George "Shrub" Bush is committing political suicide and the Democrats are circling like vultures eager to get back the presidency.This whole Bush Administration fiasco has read like a bad Hollywood script that has only gotten worse.First there was the tart tongued speaker of the house with his ill advised racial comments.Then there were the underage Bush twins who were caught downing tequila shots at a popular Hollywood nightclub. Then there were the allegations that alcoholism runs in the Bush Family, with reports that President Bush himself was a "sloppy drunk" during the mid 1970's.Several newspapers even presented a D.W.I. report on Bush claiming that the Bush Twins inherited alcoholism from their father. And now George Bush is trigger happy eager to get us into another war .What kind of mess has "Shrub" gotten us into? The world hates us 500,000 anti-war protesters in Berlin and 300,000 in Paris. Many carried signs that simply said "Old Europe" in response to Donald Rumsfeld's scathing remarks referring to France and Germany as "Old Europe".

On the homefront here in the U.S.A., thousands marched in cities around America protesting the war. I saw one picket sign with Bush speaking at a podium with the Nazi flag in the background. I cringed at the sight of this.

Bush is in trouble. His father was a one term president who lost re-election because of the shape of the economy. And as they say: Those who do not learn from History are doomed to repeat it. Poppa Bush was a one term president and now Baby Bush is following in Poppa's footsteps.

Does anyone watch E Television? One day they should do a report on the Bush Administration:

"This is the Story of the Bush Administration. The E True Hollywood Story"

Hey boston what did you think of clinton and his character?

Read this and count the chills going through your body:


"Why of course the people don't want war. . . .  That is understood. But,
after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it
is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a
democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the
bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they
are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

--Hermann Goering, Nazi officer, during his Nuremberg war crimes trial

How UN patriotic

Bryan D - very enlightening and scary indeed - these people have no clue - he is hell bent on avenging his Father's failure to do it right the first time no matter the cost. Likely, Blair will be a casualty; our standing in the world is precarious at best. Very depressing.

Despite my suspicions, it passes the Snopes test.

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/goering.htm

You left out the cocaine. I doubt that the underage drinking by a president's daughter could bring about a regime change. Unless it had been Chelsea. Then there would have been an impeachment for that.

Photoshop.

Had Bush done something meaningful to right the economy and finished off Osama, I probably would have voted for the man (hope McCain doesn't hear that).

Granted, economic recovery is a perceived thing. But he hasn't caught Osama, and he said that was his #1 mission. How can I cut him any slack if he can't even deliver on his #1 priority?

Some folks who voted for him in 2000 will probably not do so again simply based on the previous two failures. But let's face it - tax breaks to gargantuan dividend stock-holders does not win any of those votes back. And it won't spark the economy!

The Iraq fiasco is simply pouring gasoline on a fire. Bushlette seems hellbent on flaming out brighter than his father did. God bless the dyslexic fool.

President Bush has dug his own political grave, as well as British Prime Minister Tony Blair. It won't be long before these 2 are standing in the unemployment lines. On election day, I intend to be the first one at the voting booth to get rid of this loser.

Besides this war "mess", this tax plan he presented is ludicrous. I have studied Economics, and I know it is going to take much more than what he is proposing to stimulate the economy.

President Bush is a day late and a dollar short.Will I vote for him the next time around? No, Thank You. As Anne Richards of Texas said a few years ago: "Poor George". "He can't help it. He was born with a silver FOOT in his mouth."

Now truth be told, I probably agree with you anti-Bushies more often than not, but you guys are sort of out of touch with the American mainstream. You can say he's a monkey-faced fool or whatever you want to say but the fact is that he is a popular and well-respected leader by the majority of the country and his war policy is very much to the liking of the big majority of Americans. Not me, but for the majority. So we should at least keep it real.

Tony Blair on the other hand is digging his grave. He'll be lucky if he doesn't get booted by his own party before the war ever starts.

I'm sure most of you were up in arms when clinton's little moral problems came out... now you do the same thing to Bushy? Admit it, you hate him cause he's repulican... no matter what he would do... you'd had him. That is easy to see. Sorry to break the news but bushy is seen as MORAL... Clinton is not... that news just in.

Should he ignore the economy? no way, done a bad job there. Should he ignore world events? NO... sit tight this war will be over in a month...

