General discussion

Locked

Bush on King

By Oz_Media ·
Bush on King:

?We thought we?d find stockpiles, the whole world thought we?d find stockpiles.?? What we do know though is that Saddam had the capability to develop WMD, never heard THAT as a reason for the invasion. It was WE KNOW about WMD. Well obviously they didn?t KNOW as even GWB admitted he was wrong. Bush also never corrected Larry King when he directly said that WMD were not found, meaning that even at this time, he is still unconvinced that the WMD they had hoped to find actually do exist. Unlike before he never went on to say they WOULD find anything had HOPE of finding anything etc. He just let it drop, WMD have not been found. They have uncovered stashes from past wars but not the manufacturing and development facilities, and ?stockpiles? of WMD that they were sure they would find. Sure enough to cease UN inspections and order instant removal of inspectors as the invasion started.

Bush also said people are wondering why France didn?t participate. France supported us and is in Afghanistan, France is in Haiti, they just didn?t support the US?s focus of removing Saddam. So I think that Republicans that are so biased that they strongly oppose France and slam France at any opportunity as a traitor and enemy (some have even suggested attacking France) are actually NOT echoing the wishes of their leader at all and are just being ?bad Republicans.?
.
?Some things happened that are hard to predict, other things happened that thought weren?t going to happen.?

?Diplomacy had failed? He then neatly passed the buck to how all the other commanders agreed the next step is war. He said that he was convinced they had tried all that they possibly could and it was time for the use of force as a last resort.
What about the inspections that were in full swing and turning up evidence of WMD from past wars?

He was then asked what he meant when he said you have achieved success on the aircraft carrier, which he corrected by saying he also mentioned there is more work to be done.
When asked again a similar question, he said ?If people would listen to what I say.?
This I see as an extremely rude comment from a president towards his people. He could have said MANY other things such as; ?Perhaps people don?t understand I also said?? or ?People may not have heard that I also added?? But to say, ?If people would listen to what I said? is just as rude as you could get, not professional, not understanding of the confused public just rude.
Isn?t he supposed to be, ?Of the people, for the people?, unless they are too stupid to understand his views suppose.


GWB has actually begun to speak in public with SOME integrity and conviction in his words, a first. His body language and mannerisms don?t lie as blatantly as they used to. With the exception of his forced grin he?s looking much better than before. I?ll give him Brownie points for starting to look the part at least.

I can even understand his views fully and I see why some people would support him, although disagree with most of his views. As far as his policies though, I don?t agree with him at all. One comment he made was that it is America?s is obligated to push Liberty upon these countries. Is it? Who said so?

Bush also agrees that the church should be separated from the state and the state should be separated from the church.

Agrees there are many gays in his Republican party, but he is against that amending the constitution he feels that Judges should not be empowered to redefine marriage on a case-by-case basis. The people of the state need to be in control of such decisions, not the court and that this is why it needs to remain constitutional.

He did make another point I ?somewhat? agree with in that gays who would complain about not getting inheritance write offs is to simply do away with death tax. Even though I see this as a half as*ed resolution, it is a resolution although it should be just as easy to allow gay marriage because the people should not see it as an issue, therefore placing the people in charge instead of the courts as suggested. I find it hard to believe that the majority of American citizens are so oppsed to gays having equal marriage rights as heterosexuals.


Another point I partially agree with is his stand on stem cell research. HE doesn?t support abortion for the sake of stem cell research, however he has allowed what he feels is ample (22) stem cells to help scientific research.

He said ?I don?t think we should take lives to save lives? This is very true but also very extreme. Nobody is saying we need to abort babies for research. This ignores and makes light of the actual issues pro abortionists are standing up for.

As for taxes, he stated that he was jokingly discussing what ifs and was asked "what if income tax was removed entirely?" and his reply had mentioned possibly absorbing it by sales tax (as a rough example). However he said he doesn't raise taxes he lowers them, but adds some form of alternate taxation would be interestnig.

Let me tell you first hand as a Canadaian resident. If you pay sales tax they will STILL find a way to justify income tax too (possibly war spending or rebuilding Iraq or whatever).
Don't be fooled, governments don't LOSE money and they don't give up what they already have.

It, sounds like GWB is trying to slide one butt cheek onto the center of the ?stool?. It?s not good to cater to the extreme right near erection time I suppose. He certainly sounds a lot more open about most of these issues now than the people here do.

