A very serious question to all Bush haters

[healthmyths]

And you know if YOU don't understand that these words were helpful and gave aid and comfort to the enemy.... YOU ARE ONE DUMB F...K!!!

 

[JoeB131]

[

Well why don't you ask military people whether they like being called,"Nazis", terrorists" baby killers"?
You really think calling the military these names IMPROVE morale?
You really think those statements make the military more affective?

More importantly how would YOU feel.. someone who you've risked your lives for call your civilian killers?
sniip

YOU agree with these statements and like I said see how quick your butt is KICKED!

I would say as someone who DID serve that the guys who commit crimes against civilians are unaceeptable. They make the job dangerous for the guys who are just their to to their jobs.

There was no military purpose for what happened at Abu Grahib or the clowns in Afghanistan who were shooting civilians for fun. Quite the contrary, they worked against what we were trying to accomplish.

 

[JoeB131]

And you know if YOU don't understand that these words were helpful and gave aid and comfort to the enemy.... YOU ARE ONE DUMB F...K!!!

What gave comfort to the enemy is that they showed pictures of naked Iraqi men being humiliated by Lyndie Whitetrash.

If you think the "enemy" was hanging on whatever the politicians were saying, you are probably sort of delusional.

 

[depotoo]

I voted for Bush - twice. But he was still a terrible president. We are still paying for his mistakes.

To answer your points-

1- Yes, Saddam was a bastard, but we had him in a box. We did not need to climb into that box with him. Democrats do deserve some of the blame, they went along with it and were just as loud, but it was still a horrible idea, and as one of Bush's predecessors said, "The BUck stops here."

2- Yes, the recession of 2001 was horrible. But you know what, Bush took the wrong approach. It was not a recession that could be helped with cutting taxes. (There are times when that might be a solution. the 1960 recession or the 1981 recession. 2001 and 2008 were not those times.)

3- Yes, 9-11 was horrible. But Bush's reaction to it, going to war with a country that had nothing to do with it w hile ignoring the guy who did it, was wrong, too. And expensive.

4- The hurricanes were awful. BUt they were made worse by the fact that he got rid of the professionals Clinton put in FEMA and replaced them with hacks like "Brownie".

The notion that he had more jobs than when he started is statistically misleading in so many ways.

Fact is, unemployment was 3.9% when he took office and 7.8% when he left. But it is worse than that in the fact that the jobs that were created on his watch were not good paying manufacturing jobs, but poorly paying service jobs.

unemployment rate in Feb. 2001 was 4.2.
Employed were 135,815,000 Feb 2001
January 2008 when he left employed were 146,248,000
Today employed 143,384,000 Unemployment rate 7.9
http://www.bls.gov/schedule/archives/empsit_nr.htm

 

[JoeB131]

I voted for Bush - twice. But he was still a terrible president. We are still paying for his mistakes.

To answer your points-

1- Yes, Saddam was a bastard, but we had him in a box. We did not need to climb into that box with him. Democrats do deserve some of the blame, they went along with it and were just as loud, but it was still a horrible idea, and as one of Bush's predecessors said, "The BUck stops here."

2- Yes, the recession of 2001 was horrible. But you know what, Bush took the wrong approach. It was not a recession that could be helped with cutting taxes. (There are times when that might be a solution. the 1960 recession or the 1981 recession. 2001 and 2008 were not those times.)

3- Yes, 9-11 was horrible. But Bush's reaction to it, going to war with a country that had nothing to do with it w hile ignoring the guy who did it, was wrong, too. And expensive.

4- The hurricanes were awful. BUt they were made worse by the fact that he got rid of the professionals Clinton put in FEMA and replaced them with hacks like "Brownie".

The notion that he had more jobs than when he started is statistically misleading in so many ways.

Fact is, unemployment was 3.9% when he took office and 7.8% when he left. But it is worse than that in the fact that the jobs that were created on his watch were not good paying manufacturing jobs, but poorly paying service jobs.

unemployment rate in Feb. 2001 was 4.2.
Employed were 135,815,000 Feb 2001
January 2008 when he left employed were 146,248,000
Today employed 143,384,000 Unemployment rate 7.9

He left office in January 2009, when the unemployment rate was 7.8, and a total of 3 million jobs were lost in 2008.

But again, you dodged my point. Replacing good manufacturing jobs with shit service jobs is a large part of the problem.

 

[Caroljo]

Yup....and i'd take him back today!

 

[Caroljo]

Wow, someone is actually going to try to defend that cocksucker?

