2008 Baby!!!

I f**king hate his guts

I really dislike him and his entourage of neo-conservateur! Hypocrites!

But he does seem cooler in his second term of presidency (so far, he has declared no waromn countries not able to agree with his values!) maybe due to the fact that he cannot be reelected for a third term!

Dislike is a good word, mabye a little too lax, but a good word.

Just look at what he has done.

George Bush...he reminds me of other great leaders like Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and Winston Churchill

I think he's just okay. He's by far not the best president we've had, and sometimes I feel he's just not getting anything done, and if he is, it's totally pointless. I do agree that Saddam needed to go (he did), but Bush is just taking Iraq WAY too far. Just because a country isn't a democracy doesn't make it bad.

The worst President in the past 40 yrs.

                              " ...god***it, am i in Slovenia or in Slovakia ???"

       2008 Baby!!!

Not unless they can get someone to vote for them that doesn't live in New England or the West Coast.

Low IQ anyone? Yale graduate?

"For a century and a half now, America and Japan have formed one of the great and enduring alliances of modern times."— G.W. Bush, Tokyo, Japan, Feb. 18, 2002

 or, on a second thought,

Much more to be found here: http://slate.msn.com/id/76886/ - http://slate.msn.com/id/76886/

Enjoy!

"For a century and a half now, America and Japan have formed one of the great and enduring alliances of modern times."— G.W. Bush, Tokyo, Japan, Feb. 18, 2002"

UNBELIEVABLE

...but maybe he means he love to nuke his "endured" allies

"I want to thank my friend, Sen. Bill Frist, for joining us today. … He married a Texas girl, I want you to know. (Laughter.) Karyn is with us. A West Texas girl, just like me."—Nashville, Tenn., May 27, 2004

Rusholic said: "Below average IQ???  You mean the IQ that he graduated from Yale with or the IQ that he got through fighter pilot training with or the below average IQ that he became governor of Texas with.  The only individuals with below average IQ are those that think the listed accomplishments can be achieved by dumb as*es."

You're as stupid as he is!  He got into Yale because of his Dad.  He did the whole pilot sh1t to get out of going to Vietnam.  He became governor of Texas because of his Dad.  Those "accomplishments" aren't much to speak of.  What about all his failed companies or the fact that he got onto the board of an oil company because his Dad had just been elected President.  He is a figurehead, a pawn of the neo-con, cronies of his Dad's old regime; much like the Eastern European leaders were puppets with their strings manipulated by Moscow.

The guy is a joke, but the not so funny thing is that he is ruining what peace we thought we had in this world with his foreign policy.  He's is going to destroy the environment with his standing on kyoto and his determination to suck up to every corporate monster in the US.  Everything he does is driven from his need to please corporate america.  The world shouldn't be wary of Islam (or whatever evil the US needs to cook up to keep the population in line), the world should be wary of him and his neo-con backers.

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."

      - George W Bush on CNN(See http://www.cnn.com/TRANscriptS/ - CNN transcript from 12/18/2000)

I think much of the same thing would have happened in recent history wether the american people voted republican or democrat to be honest. His politics and mine are very different, so as a leader i cant say I like him, I dont hate him either mind you.

But as a person I have to say this guy has a lot of charm. I cant imagine someone meeting him and not being friends with him. He was quick on his feet (wit wise of course) and very polite on his visit to canada, and i havent heard anywhere near as much criticism since. I can also say that this man will stick to what he believes is right to the bitter end, and thats admerable.

That bloody quote thing is not working again. Anyway:

But as a person I have to say this guy has a lot of charm. I cant imagine someone meeting him and not being friends with him. He was quick on his feet (wit wise of course) and very polite on his visit to canada, and i havent heard anywhere near as much criticism since. I can also say that this man will stick to what he believes is right to the bitter end, and thats admerable.

Well, I can tell you for sure our current President of the Government is not a big friend of him .