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

7 total posts (Page 1 of 1)  
| Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

I think you are completely obsessed with Bush

by Garion11 In reply to Bush on King

Get a life dude. There are other things in this world and life to do besides post about Bush 10-15 times a day. Its creepy and scary to say the least about your constant and compulsive obsession with GWB. I am seriously thinking of reporting you, your name, your company to the FBI and CIA because of your constant topic switching towards Bush. Serial killers, assisinators, stalkers are/were born this way.

I don't care how much "advice" you give on forums or technical Q & A. Noone here knows you besides your posts (that can be said about anyone) but have you ever met anyone from Techrepublic in person? Have they ever seen your face?? How do we really know you are who you are?? You could be some psycho in the works living in Western Canada (or wherever for that matter) plotting some kind of attempt on Bush's life. Considering the state of America and its terror alerts, my accusations aren't too far fetched. Again, I do hope its not true, but understand where I am coming from. You have a very unhealthy obsession with Bush and Iraq, and America and its politicc, and its not a subjective opinion. Anonymity on the Internet is one of its biggest strengths and one of its biggest weaknesses, again noone really knows you despite the fact you post here many times. Understand people's psychology and I suggest you keep a low profile for a while. Your multiple posts about Bush, Iraq, constant topic switching to Iraq, America, Bush, your admittance to watching Al-Jazeera can obviously be seen as a threat by certain law enforcement agencies IN THIS COUNTRY or at least a person to watch. Debating about politics is different from completely obsessing about them. Just some friendly advice from an American.

Cheers.

Collapse -

Of course you could be right

by Oz_Media In reply to I think you are completel ...

And you may feel more than welcome to do so as a citizen of America. I also study psycology, serial killers and the criinal mind, I can agree with you completely. It is also very innocent at the same time and the two are easily confused, YOu cannot be so sure yourself though and your concerns are valid.

Yes, I have met ONE person from TR (it turned out she lived about a half hour from my house when I was in Richmond) and have done another a personal favour outside of TR. Many members know exactly who I am also as we have been in contact via peer mail for a few years now, long before I was involved in discussions. Several members know the bands I work with and have heard their works so I have no prblem explaining myself to authorities if you so choose.

Don't forget that I have extremely good representation myself and counter suits for defamation of character are not a hard issue when working back through your prior posts indicating your strong dislike for my political views and personal attacks you have made previously.

If you really read my post though, and you did reply pretty much as expected someone to, I in now way said anything extraordinary about Bush.

I did agree with some of his points and also credited his valididty or at least his appearance of validity. It was not an Anti-Bush post at all.

Seeing as this is one of the most important and globally followed elections in many years, it is not off base to post after GWB has made his opions clear on many issues we have discussed here over the last year or so.

Especially when he has conducted a full interview with Larry King.


TO simply throw your own words back at you:
Perhaps your obsession of my posts is cause for alarm too, it certainly isn't normal. You didn't even offer your opinion on the MANY points he discussed, yet you still found it neccessary to post a reply. It appears you are perhaps becoming obsessed with me or my posts (which is truly flattery but creepy too) another peer has done the same, yet he is still far below your own level and I don't think it would be fair to compare you, as you seem to offer a little more thought in your posts now.

Again, if you look closely, I have only reported what was said and what my views on these topics are (which aren't even really negative or against Bush as I agreed with him several times), it was good enough to make it onto three of my channels in a two hour period, so it must be worthy of discussion.

It seems most sane discussions go un addressed here lately though, 'the big rant' is over 500 posts and growing still. I suppose that shows what people want to really do as opposed to really looking into what is promised in the time prior to the election.

Maybe that was the mistake last time, people are so blinded by personal or political bias that many aren't actually looking into the objectives and are simply persuaded to a decision by peers, friends, family, co-workers etc.


In closing you are not obligted to reply, your comments on the interview are welcome but if you have nothing constructive to add to a new thread why even post? It will just lead the discussion down the same old path of rant vs rant for the next two weeks. I was trying to open a normal, even logical or reasonable discussion based on an hour of comments the current president has regarding key issues before the election.

Collapse -

Oz is in Love with GWB - Oz and George - Married

by JimHM In reply to Bush on King

Oz is in love with GWB - I never seen anyone post so much about one man than Oz on GWB. Maybe Oz is Gay and wants to sleep in the whitehouse with George.

Interesting - I wonder what His Shrink has to say about this -

Collapse -

You too! How clever you Americans can be!

by Oz_Media In reply to Oz is in Love with GWB - ...