There's no denying Bush has a better record than Obama. The numbers don't lie.

wow great proof .........oh wait all you did was spout stupidity with nothing to back it

Are you saying none of those things happened when Bush was in office?
Then YOU'RE the stupid one! Well.....we already knew that

 

[depotoo]

[

Well why don't you ask military people whether they like being called,"Nazis", terrorists" baby killers"?
You really think calling the military these names IMPROVE morale?
You really think those statements make the military more affective?

More importantly how would YOU feel.. someone who you've risked your lives for call your civilian killers?
sniip

YOU agree with these statements and like I said see how quick your butt is KICKED!

I would say as someone who DID serve that the guys who commit crimes against civilians are unaceeptable. They make the job dangerous for the guys who are just their to to their jobs.

There was no military purpose for what happened at Abu Grahib or the clowns in Afghanistan who were shooting civilians for fun. Quite the contrary, they worked against what we were trying to accomplish.

and thus you know also how damaging to moral it is to have everyone that is serving labeled as nazi, etc., due to an unfortunate few bad apples. Would you not agree that most that serve are honorable and don't deserve those labels?

 

[JoeB131]

[

Well why don't you ask military people whether they like being called,"Nazis", terrorists" baby killers"?
You really think calling the military these names IMPROVE morale?
You really think those statements make the military more affective?

More importantly how would YOU feel.. someone who you've risked your lives for call your civilian killers?
sniip

YOU agree with these statements and like I said see how quick your butt is KICKED!

I would say as someone who DID serve that the guys who commit crimes against civilians are unaceeptable. They make the job dangerous for the guys who are just their to to their jobs.

There was no military purpose for what happened at Abu Grahib or the clowns in Afghanistan who were shooting civilians for fun. Quite the contrary, they worked against what we were trying to accomplish.

and thus you know also how damaging to moral it is to have everyone that is serving labeled as nazi, etc., due to an unfortunate few bad apples. Would you not agree that most that serve are honorable and don't deserve those labels?

No one put those labels on those who didn't do those things.

And if your leaders didn't denounce those actions, the folks we were fighting would just assume we accept that sort of thing.

Hey, how about the guywho said, "This is not the America I know". Don't you think that had a demoralizing effect on troops fighting there?

Oh, wait, that was George W. Bush.

 

[depotoo]

I voted for Bush - twice. But he was still a terrible president. We are still paying for his mistakes.

To answer your points-

1- Yes, Saddam was a bastard, but we had him in a box. We did not need to climb into that box with him. Democrats do deserve some of the blame, they went along with it and were just as loud, but it was still a horrible idea, and as one of Bush's predecessors said, "The BUck stops here."

2- Yes, the recession of 2001 was horrible. But you know what, Bush took the wrong approach. It was not a recession that could be helped with cutting taxes. (There are times when that might be a solution. the 1960 recession or the 1981 recession. 2001 and 2008 were not those times.)

3- Yes, 9-11 was horrible. But Bush's reaction to it, going to war with a country that had nothing to do with it w hile ignoring the guy who did it, was wrong, too. And expensive.

4- The hurricanes were awful. BUt they were made worse by the fact that he got rid of the professionals Clinton put in FEMA and replaced them with hacks like "Brownie".

The notion that he had more jobs than when he started is statistically misleading in so many ways.

Fact is, unemployment was 3.9% when he took office and 7.8% when he left. But it is worse than that in the fact that the jobs that were created on his watch were not good paying manufacturing jobs, but poorly paying service jobs.

unemployment rate in Feb. 2001 was 4.2.
Employed were 135,815,000 Feb 2001
January 2008 when he left employed were 146,248,000
Today employed 143,384,000 Unemployment rate 7.9

He left office in January 2009, when the unemployment rate was 7.8, and a total of 3 million jobs were lost in 2008.

But again, you dodged my point. Replacing good manufacturing jobs with shit service jobs is a large part of the problem.

I never dodged any point. You are now wanting to change the goal posts. It is true the economy had been sabotaged and job losses were occurring, yet he still had more people employed than we he took office, even at that.
You want to hold someone responsible for loss of manufacturing? Look towards the unions. Secondly, whether you like it or not, we cannot produce the same as we once could and be competitive about it. Expect to see many more manufacturing jobs lost here unless they become automated. It matters not who is president. Our society is and has been for a number of years, moving to a service society. People need to understand this. Don't like change? Matters not. It is happening and will continue to do so.

 

[Billo_Really]

If Bush was so great? Why did he not show his face for the last 2 elections to endorse a candidate?

LOL even Bush knows he is not so great as some demented persons think.

You gonna tell us how great Bush looks in blue jeans?

