Why the hell is Bush our president?

cuz he was elected there

why the heck do you make so many topics?

Because he was elected president.

If you plan on flaming Bush rather than debating against why he should've been made president, I'm gonna move this to chat.

Sorry about that.

:blink: Why do you ask?

Try to avoid double posting its warnable. The edit button is your friend.

Not that I support him but I tink Bush was elected because America in general believed thhey needed a strong president. And while he's not always the most intelligent man, I will admit he is strong in his own way.

How many times do i have to repeat myself i dont have an edit button.

Sorry but I've never seen you say that you haven't...at least you're almost to the 75 posts.

yes u do , look next to edit u random newb. B)

It's as simple as that. No matter how much you flame him or debate about why he shouldn't be president won't change anything. People did it in 2000, but did it help, apparently not. There are a lot of people who hate Bush, but there are more that like him. Deal with it. Just think to yourself only two more years. That is my two cents.

I think that if you look at your own statement for 10 seconds, you'll realize it's...well, it's complete bullshit.

It can basically be summed up as: "whatever you say about him won't change anything, therefore there is no point in complaining about anything the current president does in office. The best thing would be to sit on your ass and say 'two more years'".

Look. While I disagree with the idea that Bush is a good president, I accept that he is president. However, I'm not dumb enough to say that I shouldn't speak out against what he does that I disagree with, and neither is anyone else. Any conservatives who are open to any debate whatsoever on political issues would disagree with you. There are even a number of conservatives who don't like Bush anymore; they don't like liberal policies, but they don't particularly like Bush either. If no one made any noise about anything, nothing would change. Any person with a vague amount of rationale accepts debate as a neccessity. Why don't you?

Also, ask yourself this; if, from 2000-2004, no one had disagreed with anything Bush did, do you honestly think there would have been an election?

If no one speaks out against anything, we would just have a replacement for Bush in '08. Of course, it's nigh impossible that no one would discuss the decisions of the president, so that wouldn't happen.
---
I think the two biggest weaknesses in the Kerry Campaign were the two most important reasons why he lost. The first IMO was the flip-flopper image he never really managed to beat - partially because even though he was strong in the debates, his responses to reporters on-the-spot were rather weak. When I took a minute to piece his words together, they kind of made sense, but the initial messages were always very weak. Second were the attacks on his Vietnam record. Some say that he gave them too much publicity, while others say he didn't attack the ads enough, but what he did to combat them certainly didn't seem to work very well.

I don't think Bush is strong in his attitude; his bumbling and consistent mistakes make him something of a public laughingstock sometimes, and his deadlines and such often turn out unmet. However, his supporters do seem to find him to be strong, and he did manage to represent himself as more consistent than Kerry during the campaign.

Arcan-Almost.....
T3h- I dont have the edit button.
Hikaru- I know nothing i say will change that but i dont see why people would vote for him his whole campaign was based on lies and this whole war thing is his fault no one else's his and besides did you know that he knew terrorist where going to attack the empire state building and he didnt retalaite.

Twin towers my mistake i got carried away.

It's right next to "Quote" Damnit.

There, I just checked the group newbies and they didnt. But I just fixed it. So now you can edit.

Clinton did too. :huh:

1)He[Clinton] refused to take Osama when he had the chance.

Anyway, I can't find it. But I seem to remember the 911 committee or w/e stating that Bush was not to blame for 911.

Good reading here: http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Exec.pdf
Full report can be found here: http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/05.../fullreport.pdf

Edited: Got carried away and assumned someone had said something else. <_<

The point on taking out Osama was kind of null-and-void. We had cruise missles that would have taken something like 6 hours to aim and launch, that was our method for taking him out. Not too viable, since we only figured out his location occasionaly, one point was at a family luncheon/picnic type thing where we'd have no guarantee of him staying. We knew the attacks wouldn't go through, so we didn't waste cruise missles hitting places he'd have already left by the time of the strike.

From what I've heard, it's arguable that Bush did take a further step down in action against the terrorists, but it was basically a step from the last rung to the floor; the Clinton administration, and George Sn's term beforehand (I believe the first term where individual agents and operatives began warning us about small-scale organizations training for operations and such), had already been ignoring the threats against the country from radical muslims.

Bush didn't do his job, but that was more of a false lull of security that affected the entire government, not just him. It'd be unfair to point him out as the person who failed to act when most politicians probably would've had the same reaction.

Yes i told you hah!

Now that I read this line "People did it in 2000, but did it help, apparently not." it does make my statement look like bs, but if you read the rest of it, it's pretty much true. If you and me two teens unable to vote yet, even if we were, showed reason of why Bush shouldn't be our president do you honestly think it would work? I can flame and give reasons about why he shouldn't be our president but it'd be a waste of time right now.

Anything Kakashi, you, me or anyone else on this board say here won't change the fact that Bush is our president. If you really didn't want bush in office you could have done something about it. Like start protests against him after school or advertise/debate for Kerry or Nader. If you want to voice your opinion to people then do so seriously, don't try posting on a message board asking why bush is our president. Where will posting that here get you? If you didn't want him there you should have shut up, stopped complaining, and did something about it.

We and others can debate or question his actions until the day we die, but will it really help get him out of office at this point in time? If you want to change the things he has done you should tell your parents to go into politics. Requirements for positions in politics aren’t tremendously hard. Or you can get a camera and stake out the white house waiting for him to do something illegal. But I think the easiest thing to do would be to wait the two more years.

You can't sell your voice because you don't have a vote yet, and I don't. I will be voting in the next election, though, so booyakasha *Ali G Fingersnap*! Respec! Ok, that's it....

I don't think anyone believes they'll actually get Bush out of office. But that doesn't mean you can't help; I made some of those stupid, annoying "go out and vote" calls during the last election, and I actually got some people to say they would vote even though they had planned on being at home. It was probably pretty pointless, and I only did it as an excuse to hang out with some of my friends, but it was something.

As for in school type stuff, I did debate for the entirety of the third party candidates during my AP US history class unit on US elections, which took place during the elections and included discussion on them. My teacher awarded me victory on policy; it was easy, because I was able to argue pretty much every policy of the democrats and republicans because I was able to speak from all political perspectives. I doubt that it'll change any of my classmates from voting D or R; hell, I'd have voted D. But it was thought-provoking, and it (along with this year's examination of the 3rd parties of other eras) proved to me that 3rd parties do have a purpose in the US that isn't screwing up election results.

Making in a post in a forum (probably) won't convince anyone. But if you debate with people of similar and different opinions, you also get some ideas flowing and think. You don't need to actually make a change to make a discussion worthwhile. It'll at least slightly help increase your ability to deal with political debates of any kind in the future.

At the very least...well, this is going out on a limb, but think of it as a political side of the idea of "pure science" research VS applied science. "Pure Science" is science that has no apparent use in the near-future, astronomy often falls into this category. But that doesn't mean it's worthless.

My parents are federal workers, both of them. So they are to some extent in politics.

you're more of a n00b than him :blink: You even talk more like one...

Because he got more electorial votes than Kerry! :P And we of the South are bored and must shead the blood of others to sate our bloodlust!~

This election was like...a choice between two retards. I would have voted for Kerry just because I hate Bush.

This is one of the reasons Kerry lost, I think; practically everyone else felt the exact same why about it. I don't like this asswhole.

Thank you. ^_^