When a man sticks to what he believes is right to the bitter end, thats admerable, but... when a man makes all the rest of the world stick to what he believes is right to the bitter end, then I'm afraid that's a dictator... We could mention a few men that have done that before, can't we?

he´s a fu%&ing as%&hole

i hate this guy, makes me angry

It seems that non american hate him most than american.

But for me is... mmmhh... ok. 

And a less known daddy too...

Stupidity doesn't emanate from his beady eyes...nothing does!  that is the point.  he is a vacant, waste of space.  His Daddy's friends have their fists firmly up his a$$ and are manipulating him , and therefore the people of the US, like oscar from sesame street.

The world has changed dramatically since 9/11, but not because of the atrocity that happened in NYC, but because of the foreign policy of the US.  Their actions have been far more damaging than that of Osama.  9/11 seems like a licence for the US to exacerbate whatever war they desire...it's funny how 9/11 came 9 months into George Dubya's presidency.

I lived in the US for a while.  I like the place and the people.  but at the moment, I don't feel particulary inclined to head back there.

I can't believe anyone would vote for him, even my dog would realise his stupidity!!!

What really annoyed me is the "dont believe the lies" moto he was using against kerry, how can he even talk about other people lying????!!!??!?

spectral wrote: gdub411 - are you serious?  There is no way Bush can be compared to Winston Churchill.  Churchill is probably one of the world's greatest ever leaders; Bush is just a prick who can't even speak properly.

Spectral,

It would do you wonders to pick up a book every once in a while. They have these things called "words", you link them together and they make sentences. Link those together and they make paragraphs from which a thought or idea emanates.

The purpose of this diatribe is to get you acquainted with The Ultra Secret. This was a sensitive code the Germans used during WW2 and thought was unbreakable. However, the code was broken early in the war. Here's the clincher...the Germans targeted several British cities for the purpose of terror bombing. Churchill was informed of this beforehand and let the cities be bombed without providing advance notice. First because he didn't want the Germans to suspect their code had been broken. Second, he knew that the British would react with rightous indignation at the terror bombings and this in turn would strengthen their resolve against the Germans.

Earlier in his career as Lord of the Admiralty during WW!, he was responsible for the Dardannelles fiasco and was forced to resign.

In a nutshell, Churchill was certaintly a formidable fellow but not one of "the greatest leaders". He was first and formost, a politician. He dealt with the world's realities which unfortunately don't have anything to do with the rosy sentiments much of us would like to aspire to.

There is also a belief that Churchill knew of the threat to pearl harbour, but did nothing so as to get the Americans into the war.  A shrewd and intelligent fellow indeed - something which can never and will never be said of Bush.  "Thick as sh1t", yep, that's George Dubya, but not intelligent. 

Churchill was the great manipulator; without his leadership Britain would have falter in WWII.  The USA were key in winning the war, but if The Battle of Britain had been lost, WWII would have been lost.

Spectral,

Wishfull British thinking...

If the Battle of Britain had been lost it would have meant the invasion of Great Britain and Germany's consolidation of it's European conquest by the end of 1940. Pearl Harbor was still a year away and whatever Churchill knew or not, would have been of no consequence as he would have either been shot or at least imprisoned.

The war was won on two front's. First Hitler's invasion of Russia created a second front he could ill afford to mantain, fighting a greater maniac than himself . Seconf the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor which they misintrepreted as a "Knock out" blow, only served to wake up the sleeping giant who would eventually pound the Axis into the ground.

As far as Dubya is concerned, he was shrewd enough to get Blair up to his ears in Iraq. So who's the least intelligent of the two?

Bush and intelligent is an oxymoron if ever there was one.  In no certain terms can bush ever be compared to the likes of churchill.  Churchill is remembered for leading britain and the allies to victory.  bush will be remembered for leading the US into a second vietnam, causing instability in the world and for being an imbecile.  judging by the recent press, a lot of your fellow citizens are beginning to wake up to just how terrible a president bush is - about time too!

as for blair...he's just as bad as bush IMO!

PLEASE, Churchill leading the allies to victory!!!!

That's rich, the next thing you'll be babbling is how great Montgomery was? That's what I love about the British, firmly entrenched in the 18th century.

