PDA

View Full Version : Is President Bush really stupid?


Pages : [1] 2

UDawg
11-07-02, 11:36 PM
I have a simple question. If President Bush is stupid and Impeached Former President Clinton was a smart and a political mastermind then why did Cinton have a major loss in the 94 mid-term elections? In 98 Clinton had a little less of a loss in those mid-term elections. His people run the DNC and they still loss. Mean while President Bush had huge wins in his first mid-term elections. Remember it is usual that the out of power party commonly wins in these mid-term elections. It should also be said that the GOP needed to win 60% of it's races to stay even with the current seatings.

I realize this question isn't simple and is completely loaded but I see a lot of people claim that a person they have never met is a complete sphincter baby. ;)

outriding9800
11-07-02, 11:45 PM
ok i will take a stab at it.

clinton just was comming off on of the affairs that he had and alot of people were trying to distance themselves from him and the dems.

bush just went all out and campaigned alot for the reps. ( clinton did not do that ) and actualy the last president who campained that much during the midterms was nixon ( who did not help out at all )

i am not happy with all the time that bush put into campaigning. there are some major issues that he needs to attack and i wish he would have worked on those. ( economy, terrerism, etc.. )

did i answer it ? or did i totaly miss the mark ( again )

The Baron
11-07-02, 11:52 PM
Because Bush is coming off of war talk.

War talk gets people to vote for the party of the president, no matter what.

Just the way it is.

NV30 Desirer
11-07-02, 11:52 PM
What i'm wondering is what happened to the "peacefull, war free world" Bush promised when he was campaigning for president. Now it's sorta llike the Middle Ages where you conquer other people just for the hell of it, AKA US to Iraq.

Mod
11-08-02, 03:18 AM
I posted a thread similar to this last week ! :D

UDawg
11-08-02, 10:04 AM
Originally posted by outriding9800
ok i will take a stab at it.

clinton just was comming off on of the affairs that he had and alot of people were trying to distance themselves from him and the dems.

bush just went all out and campaigned alot for the reps. ( clinton did not do that ) and actualy the last president who campained that much during the midterms was nixon ( who did not help out at all )

i am not happy with all the time that bush put into campaigning. there are some major issues that he needs to attack and i wish he would have worked on those. ( economy, terrerism, etc.. )

did i answer it ? or did i totaly miss the mark ( again )


Please don't take offence but your memory isn't correct. Impeached Former Prisedent Clinton is the most traveled President in our history he was well known for his campaigning as much and even more than President Bush.

I agree that national security helps out the president but national secruity is a vital campaign issue. After all defence is the governments first priority.

As far ast attacking issues such as economy, terrorism and ect President Bush did put out a tax cut and wanted a bigger cut but the Dems wouldnt let him. President Bush did submit the Department of Homeland Security which was stalled by the Dems.

The big loss in 94 was before all of the sex scandals hit the front page and if that was such a major issue then why did Clinton get elected again in 96?

sbp
11-09-02, 05:07 AM
"Is President Bush really stupid?" Despite how some groups try to portray him, GWB is not a dummy.

Originally wondered aloud by NV30 Desirer
What i'm wondering is what happened to the "peacefull, war free world" Bush promised when he was campaigning for president. Now it's sorta llike the Middle Ages where you conquer other people just for the hell of it, AKA US to Iraq. Its called 9/11. Also Bali. :(

Right UDawg71, the 1994 elections were before Clinton sex scandels and traditionally a presidents party loses seats in mid term elections. The last couple of times in 1998 and 2002, seats have been gained. Perhaps this is a new trend or just anomalies {voters annoyed with sex scandels being pushed too much and war}?

As I recall in 1994 voters weren't happy with Clinton being against much needed welfare reform and with the way the whole homosexuals in the military thing was handled.

Hooligan
11-11-02, 01:38 PM
I believe that went out the window because of 9/11


Originally posted by NV30 Desirer
What i'm wondering is what happened to the "peacefull, war free world" Bush promised when he was campaigning for president. Now it's sorta llike the Middle Ages where you conquer other people just for the hell of it, AKA US to Iraq.