What's funniest here, is that ALL of you guys, yes you know exactly who you are, will constantly post against my opsts without addressing the discussion topic at all.

You then say I am the one who simply wants to *****.

In this case, I don't beliee that a SINGKLE respondent has een read the post, which just goes to proe all of my earlier comments regarding your blindness toward your government.

You won't even read POSITIVE claims if they come from a source you don't trust, this is exactly why you end up in these political nightmares eery four years or so.

You simply cannot see it and have roven so OVER and OVER again to myself ad many others here that you just don't want to look at both sides of an issue.


If you HAD read my post and actually understood the collection of English words that have been placed into sentences (called reading and comprehension), you would see that I actually didn't bash Bush, Yet your replies are exactly what I had expected. Quick knee jerk reactions from the reactive country of America.

Now if anyone else actually has any real comments, you have just removed all credibility from anyone's post by addig your rats. Very cleer guys, you look better and better as a nation every day.

You may not hear it but people do see you and exactly how you face oposition. It's definitely not clever or something to be proud of, yet you would never see that of course, which really goes without saying when you display it daily.

Collapse -

Well thanks for your arrogance

by Garion11 In reply to You too! How clever you ...

Any other opinions you have about America and Americans? You should be writing a book instead of posting here.

Collapse -

I will

by Oz_Media In reply to Well thanks for your arro ...

After all the stuff you give people to go on, it would be SO easy to write a book.

And again, why address the post when you can address the poster instead right? You've already formed an opinion of me, why even bother contemplating issues? Why work the brain when you don't need to, you can simply address a nonissue and I'm sure people may even follow you.

So as far as his comments last night, and being a strong US advocate, you have NOTHING relevant to offer? You have no comments on his sudden appearance as a more centered president than that you have defendd for the last few years? Or did it just scare you that Bush may not be the strong-arm focused dictator you hoped he was?
Perhas you no loger see him as the great option you once did?

No comments regarding HIS comments that strongly oppose most of the pro-American ranting that has been going on here for years in his defense?

Well now we see what really shuts people up, when they realize they have been wrong all along.

I at least admitted I saw this as a positive speech from Bush, I even agreed with some of his policies. Perhaps BUSH is starting to flip-flop just as ANY politicians does to appease the masses leading up to an election.

I didn't think it ws that bad at all, and it certainly doesn't mirror who he is portrayed here to be. Now if they could only clean up his administrstion's intelligence and help him understand his informers may also have ulterior motives when presenting him with harf cold facts he is to act upon immediately. He needs to actually be somewhat critical of these accusations and stop attacking on a whim.

WAR was America's LAST resort after ALL attempts at diplomatically inspecting suspected WMD sites failed. ven if those inspctios wer ecarried out by the use of force (which is what Kerry was and remaied behind.

He never flip-flopped on this issue as many claim, at least not that I've seen, and certainly not in that hokey little Republican rant that the Michael Moore wannabe made. That was so full of holes and assumptive conclusions it wasn't even cleer.

Well the inspectors were kicked out of Iraq again but this time not by Saddam but by Bush, so he could go ahead with his invasion even though he had not exhausted all attempts at forcing inspections to continue as previously suggested and requested by all.

So again, I stick to my distate for the way Bush ignored his own recommendations in order to enter into war with Iraq, even he as admitted it didn't go as planned.

As for his other policies, some actually make sense, well partial sense anyway. Enough sense that you can see his midset behind his stand, whether I agree wholly or not.

I will also agree that he appears MUCH more credible since being trained as a public speaker than at first when he broke all the rules for giving press conferences and appeared to simply lie through his teeth.

I still wouldn't vote for him nor would I trust him agin anyway, that's was lost and can't be regained. He has startd to sound a lot less volatile and a little more humane in his outreach to the other side though.

Collapse -

Don't believe anything Oz says about America

by SkipperUSN In reply to You too! How clever you ...

Oz - remember that statement from another Thread -

I have read and re-read your post - and it is Bush bashing - I don't read any positives as you are trying to spin here..

You do appear to be in love with the man - the opposite of love is not hate - it is indeference ... and you sure aren't indefference .. so you must love him and want to have wild sex with him ... Oh thats a nasty vision - Oz-Media buck naked with GWB buck naked ... And Oz saying Moo-Moo Buckaroo - I am your ***** Georgie ...

Oz the Lizard / Wizard of spin..

Back to Community Forum
7 total posts (Page 1 of 1)  

Related Discussions

Related Forums