I couldn't give a flying f**k about Bush's drinking past or any so-called "moral" issues. I don't dislike Bush because he's Republican, I don't like him because he's driving America into the ground. We've never been more despised in the world than we are now. We've never offended valuable allies more often than we have since Bush and gang starting their bullying techniques. Our economy is disastrous and headed nowhere fast. Bush and the administration constantly deceive and lie to the public in order to manipulate and scare them into place. I didn't give a flying f**k about Clinton's meaningless tryst, but I do care when it's only taken President Bush just over two years to turn the world into a potential nuclear nightmare...How typically republican it is to blame it on anti-Republican talk instead of Bush's performance. Bush's ratings are steadily going down especially amongst people with brains. Sure, the masses are scared so they listen to anything the administration dishes up and they love the President: they need a bullying cowboy to follow.

Hmmmmm, such words from a peaceful person... hey, arent the frencies taking applications for new citizens? Then everyone can hold hands, light candles and sing together in world peace and happiness...

I really lost respect for George W when in an interview he stated that Saddam Hussein was a madman (which is fine, probably correct)... but then he qualified it with..."After all, this is a man who once tried to assassinate my father." He made it very clear in that statement that this was a personal vendetta. This was long before the recent UN issues and North Korea... this was when they were trying to solidify the inital connections of al Quaida to Iraq. Its fine to have it be a personal issue, but you do not convey it like that in public, no matter how personal it is....

Secondly, I have a MAJOR issue with the President trying to promote faith based initiatives on every level... Faith is not always the answers to medical and personal issues that people have... it is often a component, but it does not have to be the major component.. he was trying to get government funding for faith based organizations specifically... and that is not right... organizations with the same intent should not be categorized in a "faith based yes money", "non-faith based no money" basis...

The President has no position to state his opinion on the University of Michigan case... I mean, he does have the right to do it... But with everything going on, I don't understand where he came up with this and thought the need to make the statement he did....it is not his job to do this... Let the representatives of the people and the Supreme Court take issue with this, George...You have other things to do... I think this was a smokescreen.

And the one thing I worry about is an impending case that is upcoming to the Supreme Court (Lawrence vs. Texas)... in the Advocate it indicated that George is in support of the sodomy law in his former state... and I am guessing he is probably in support of the 1986 ruling of "Bowers v. Hardwick"... the Supreme Court then upheld the sodomy law in Georgia with the following statement...compared gay sex to "adultery, incest and other sexual crimes."

I pretty much know George W. opinion on that... and I think it is a pretty sorry state our country is in... when in the land of freedom... everyone is not equal... that our leader takes a personal vendetta and puts our lives on the line... trying to create separation in our country even further with his statement on the UofM case.... and basically labelling homosexuality as amoral and making his opinions that we are less citizens of his country...

I saw a bumper sticker the other day... "Anyone but Bush in 2004" LOL- AMEN

boi oh boi do you bois hate bushy or what! whoa!

Does anyone even consider the advocate a real source of news?

The Advocate as a real source of news, as opposed to what, Fox?

I don't think that the majority of the country is in favor of the war. I think that the last poll that I saw was like 34% in favor and 50 something in favor of letting the UN continue to do inspections.

Bush is going to put American soldiers, and probably American civilians, in danger because he's pretty much screwed up the economy. He's getting revenge for his father and trying to pretend that he has balls.

We have North Korea threatening to go nuclear because of Bush. God knows what China would do if we bombed North Korea and used nukes on them. I'm afraid that Baby Bush is going to lead us in WW3.

I don't hate George Bush at all. I actually find that he can be rather soothing at times with hime manner of speech.

But I despise some of the ignorance of his decisions and policies.

The Advocate may not be a great political source, but the fact that George W left that law intact while in office as Governor of Texas... well, inaction can speak as loud as anything.

Will you folks quit being soooo darn doomday theory...

Incase you didnt notice N. Korea was cheating on their nuclear development for years, while the UN was supposedly there watching them... Which leads me to say, the UN is a joke. Iraq is the chair of disarmorment? Anyone see who is the lead country on human rights? Something has gone terribly wrong here....

Basically, the UN has no backbone.

The Advocate... well hmmmmm, I do agree with some gay issues, but it does not rule my life... EVERYTHING they write, everything they say is ONLY gay, right or wrong. If you disagree with them, then feel their fury... they hate opinions that do not fit their mold...

Philly - go ahead and keep saying moronic things like "ooh, you guys really hate Bush" while the adults try and discuss the issues.

And in case you missed this:


"Why of course the people don't want war. . . .  That is understood. But,
after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it
is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a
democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the
bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they
are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

--Hermann Goering, Nazi officer, during his Nuremberg war crimes trial

Well, you're right on target here. Yesterday Rumsfeld announced to the Senate committee at which he was testifying that the administration IS considering nuclear weapons against Saddam!!! We did use nuclear-tipped missiles in Bosnia (where is the discussion of that), which has left the people there very ill, but Rumsfeld was talking about the real deal--nuclear bombs! Kennedy upbraided him, but I think we shouldn't rule out anything with the current administration. Of course North Korea grows more belligerent and defiant every day, and they have nuclear weapons, so if we stay on our collision course with them....