UDawg
11-11-02, 04:36 PM
I believe that went out the window because of 9/11



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by NV30 Desirer
What i'm wondering is what happened to the "peacefull, war free world" Bush promised when he was campaigning for president. Now it's sorta llike the Middle Ages where you conquer other people just for the hell of it, AKA US to Iraq.



Hmmm, I wonder who started this war? I don't remember President Bush sending people to ram airliners into Afgan huts.

I think it is funny that the left blaims President Bush for 8 years of inatention by a Democrat President. These problems wer there during the 90's it's just impeached former president Clinton didn't want anything messing with his job approval rating.

doom
11-11-02, 07:04 PM
Iraq didn't cause 9/11, bin laden did, and Iraq had no part in it.

UDawg
11-11-02, 09:32 PM
:)

Ryo-Ohki
11-13-02, 02:17 AM
If I may, I don't know if Bush is stupid or not, I'm not american and I've not the insight you US-resident my have on him. BUT, from my old Europe, I'm under the impression than man is pretty naïve when it comes to foreign affairs - his approach in Iraq, for example, is WAY too simplistic.

(Not meaning busting Saddam would be a bad thing though... But the way I see it coming, the dictator WILL remain (Gulf War anyone?), and the population will once more be the first to suffer).

Ryoko
11-13-02, 01:19 PM
Originally posted by Ryo-Okhi
If I may, I don't know if Bush is stupid or not, I'm not american and I've not the insight you US-resident my have on him. BUT, from my old Europe, I'm under the impression than man is pretty naïve when it comes to foreign affairs

he was voted in by the states of america to protect the people of america from anything and everything that could harm it. he wasn't voted in to make any other country happy.

btw, nice to see another tenchi person round here :)

Ryo-Ohki
11-13-02, 03:15 PM
Originally posted by Ryoko
he was voted in by the states of america to protect the people of america from anything and everything that could harm it. he wasn't voted in to make any other country happy.


Good point. However, taking a systematic full-force retaliation approach, although justified over certain circumstances (9/11), cannot be considered a viable systematic alternative. Bush uses every single occasion he can to show to the people of the US that's he's ready and willing to strike. That is very good for PRs, but one also must consider the consequences.

Others will be, and are already using this very same attitude against him AND his population, to fan the underlying current of hate that is running throughout the middle-east, if the seemingly indefectible US support to Israel wasn't enough already (validity or not of it being another question, and I don't want to get into that right now).

Again, I'm certainely not contesting that Saddam IS a plague that should be wiped out. All the US would need is a little more moderation, or you can bet today's action, with its inevitable civilian casualties, will only fire up more of tomorrow's 9/11.

I don't know if I have made my point to you. It's getting late (SpeedStep's kicking in, doh!) and I'd like to avoid letting out a flame bait on my first day back here.


btw, nice to see another tenchi person round here :)

You're welcome. ;)

outriding9800
11-13-02, 03:46 PM
Originally posted by Ryoko
he was voted in by the states of america to protect the people of america from anything and everything that could harm it. he wasn't voted in to make any other country happy.

btw, nice to see another tenchi person round here :)

since the U.S. has to interact with other countries in the world the president has to know how to interact with others. eg. "play well with others"

the stronger the ties with other countries the more we can trade with them thus making our economy stronger.

along with that note dont piss off the neighbor with the "short fuse" it doesn't help out the situation.

Ryoko
11-13-02, 03:55 PM
Originally posted by outriding9800
since the U.S. has to interact with other countries in the world

it may interact, but it doesn't have to. and with the big trend of every other country on earth crying about us having any part of our military off of the continental us, i think it wouldn't be such a bad thing.

after we pull our military back to the mainland, and the world goes to hell, we then have a reason to dispose of our nukes :D

vampireuk
11-13-02, 03:56 PM
ahhh but I wonder how long America would last if every country in the world stopped its exports to you;) :p :D

Ryoko
11-13-02, 04:01 PM
Originally posted by vampireuk
ahhh but I wonder how long America would last if every country in the world stopped its exports to you;) :p :D

i wonder how long the world would last if they stopped their exports to us? just about every american company has factories in other countries... we're talking about 9 digit layoffs around the world just to start things out.