Actually, pretty good.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=veOfWtDhPYg]Pothead Bush - Harold & Kumar escape from Guantanamo Bay - YouTube[/ame]

 

[depotoo]

I would say as someone who DID serve that the guys who commit crimes against civilians are unaceeptable. They make the job dangerous for the guys who are just their to to their jobs.

There was no military purpose for what happened at Abu Grahib or the clowns in Afghanistan who were shooting civilians for fun. Quite the contrary, they worked against what we were trying to accomplish.

and thus you know also how damaging to moral it is to have everyone that is serving labeled as nazi, etc., due to an unfortunate few bad apples. Would you not agree that most that serve are honorable and don't deserve those labels?

No one put those labels on those who didn't do those things.

And if your leaders didn't denounce those actions, the folks we were fighting would just assume we accept that sort of thing.

Hey, how about the guywho said, "This is not the America I know". Don't you think that had a demoralizing effect on troops fighting there?

Oh, wait, that was George W. Bush.

are you serious? Can I take a gander and guess that you think those returning from Viet Nam didn't feel the pain of those that did get spit upon? Did you not see the demonstrations?
Oregon, 2007

artist and former Turner Prize nominee Mark Wallinger has meticulously recreated his camp within Tate Britain's Duveen Galleries.

 

[JoeB131]

unemployment rate in Feb. 2001 was 4.2.
Employed were 135,815,000 Feb 2001
January 2008 when he left employed were 146,248,000
Today employed 143,384,000 Unemployment rate 7.9

He left office in January 2009, when the unemployment rate was 7.8, and a total of 3 million jobs were lost in 2008.

But again, you dodged my point. Replacing good manufacturing jobs with shit service jobs is a large part of the problem.

I never dodged any point. You are now wanting to change the goal posts. It is true the economy had been sabotaged and job losses were occurring, yet he still had more people employed than we he took office, even at that.
You want to hold someone responsible for loss of manufacturing? Look towards the unions. Secondly, whether you like it or not, we cannot produce the same as we once could and be competitive about it. Expect to see many more manufacturing jobs lost here unless they become automated. It matters not who is president. Our society is and has been for a number of years, moving to a service society. People need to understand this. Don't like change? Matters not. It is happening and will continue to do so.

I didn't change the "goal posts", dumbass...

You stated Bush left in Jan 2008 when he left in 2009, after the unemployment rate shot up from 5.0 to 7.8 and 3 million lost their jobs.

Also, more to the point, blaming working people for the loss of manufacturing jobs is as morally repugnant as blaming rape victims for the way they dress.

I work in a non-union factory. Not a union in site, ever. We went from 300 jobs in 2008 to about 170 now. My department went from 10 to 5. Yes, some of it was finding efficiencies, some of it was our parent company moved jobs to third world countries because our leaders sign these "Bend over and like it" trade agreements.

But mostly, it's greed and stupidity on the part of the 1%. They don't understand a middle class is the firewall between them and an angry mob.

Ooops, the Angry Mob broke through last Tuesday!

 

[JoeB131]

[

are you serious? Can I take a gander and guess that you think those returning from Viet Nam didn't feel the pain of those that did get spit upon? Did you not see the demonstrations?
Oregon, 2007
...
artist and former Turner Prize nominee Mark Wallinger has meticulously recreated his camp within Tate Britain's Duveen Galleries.

I'm sure I could find signs from racist Teabaggers that make your side look just as crazy.

For the record, soldiers being spat upon was a myth..

Newsweek repeats the myth of the gobbed-upon Vietnam vet. - Slate Magazine

If spitting on veterans had occurred all that frequently, surely some veteran or soldier would have called it to the attention of the press at the time. … Indeed, we would imagine that news reporters would have been camping in the lobby of the San Francisco airport, cameras in hand, just waiting for a chance to record the real thing—if, that is, they had any reason to believe that such incidents might occur.


In researching the book, Lembcke found no news accounts or even claims from the late 1960s or early 1970s of vets getting spat at. He did, however, uncover ample news stories about anti-war protesters receiving the saliva shower from anti-anti-war types.

Usually, when someone hides behind "Support the Troops", it's because they know that every other argument FOR the war has been debunked and discredited.

"But....but... but... what about the troops?" who for the most part were poor kids who probably didn't want to be there from the get-go. It's a shallow argument.

We made a mistake. Lots of people died for that mistake. Some people need to learn to deal.

 

[uscitizen]

I voted for Bush - twice. But he was still a terrible president. We are still paying for his mistakes.

To answer your points-

1- Yes, Saddam was a bastard, but we had him in a box. We did not need to climb into that box with him. Democrats do deserve some of the blame, they went along with it and were just as loud, but it was still a horrible idea, and as one of Bush's predecessors said, "The BUck stops here."