Oh, it can't happen. I have to repeat this, it can't happen....

[ February 19, 2003, 05:28 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

You folks just hate bush, that's fine... No matter what the man would do, he would be hated.

The nazi comments are foolish until the day american tanks roll into canada...

Is invading Iraq the correct thing to do? i'm 50/50 on it. So i ask myself... is sadaam a horrible person? 100% yes. Do UN inspections work? well north korea obviously has a nuke now when they were not supposed to... thanks for doing your job UN.

Can you imagine how defiant sadaam would be with a nuke....

Blame the UN for everything now. Is North Korea even a member?

Face it, the UN is only as strong as its members. If one country, say the US, doesn't want something done, it's not going to get done.

Clinton was able to contain North Korea. It was Bush who came along and did away with the agreement for them to limit their nuclear research.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA how myopic are you about clinton? MAN, i wish i could develop a nuke in 2 short years... hey dumbass, they have been averting the system for years developing nukes.

Clinton did as he always did, dance around the issue and try to appease these folks... they were to stop their nuke program in exchange for food and being allowed somewhat into the world.. well they continued to develop these weapons with the Nuke commission there.. right under their noses.

The UN is all talk and nothing more than that... HEY LETS PUT IRAQ IN CHARGE OF THE DISARM COMMITEE... WHO BETTER THAN MOMAR'S COUNTRY TO HEAD UP HUMAN RIGHTS...

Heaven forbid you stand up for the country you live in guys... No nation if perfect, however there is not a more giving helping nation than america.

Regarding the committees on the UN:

When George Bush was first elected a lot of changes were made in the U.N.... the rest of the world basically took a stance against the aggressive policy of the new U.S. government and basically the U.S. got kicked off the Human Rights committe... wasn't Syria, China and some other country with a bad history of human rights violations added to the committee.

The problem is, these small acts by other countries have been ignored by the U.S. government and instead, the U.S. has become even more aggressive. I don't understand why Mr. Bush cannot back down a bit in some arenas. It is not totally our job to police the world.

PhillyFan: I love my country. I cry every time I hear the National Anthem when I watch athletes win at the Olympics. I wear a flag pin on my lab coat every day at work. I love the United States... but I know it isn't perfect. When we see things that I feel we do that cause harm to others, we need to be mindful that our egocentricity of Americanism and patriotism need to be changed. Our country was modeled as a source of change and it still is... but we need to recognize when we make mistakes and need to make changes appropriately....

My point is to say that whoever believe that N. Korea was very happy and peaceful during the clinton era.. well you are just kidding yourself to no end... and to believe that they just decided to get a bomb when bushy got in place... well you are even more of a dope...

The UN is a joke when they have to act on anything that takes force. If you need to get a bag of food to somewhere in the desert, they do a great job. Getting rid of a dictator...horrible.

Philly Fan. Puhleeeeez.

what am i getting puh-leazzzzed for?

HAHA all you anti-war, anti-bush clonies have had it easy for far far to long... BTW that word DOPE that i used, i love that word.

Someone tell me, how the heck do you link on here?

Yep, North Korea was a problem under Clinton as well, but the situation is now totally OUT OF HAND. North Korea not only sent a jet into South Korean airspace, but is now openly talking about a NUCLEAR conflict. This is far more serious than the naval skirmishes in 1999, or anything that occurred from 1992-2000.

Bush's foreign policy, his domestic and economic policies, his environmental policies--really, his ENTIRE administration of this country, are DISASTROUS. No matter how much you like him, you have to admit, he is doing a horrible job. Worse than his father, worse than Clinton, worse than Reagan...he's starting to make Jimmy Carter look like Abraham Lincoln or George Washington. I mean, this man really is an AWFUL president. All the slogans and lies--yes, lies--are doing nothing but worsening things here and abroad. We have our largest trade deficit since 1993, we have lost over 1.5 million jobs, the stock market has dropped to record lows, our budget deficit is worsening, and all we get is more empty tax-cutting rhetoric and war talk. It's not working and won't work. This administration, which was imposed upon us, is a train wreck, whether the media want to admit it or not.

With respect to the topic title that started this thread, I do not believe President Bush is suicidal. I do believe he is insensitive and selfish, which we all can be at times.

But we all have a duty to not let those instincts hurt others. I don't think he appreciates that, which is precisely why I started a thread about his psychology.