UDawg
11-13-02, 04:01 PM
Originally posted by outriding9800
since the U.S. has to interact with other countries in the world the president has to know how to interact with others. eg. "play well with others"

the stronger the ties with other countries the more we can trade with them thus making our economy stronger.

along with that note dont piss off the neighbor with the "short fuse" it doesn't help out the situation.

You would be surprised how many countries actually agree with the U.S. taking out these baddies. They just never say it in public. The problem is that these countries don't have the guts to lead. They just sit back and let us do the bulk of the work while they bad mouth us. Mean while we all benifit from the action that took place. The reason why we are on top is because we lead. We take the risks and put forth the effort.

P.S. I thank the UK for standing with us even through all the bad mouthing they get from it. Americans like to throw back in the face of the Britts that we helped win ww2 but never forget what they did for them selves and us by standing heroically against Nazi German and the lives they lost in the gulf war ect...

vampireuk
11-14-02, 03:30 AM
Originally posted by Ryoko
i wonder how long the world would last if they stopped their exports to us? just about every american company has factories in other countries... we're talking about 9 digit layoffs around the world just to start things out.

touche, but umm then we shall close all the factories before you pull them out!

engaurd!:D

UDawg
11-14-02, 10:00 AM
Originally posted by vampireuk
touche, but umm then we shall close all the factories before you pull them out!

engaurd!:D


LOL! I fart in your general direction. You bed wetting English types. ;)

heedory
11-24-02, 08:57 AM
Originally posted by Ryoko
he was voted in by the states of america to protect the people of america from anything and everything that could harm it. he wasn't voted in to make any other country happy.

btw, nice to see another tenchi person round here :)

your opinion is very very dangerious..
yes... he was voted to do american feel happy
not to make war against other country
except american,
no one in the world, believe that Iraq can do harm to U.S.A.

if he really want to protect U.S.A.
he must find osama bin ladden..

Uttar
11-24-02, 09:05 AM
Originally posted by heedory
your opinion is very very dangerious..
yes... he was voted to do american feel happy
not to make war against other country
except american,
no one in the world, believe that Iraq can do harm to U.S.A.

if he really want to protect U.S.A.
he must find osama bin ladden..

As was said about a billion times, it isn't because Osama is neutralized that Al Caeda is neutralized.

And what proofs you Osama isn't in Iraq, anyway? Sure, nothing proofs he's there, but nothing proofs he's even still really alive and this isn't just a fraud for months.


Uttar

PsychoSy
11-24-02, 02:42 PM
Originally posted by UDawg71
The big loss in 94 was before all of the sex scandals hit the front page and if that was such a major issue then why did Clinton get elected again in 96?

That's easy - The people stopped buying Bob Dole's snake oil.

He kept on bragging about how he was "an honest man" and the American people answered him with a loud and clear "BULL@#!$!!, you are!! You're a lying sack!"

Clinton, on the other hand - we knew he was full of @#$! but HE at least was honest and open about being full of @#$!. Americans liked that - they want their BS right up front out in the open so they can get a good strong whiff of it and Clinton wouldn't hide it or try to disguise it, unlike Dole.

And why are you calling Clinton "the impeached president". Last I checked, the Newt Gingrich lead Republican Party TRIED to impeach him and FAILED. Plus, even during the impeachment proceedings, the American people greatly approved on Clinton's performance as a President and thought that although his fling with Lewinisky was immoral, it wasn't "bad" enough to remove him from office in light of the fact that many in the Republican party has done much more immoral and indecent things while holding office (especially Newt Gingrich). Afterall, the main concerns of the American people were going strong - jobs and economy - it was booming.

Americans thought, "So what if he had an affair with that Lewinsky woman?!? As long as the jobs are good, and the economy is booming, he can do whatever the hell he wants behind closed doors. That crap is between him and Hilary."

I'm convinced that if it weren't for term limits, Clinton would've easily gotten re-relected for a third term in 2000. I'm serious - he would've beaten Dubya to death like a Led Zeppelin record at a classic rock station. :p

LORD-eX-Bu
11-24-02, 06:43 PM
Originally posted by vampireuk
ahhh but I wonder how long America would last if every country in the world stopped its exports to you;) :p :D

I wonder how long your country would last if you stopped exporting to us.:D :p

*BOOM!!!*