2- Yes, the recession of 2001 was horrible. But you know what, Bush took the wrong approach. It was not a recession that could be helped with cutting taxes. (There are times when that might be a solution. the 1960 recession or the 1981 recession. 2001 and 2008 were not those times.)

3- Yes, 9-11 was horrible. But Bush's reaction to it, going to war with a country that had nothing to do with it w hile ignoring the guy who did it, was wrong, too. And expensive.

4- The hurricanes were awful. BUt they were made worse by the fact that he got rid of the professionals Clinton put in FEMA and replaced them with hacks like "Brownie".

The notion that he had more jobs than when he started is statistically misleading in so many ways.

Fact is, unemployment was 3.9% when he took office and 7.8% when he left. But it is worse than that in the fact that the jobs that were created on his watch were not good paying manufacturing jobs, but poorly paying service jobs.

unemployment rate in Feb. 2001 was 4.2.
Employed were 135,815,000 Feb 2001
January 2008 when he left employed were 146,248,000
Today employed 143,384,000 Unemployment rate 7.9
Employment Situation Archived News Releases

Umm Bush left office in Jan 2009 not 2008.
sheesh.

 

[depotoo]

I voted for Bush - twice. But he was still a terrible president. We are still paying for his mistakes.

To answer your points-

1- Yes, Saddam was a bastard, but we had him in a box. We did not need to climb into that box with him. Democrats do deserve some of the blame, they went along with it and were just as loud, but it was still a horrible idea, and as one of Bush's predecessors said, "The BUck stops here."

2- Yes, the recession of 2001 was horrible. But you know what, Bush took the wrong approach. It was not a recession that could be helped with cutting taxes. (There are times when that might be a solution. the 1960 recession or the 1981 recession. 2001 and 2008 were not those times.)

3- Yes, 9-11 was horrible. But Bush's reaction to it, going to war with a country that had nothing to do with it w hile ignoring the guy who did it, was wrong, too. And expensive.

4- The hurricanes were awful. BUt they were made worse by the fact that he got rid of the professionals Clinton put in FEMA and replaced them with hacks like "Brownie".

The notion that he had more jobs than when he started is statistically misleading in so many ways.

Fact is, unemployment was 3.9% when he took office and 7.8% when he left. But it is worse than that in the fact that the jobs that were created on his watch were not good paying manufacturing jobs, but poorly paying service jobs.

unemployment rate in Feb. 2001 was 4.2.
Employed were 135,815,000 Feb 2001
January 2008 when he left employed were 146,248,000
Today employed 143,384,000 Unemployment rate 7.9
Employment Situation Archived News Releases

Umm Bush left office in Jan 2009 not 2008.
sheesh.

my mistake. I admit it. At least thank you for not being a jerk like Joe was.
(Oh, and Joe, did I call you a dumb ass when you misquoted the figure of unemployment of when Bush started? Nope, as that is simply childish)
Here were the figures then -
142,099, unemployment rate 7.6%
Still better than when he started by 7 million. Employment rate was still lower than today.
Obama's employment figure today? 143,384,000, just over 1 million more than when he took office after 3 years 10 months.

 

[insein]

Wow, someone is actually going to try to defend that cocksucker?

Why not, people defend obama all the time and he's way worse than Bush ever was or could ever be. obama can't be compared to Bush, obama would have to be compared to Caligula or Nero. That's how far back we'd have to go to get another obama.

What drugs are Republicans getting that the rest of us aren't? I seriously do not understand this Obama is the anti-christ rhetoric. He's just a mediocre President who means well.

Do you not read what you write? "Bush is a cocksucker" but in the next breath "I don't get the hate for Obama." You do get the hate. More than you know.

 

[healthmyths]

[

Well why don't you ask military people whether they like being called,"Nazis", terrorists" baby killers"?
You really think calling the military these names IMPROVE morale?
You really think those statements make the military more affective?

More importantly how would YOU feel.. someone who you've risked your lives for call your civilian killers?
sniip

YOU agree with these statements and like I said see how quick your butt is KICKED!

I would say as someone who DID serve that the guys who commit crimes against civilians are unaceeptable. They make the job dangerous for the guys who are just their to to their jobs.

There was no military purpose for what happened at Abu Grahib or the clowns in Afghanistan who were shooting civilians for fun. Quite the contrary, they worked against what we were trying to accomplish.

DUMB f..K!

I not for ONCE defended the offenders!
I am pointing out that the idiots that loudly proclaims our troops ALL OUR TROOPS ARE baby killers! ALL our troops are nazis!
NOW I am exaggerating because NONE of the idiots like Reid/Murtha/Obama et.al. SAID ALL !
BUT do you honestly think the terrorists make that distinction?