With regard to committing political suicide I think he has calculated well so far and it remains to be seen how events will develop. My guess has been from very early in his administration, and before, that he would not be successful as president and that his administration would not last for more than one term if elected.

Unfortunately he may be able to create a situation which will make his retention in office necessary. IMO that would require an event of great misfortune for the country and the world.

It really helps that the ENTIRE democratic party is just a mess right now... No leadership and no new fresh ideas... Bush is a plain spoken kinda guy... He's done quite the job of pushing the dems in a corner when they really under-estimated his abilities. The problem with the dems is that the hollywood elite are out there talking and chit chatting about things they have no clue what is going on... they live in their little pampered lifestyles... regular folks dont wanna hear dribble from martin sheen.

i refer you to the howard dean for president thread.

and it's not as if voodoo economics as practiced by bush II is a breath of fresh air, outside the box thinking, new ideas, or even particularly novel. it is a tried and failed policy, eschewed by nearly all mainstream economists.

I've listened to the dems when they try to cry bloody foul against bush, and it comes off as being little cry babies.... Just when the repubs cried about clinton and his messes....

Any tax cut = more beer....

lite, no doubt.

Yes, the Democrats are a mess, but what else is new? At least the candidate they put in office from 1992-2000 took the nation in a positive direction on multiple fronts, from a revived economy to low crime to increased international cooperation, and so on. The "plain spoken" jerk in office now is taking us in the WRONG direction. I really think the Democrats should ask this basic question of most Americans, not just the well-connected Hollywood elite and socialites that cluster around Terry McAuliffe, but the vast majority of people across the country who have to work every day for a pittance, "Are you better off today than you were before Bush took (the) office?" The answer would be a resounding NO.

It's not just the Dems, it's the entire world.

Also, more jobs + higher salaries (as in the 1990s) = a HELL OF A LOT MORE BEER, and not just for the supperich!

phillyfan - the only dope in this thread is you. You've repeated your same points over and over again, more rudely and more sloppily every time: Of course we know N.Korea were developing nukes; the point is (dipshit!) that they were contained and in good communication with US before the Bush disaster. The UN isn't to blame for everything though I'm sure numbskull Bush followers such as you would love to believe that since the UN is at least smart enough not to bow down to the cowboy's pressure. The Democrats aren't run by the "Hollywood Elite" which is a big cliche anyway - not a surprise coming from a light thinker such as you who can't discern between peaceful and passive. You're calling people who want peace unpatriotic just like the Nazi officer did. You're a Bush follower: you don't want to think, you just want big daddy to make the decisions.

Well damn, i am light thinker, but really there is just one of me and like fiddy of you bush bashers... The majority of Americans, i'm sure, hate the job that repubs are doing and would like to do for the country.... ummmm, but then again how did they take the.. pres.. the house, and the senate? The thought of that must just keep you up at night... PS the recession started during clinton's last year in office, not bush's first year... before you throw blame that way kid...

PhillyFan ... you gotta do what you gotta do. But don't think you're alone in your right-thinking opinions. Some of us just don't like to pick on the kids riding the short bus.

hey watch out or you'll be accused of being mean there bub...

Philly Fan- Some of the points you make regarding Bush might be valid... but it is in the way that you present them. Instead of just stating an opinion, you throw out namecalling, etc. I am not saying others do not, but yours have been the most consistently negative.

Some advice:
1) I think you would be able to sway some more people to try and understand your opinion if you were less abrasive. When names get thrown out in this forum, people are more likely to shut your opinions out.
2) This is a forum, not life or death. We all deal with enough hatred and ignorance in our daily lives simply being gay... we don't want to come into a chat room and reading statments questioning who we are as individuals. I personally have not agreed with your opinions, but I respect them...and do listen.
3) This forum is going to be highly Democratic and liberal because the Democratic Party supports a lot of issues we believe in...it happens. I understand your frustrations in expressing opinions and thoughts in the minority quite a bit.. but I am glad you are here for some rebuttal... just even the tone a little.

Hope this helps. Take it easy.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! -- for someone who has posted 15 TIMES on this one thread (among his initial 45 posts during less than four days of being an Outsports "member"), my initial reaction (after reading his first 20+ posts) that PhillyFan is a homophobic, anti-gay bigot with absolutely NO knowledge of sports whose sole purpose and intent here is to anger and attack friendly gay sports fans
is becoming increasingly apparent with each sentence he writes. :mad:

If an Outsporter wants to post exclusively in the P&R forum (which I usually avoid due to lack of interest) that's fine with me but for someone like PhillyFan to REPEATEDLY and VICIOUSLY attack gay sports fans on this site is reprehensible and I hope that Jim, Cyd or the normally terrific moderators (m1 or tarkus -- are you listening?) take some action against this bigot VERY soon.