As far as your statement of "Bush leading the US into a second Vietnam", the conditions are very different. Your sweeping statements are as vacous as your illusion that the British had remotely anything to do with the U.S. winning WW2. At best, England was a good launching pad for the U.S. to take the war to the Germans. Englands role in WW2 after the U.S. entry was ancillary at best. Specially in their failure to capture Caen after the Normandy invasion and Montgomery's muck up of Market Garden. 

gleam wrote: PLEASE, Churchill leading the allies to victory!!!! That's rich, the next thing you'll be babbling is how great Montgomery was? That's what I love about the British, firmly entrenched in the 18th century. As far as your statement of "Bush leading the US into a second Vietnam", the conditions are very different. Your sweeping statements are as vacous as your illusion that the British had remotely anything to do with the U.S. winning WW2. At best, England was a good launching pad for the U.S. to take the war to the Germans. Englands role in WW2 after the U.S. entry was ancillary at best. Specially in their failure to capture Caen after the Normandy invasion and Montgomery's muck up of Market Garden.

I'm not British.

Bush is a f***wit, attempts to convince people otherwise are pointless.  you only have to look at the current state of this poll to know that.  The current instability in the world is due, almost entirely, down to the foreign policy of the US.  If you continue to meddle in the middle east you are going to f*** things up for generations.  I won't even go into the US stance on the environment; more so than invading countries, Bush's policy will destroy this planet for our kids, grandkids etc.

Ok so your not British, your certaintly not very well informed.

The current state of this poll isn't even remotely an indicator of the publics general sentiment. On the contrary, the majority of the people on this site are 22 years or younger. They have little practical working experience, are living under their parents roof and would have difficulty differentiating between their elbow and their chin.

As far as current world instability is concerned, what are you talking about? If there is any instability, it's certainly due to each countries abilty or inabilty to deal with their internal problems.

The U.S. foreign policy is clear, we will not have a repeat of 9/11. Now if you think trying to create a democracy in a region known for oppression, human rights transgressions not to mention their treatment of women is not right...then my friend you have no remedy.

You have an incredibly low opinion of youth or men/women in their early 20s.  I think that the younger generation have the opportunity to be more well informed than that of preceding generations.  To say that an adult of 22 yrs old is not going to have an informed opinion on the US, Iraq or anything political is incredibly obtuse.

The poll is a good indication of world public opinion toward the US.  Face facts, the majority of the world hate you.

So, 9/11 happens and you invade a country that had nothing to do with it.  Yep, that makes perfect sense.  Rather than ensuring 9/11 isn't repeated, you are exacerbating the situation and increasing the likelihood of it happening again - US middle eastern policy is the reason it happened, invading a country in the middle east isn't going to help.  Anyway, perhaps concentrating on improving your own intelligence/homeland agencies would be a better solution than entering into wars which will inevitably kill more people than 9/11.

Bush and his cronies have created themselves a mandate to invade whoever they like, all under the banner of "9/11".

The Poll's question reads, "Do you like what Mr. George W. Bush is doing?". ( Bold is mine, obviously). BUT the choices which are laid out do not allow us to answer that question. I do not like most of what President Bush does, or, in some cases, fails to do. I strongly disagree with any form of paternalism, which Republicans are notorious for. We don't need a daddy, we need a friend in Office.

But, this is not to say that I don't like him. I've never met him. Why the eagerness to "hate" a person?

Well, leadership to me is just being a good example for others. 24 hours a day. Giving sound advice about what's good and what's harmful, etc. is part of it too. This thing about someone going on a kick about protecting us from a proverbial Big Bad Wolf is totally uncalled for. We are adults and can take care of ourselves. Or at the very least we are capable of making our own decisions on the most basic of everyday issues.

ldlanberg: "But, this is not to say that I don't like him. I've never met him. Why the eagerness to "hate" a person?"