See you like most people abhor the deeds WHICH 1/10th of 1% of our troops did... Yes Abu Grahib... BUT you and others are NAIVE to think
the enemy makes that distinction!

And these idiots like Reid/Obama,etc., NEVER were concerned about that!
They were using these rare, infrequent yes wrong to loudly for political purposes attack our troops from the enemies perception!

WORDS have meaning and when Kerry calls those very rare situations where going in at night (and probably justified by the way..) as if it was normal!

By the way Murtha's calling those guys cold blooded WAS totally found wrong! They were not found guilty of anything all of them!
Murtha's dead but his words lived on with the bad guys and the really sad thing is you don't seem to grasp that concept... WORDS have meaning!

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Wow, someone is actually going to try to defend that cocksucker?

.....Especially after his #1 Foreign Policy move.....

...FAILED!!!

"China National Petroleum Corp has emerged as the frontrunner to take over Iraq's West Qurna-1 oilfield from Exxon Mobil, a move that would diminish Western oil influence in Iraq a decade after the U.S.-led invasion.

U.S. oil major Exxon (XOM.N) is giving up its stake in the giant southern oilfield after clashing with the central government in Baghdad over exploration contracts it had signed with the autonomous Kurdistan region in the north."​

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejph4LBdmmc]WMD LIES - Bush Cheney Rumsfeld etc. - THE ULTIMATE CLIP - YouTube[/ame]​

 

[g5000]

are you crazy? Are you older then 18 years OLD?

If you aren't crazy AND older then 18 please tell me what alternate universe you lived in during the last 13 years where THESE events didn't occur?

1) 1991 Cease Fire meant Saddam agreed to stop fighting and USA agreed not to invade Iraq and remove him. Remember this?
And so after 9/11 with 92% of Americans WANTING something done and since SADDAM never KEPT the 1991 Cease Fire the 1991 war continued and finished 5/2003!

So my question to you: If you sign a legal document agreeing to terms and you fail to keep the terms.. DO YOU NOT EXPECT some penalties..
The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 Public law 105-338 CNN - Clinton: Iraq has abused its last chance - December 16, 1998
Clinton signed The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 Public law 105-338 expressed the sense of congress it should be policy to support efforts to remove from power the
current Iraqi regime. "The President has authority under the consitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States."

2) Do you remember the dot.com bubble THAT BURST in 2000?
The Stock Market Crash of 2000-2002 caused the loss of $5 trillion in the market value of companies from March 2000 to October 2002.
Dot-com bubble - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Caused a recession that started then in 3/2001 and $5 trillion in market losses. Allowed taxpayers to deduct each year after 2002 $166 billion from their taxable income.
Lost 300,000 jobs

3) Does the minor event on 9/11/2001 mean anything to you? $2 trillion in losses that again are being written off and in so doing reduces the tax payments to the USA
145,000 jobs lost

4) From 2003 to 2008 WORST HURRICANE SEASONS in history with 7 of the worst 10 hurricanes rom 2004 through 2008 $1 trillion and 400,000 jobs..

YET in spite of that:
Bush had 5 million more people working at the end of his term !
The GDP grew 16% with a $769 billion growth in 2005 the best in 50 years!

Now where are your statistics???

I remember the dot com bust. It was absolutely dwarfed by Bush's 2007-2008 bust.

I think Bush had an increase of 3 million jobs, not 5. But I'll give you 5.

Clinton had at least 20 million. Maybe 25.



As for Iraq, I am one of the few people left who believes the invasion of Iraq was the right thing to do. As someone who personally had to deal with Hussein and his antics on active duty in the Gulf, it was clear to me another war with him was inevitable. And it was far better to do it in 2003 while we still had a fighting chance rather than waiting for the military to be further stripped.

The problem I have with Bush and Iraq is that Bush TOTALLY FUCKED IT UP!!!

Demobilizing the Iraqi Army is going to go down as one of the worst American military fuckups of all time, if not number one.



I appreciate Bush's attempts at immigration reform. He totally understood the situation. We have a labor demand that is not being met by the proper labor supply. His solution would have gone a long way toward resolving that problem, but he was stopped by the psychos and lunatics in his own party.

Too bad.


But overall, Bush sucked. Bush is what happens when Americans stop demanding superior people to lead us, and instead keep voting for the lesser of two evils. You get more and more evil choices.

And just when you thought Bush had to be the very bottom of that sequence...along comes Obama.


I shudder when I think what profoundly disastrous A-Number-One-Fuckup is next in the pipeline.


.