole world is in trouble.

as in Brick house?

[edit on 8-10-2004 by astrocreep]

There aren't precedents for everything, folks. Believe it or not, new things happen all the time. You can't judge Bush b/c 9/11 happened on his watch. You think the terrorists cared who was in office? The point is, happens.

Before Abraham Lincoln was assassinated people were quick to call his presidency a failure b/c he divided the country. Was it his fault? No. And now we look back, despite the civil war, and say that Abe Lincoln was one of the finest presidents of all time. Now i'm not trying to put GW in the same league as Abe, don't get me wrong, just drawing a paralell. I think 50 years from now we'll look back on GW and say THANK GOD HE WAS THE MAN THAT WAS FORCED TO DEAL WITH 9/11...

[edit on 8-10-2004 by astrocreep]

Originally posted by dreamlandmafia
And HOW many major attacks had occured BEFORE September 11 without "hundreds of billions of dollars" being spent on stopping this huge attack??

"Operator. We have an individual questioning our statement!"
And Kwintz, the world isn't doomed yet Vote the less worse of the worst.

Originally posted by Kwintz
All John Kerry has done in his campaign is take the opposite stance to Bush (and sometimes he can't decide if he wants to do that).

I don't care for GW Bush, but I have agree with you on this part of your statement. Neither one of them are going to do any better, and by Kerry's own admission he would have taken us into war. Voting records rarely lie, and the fact is that he approved preemptive action against Saddam just like Bush. Personlly, I don't think much of anything will change no matter who we will get except possibly a slight raise in economic standards if Kerry is elected. Kerry and Bush agree on most everything, and the only difference is how the would "have gone about doing it"...meaning action in Iraq, etc.

Here is my plea...Don't waste your vote on either of of these people!

[edit on 7-10-2004 by Jazzerman]

"Before Abraham Lincoln was assassinated people were quick to call his presidency a failure b/c he divided the country. Was it his fault? No. And now we look back, despite the civil war, and say that Abe Lincoln was one of the finest presidents of all time. Now i'm not trying to put GW in the same league as Abe, don't get me wrong, just drawing a paralell. I think 50 years from now we'll look back on GW and say THANK GOD HE WAS THE MAN THAT WAS FORCED TO DEAL WITH 9/11..."

More like please God don't let another stupid Texan become president.

Originally posted by shoo

Originally posted by dreamlandmafia
And HOW many major attacks had occured BEFORE September 11 without "hundreds of billions of dollars" being spent on stopping this huge attack??

"Operator. We have an individual questioning our statement!"

And Kwintz, the world isn't doomed yet

Vote the less worse of the worst.

WHAT IF Clinton would have pumped hundreds of millions of dollars into stopping terrorism in the years leading up to 9/11/01? We might not be arguing about this now...

Originally posted by Kwintz
The point is, happens.

And # will find a way to happen. Do you really think we are any safer now with all these Billions of Dollars being spent on our "protection"? Alot of that money has gone into the "Terrorist Watch" as I like to call it. Where all forms of electronic communication are being monitored. I for one feel more scared than protected to live here.

Those willing to give up a little liberty for a little security deserve neither security nor liberty.
-Benjamin Franklin

[edit on 8-10-2004 by astrocreep]

That throwing money at a problem will solve it.

Originally posted by GrndLkNatv
That throwing money at a problem will solve it.

Agreed.
But throwing money at a problem will HELP to quell it.

And Dreamlandmafia...
I do feel a little safer. I know it's probably all in vein and that these terrorists aren't morons, hell the mastermind terrorists are genius'. It's going to happen again, it's only a matter of time, but when i watch the news and see that terror cells have been arrested, and stuff like that, i do feel like our government is doing what it takes to protect us.

"Agreed.
But throwing money at a problem will HELP to quell it. "

Only if you are throwing the money to the people who caused the problem, not those trying to prevent it. If you paid Sadaam to go away he would, but paying everyone else to watch and wait won't do sh..

Throwing all this money into the War on Terrorism is like putting tons of money into a Lemon. Its never going to get fixed.

Obviously, the title of your thread is meant to instigate a big knock down- drag out fight here.
I will simply just say, " tu eres loco"
Enjoy the Bush era.

Originally posted by Kwintz
WHAT IF Clinton would have pumped hundreds of millions of dollars into stopping terrorism in the years leading up to 9/11/01? We might not be arguing about this now...

Probably, yes. Clinton represented a more intelligent and open-minded America while Bush ruined it all.

9/11 would have happened with Clinton as well, I am pretty sure about that. What made it worse was Bushs roadmap for peace and against terrorism. Polls showed that even after 9/11 there was A LOT of sympathy for the USA in Europe and in the Arabian countries as well.
My opinion on this is just that Clinton would have solved this one better.

Originally posted by GrndLkNatv
"Agreed.
But throwing money at a problem will HELP to quell it. "

Only if you are throwing the money to the people who caused the problem, not those trying to prevent it. If you paid Sadaam to go away he would, but paying everyone else to watch and wait won't do sh..

Muslim extremists want to see western society dead or at least in shambles. They don't want our money, they want our blood (and so do vampires sorry haha)...

If the government DID pay off Osama or Saddam, they most likeley would've used the money against us by building up weapons or constructing new attacks.

The extreme muslims are a super minority of the earths population. I welcome them to the United States to fight us here. When they get here I will gladly peel their skin of their bodies and feed them to my hogs, while they are alive. Just remember what Britain learned a long time ago: Don't pis. off a Scotsman.

I don't feel safer one bit. You really feel safer?

4 years ago, were you worried about when the next terrorist attack was going to be?

4 years ago, were you worried about a dirty bomb in a major metropolitan area? Did you even know what anthrax, or ricin, were?

4 years ago did you know what the term WMD meant? Or what sleeper cells were?

4 years ago, when was the last time you heard about someone being beheaded?

4 years ago, did you pay much attention to anti-USA statements put out by Al'Qaeda? Or by any of the other terrorist organizations? Do you know if they even put out videos and tapes back then?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I could go on and on. I have fears today of things I didn't even know existed 4 years ago. I don't feel safe. True, alot of this was brought about on 9/11. But alot of it has also been brought about because we have been making more and more enemies ever since that day.