I hate what he is doing.  His policies are divisive and dangerous.  I never met Hitler but I hate him.  I'm not comparing Bush to Hitler, but I'm judging the guy on his actions, not his personality orwhether he a thoroughly nice chap!

marktheshark: "The majority doesn't hate us. They're just jealous"

It is far from being jealously, it is quite simply hatred.  You are exacerbating tensions in the world and inciting violence through your own violence in Iraq.

marktheshark: "You don't think Al Queda is something we should be protected from?"

Do you really fear the al qaida threat?  Hasn't it been blown out of all proportion?  There was a newspaper article recently which said that the threat from eco-terrorists is far stronger than that of al qaida.

So why attack Iraq?  What does that have to do with 9/11? 

No one is perfect, especially people in the public eye, but Bush is a terrible leader.

As for bombing the hell out of the region - yep, that will solve the problem!!! NOT!  I agree that you can't just leave Iraq, but you shouldn't have been there in the first place. 

It's a tough situation, I just hope Bush and the US Administration learn from Iraq.

^ Blair is as bad as Bush, you're totally right.  I'm Irish though, I only live here, but I despise the politics.  I'm sure Blair thought it would help raise his profile if the UK joined up to the war.  It's good that it backfired, but the guy is still in Downing Street, just like Bush is still in the White House.  It's only due to weak and non-existent opposition to the respective govt's that they're both still there.

Get prog out to the middle east - that will help the peace process!!

marktheshark wrote: Also there was subsantial evidence that Sadam was harboring Al Queda members.

That's a really interesting remark. Is it based on some positive data or on Fox news? Can you please elaborate on that information? I'd love to understand how a completely secular government could be harboring religious fundamentalist terrorists...

marktheshark wrote: Well, look at the insurgents we're fighting now. If they're not fundamentalist extremists, what are they? Their leader (what's name, I can't remember) came across the Syrian border a few years back and was treated with a broken leg in Saddam's palace. If you all are wondering about my background on these type of things, my dad was a 30 yr CIA official, I was in the Navy for 5 years and worked as a civilian at International Affairs Research Div at the Pentagon for 5 years. I got out the whole gov thing, not enough money and too much BS. Maybe I'm not a real expert but I would say I'm somewhat knowledgable on this. Oh, and yes I do watch the Fox News Channel.

I've had too many discussions on the Iraq thing, so I prefer to back off. I'd only like to recommend you (all, but especially Fox-watching people) to read carefully this inform:

http://www.americanassembler.com/issues/media/docs/Media_10_02_03_Report.pdf - http://www.americanassembler.com/issues/media/docs/Media_10_ 02_03_Report.pdf

Why is it that (almost) all the Americans I meet are delightful, intelligent, reasonable people - but then 50.1% of them vote for this piece of dog excrement? (Mind you, we voted Blair back in - what does that say about us? (I didn't vote for him, by the way))

Is it because only the intelligent ones can find their way to the airport to get to England? Do they leave all the morons at home? Strangely, people who've been to the States all tell me that the Americans are extremely friendly and helpful and generous to a T, so maybe not. Perhaps they are a nation of delightful intelligent people who go barking mad on one day every 4 years and elect a lunatic to lead them (they had a day off in 92 and 96)

Strangely, we Brits do the opposite - all our scumbags go to football abroad and destroy the place and/or rampage round Ibitha getting pissed out of their heads and making everyone hate us.

Oh, and to Mark the Shark, I think it is highly unlikely that Saddam would be harbouring anyone from Al Qaeda given that they had branded him an apostate and called for him to be overthrown and executed. Looks like they got half their wish now and half probably to come, courtesy of the US.

abyssyinfinity wrote: I'm just returning from my last trip to Uranus and I have to ask you: Who's this man?

Some pictures here:

tuxon wrote: very bad report, badly written with preconceived findings, if one does a survey and an analysis, do it properly or don't.

Can you be a little more explicit on this? I'm not an expert in that kind of research but I found it faultless...

EDIT: where is your post???

"And I thought everybody loved me!!!Never mind i will find were are those bad people from and  i will send their countrie a nice present,yes i mean some troops and a nice war!"Georgy

Who could like this s.o.b.?I mean he is 100% disgusting though i think he is just a pawn!

spectral wrote: [QUOTE=gleam] Bush is a f***wit, attempts to convince people otherwise are pointless.  you only have to look at the current state of this poll to know that.  The current instability in the world is due, almost entirely, down to the foreign policy of the US.  If you continue to meddle in the middle east you are going to f*** things up for generations.  I won't even go into the US stance on the environment; more so than invading countries, Bush's policy will destroy this planet for our kids, grandkids etc.

Spectral, do you really think the United States or United kingdom or Russia or France or any other country that has invested 100's of billions of dollars in the Middle East is going to stop because of one President?  The US would still be there if John Kerry was president or if Gdub was president.  There is too much money there.  I am not speaking of government money either. Do you really believe that the only real poilcy is Geroge Bush's?  Follow the money my friend not the spokes person.

watched his speech on TV last night....

can be summed up pretty succinctly: "well, we messed up this whole war thing pretty bad, but I won't say that out loud.  I don't have any justification, so I'll just mention 9/11 a few times and everything should be fine."

...arrrrrgh

He's a terrible, fascist, self-collapsing neutron star of hypocrisy. That nauseating fecal-dweller defines everything that is wrong with America, and if our people actually chose him (the election was more than likely rigged by that bastard and his God-fearing Christian buddies), I'm truly disgusted. If there is a God and if this God has a conscience, I think he'd be more concerned with smiting Bush than with guiding our country. This bastard commits murder in the name of "Democracy" and "God", and he's awarded another term of presidency. He may even reinstate the draft this time around.

Regarding Al Quaeda, I am a bit concerned with them, but the Bush Administration (as stated before) blows this threat out of proportion, inflicting fear on the most gullible and paranoid Americans in order to win votes.

It just goes to show that the majority of Americans (if Bush was rightfully elected) are extremely gullible, simple minded, and lacking in perspective and the ability to think critically.

DUHHHHHHHH! Congratu-f**king-lations, Bush supporters!

(By the way, I also don't think Kerry should ever be president)

He's a terrible,
fascist, self-collapsing neutron star of hypocrisy.



Excellent.

-------------
Wearing feelings on our faces when our faces took a rest...

Sorry, Mark, but that isn't entirely true. The soldiers in the field are CONTROLLED by the government. If they were part of the government, they would be able to have a say in what the government does, like most politicians do. I've got a friend who flew in from Iraq a while ago and he, along with most of the soldiers he worked with, despised Bush and his regime. Many soldiers don't agree with what we're doing in the Middle East right now, and yet, they're still there. The government doesn't care what the soldiers on the front have to say, because the government tells them what to do, and if they don't do it, it's considered to be treason. If these soldiers were truly part of the government, they would have a say in whether or not they should be fighting on the front at all. The soldiers are part of the military and the military is controlled by the government.

So, Campell, what you said was right, and seems to be the opinion of many other intelligent Americans that I've spoken to.

Peace,

Mike

As someone who served 10 years in the Marines and "chewed my fair share of dust", I find it laughable how you people make sweeping assumptions to support your opinions.

First and foremost, the men and women who serve are all volunteers, they are soldiers because they choose to be. If it's a case of "needing money for college", the U.S. has the most comprehensive and broad ranging programs for that purpose. Joining the Army is the hard way to getting college funding. 

Second, a career in the military is as honorable and noble an endevour as any "civilian" job. It's rather presumptious of you to put yourself above them.

Third, the armed forces report to the civilian goverment, in this case one that was elected by an eight million voter margin. That pretty much legitimizes it. As far as the "goverment telling them what to do", that's called taking orders. The military is not a democracy, you do what your told in an expeditious and efficacious manner.

Finally, I would appreciate if you "civilians" would cease talking about those of us who actually served in a less demeaning manner. You have a tendency to portray us as mindless, ignorant and with no prospects for the future. How did you guys get so smart, the air must be pretty good sitting on those lofty heights. Please do us a favor, stick to talking about prog music and let the men take care of business overseas.