I'm not one to normally personally attack ANYONE (as I believe my track record here supports) but to further substantiate my point, after I expressed similar views on another thread within the last two days I received SEVERAL e-mails and PM's from fellow Outsporters who privately voiced similar sentiments and thanked me for "publicly" calling out "PhillyFan"....I'm all for freedom of speech and tolerating differing opinions but if anyone wants to take the time to read the content of EVERY one of PhillyFan's intollerable (and often anti-gay) posts I don't see how they won't come to the same conclusion.

[ February 21, 2003, 08:15 PM: Message edited by: gamecock ]

Gamecock Great post and i agree with you big time. his motives are very clear in my opinion also.

I'm pretty sure that PhillyFan is yet another alias of the dreary KungPowChicken/Sundevil43. If not, he's a soul mate. Ignore him, if we don't feed his ego, he'll get bored and go start topics about toe sucking or something equally uplifting.

LOL!

And I thought he was just a moron...

I have a question for all of you... Why do you find it so hard to believe that there could ACTUALLY be a conservative gay guy out there...

if you wish to accuse me of being brash and mean, well look at this thread and tell me where i cursed other than calling the one guy a dumbazz for implying N Korea could build a nuke in 2 years? That is unfair and you are discounting what others say...

i appologize for not fitting into the mold. My comments on clinton being a dope were no worse than the original bush bashing...

anti-gay... i think some issues are worth fighting for and some are not. I don't vote/have opinions based solely on that issue (gay) and that issue alone. I'm actually embarrassed by some of the advocacy groups and what they fight for and scream about. They fight stupid little issues and lose sight of the big picture. Sort of like a pro-life person voting and fighting based solely on that issue (which is what most of the do).

My posts are conservative, but where is the tollerance everyone screams about and expects from others. Yes there people out there who are conservative.....

Whom are you talking about? We KNOW quite well that there are conservative gay people out there, and many are on this board! Gmg, Ung, William, CITT, Munson Man, and quite a few others post here regularly, so what are you talking about? You also have said more than once that the liberals on here do not like Republicans, or something to that effect, so let me state again: as a progressive, I have no problem with MANY Republicans. I have even voted for Republicans. I DO have a serious problem with right-wing, moralistic, hypocritical, mendacious Republicans such as are running the country right now.

The issue some people have with you is that instead of engaging in a discussion or a debate, you toss out insults. You didn't just call Clinton a "dope," you called people on this board "dopes" too. What is telling about most of the "liberals" on this board is that we are always willing to consider and even accept criticisms of actual (Dean) and supposed (Clinton, Gore) liberals, but many--but not all--of the conservatives simply will not brook any criticism of W. Part of it inheres, I believe, in the basics of the ideological positions.

I agree that there are more issues out there that we all need to be concerned with than just homosexuality. So my question to you is this: as a conservative, as one who would want to preserve what is best about this country, aren't you at all concerned with the terrible direction in which it's going?

The only conservative that scares me right now is ashcroft... he has taken some out of line actions.

After 9/11 it's gotta be tough to crack down and or prevent torrorism. If the administration goes full guns to wind the wind... we lose our freedom. However, when and if something happens again, they didnt do enough. Lose/lose situation.

Should bushy invade iraq? tough call... at the same time everyone says he's doing it to avenge his father, or just to get oil... i see his opposition fighting him because he will be popular in the time of war... i think they oppose that more than the war itself.. which one is playing more politics? i dont know... I do say that he should quit talking it up, cause everytime he does... he kills the market. Just when you think the market is improving, bushy says something and it's a 100 point drop.

With all of that said, i think busy is a plain spoken guys who actually believes what he says and stands by his morals. If he believes in something, he's willing to take a stand. I saw Clinton run the country based on what the opinion poll said at that particular time. I want elected officials who do what they believe is right and not just what the most popular flavor of the month is in the polls.

I gotta ask myself this... if say clinton had taken a harder stance against n korea, would they have nukes right now?

I think North Korea would still have nukes, or would have arranged to acquire the technology as they did from our good friend, Pakistan, which Reagan, Bush I and Clinton all supported. And Bush II is now supporting Pakistan wholeheartedly as well.

Some conservatives were up in arms when Clinton pushed for great wiretapping and Internet surveillance powers, which we shouldn't forget. I thought at the time and still do that Clinton was overreaching, and Ashcroft has taken this to extremes. Some of his proposals and statements would not be out of character with the sort of regime Erich Honecker was running in East Germany, a country many liberals and nearly all conservatives rightly reviled. All the new extreme measures still do not address a number of major vulnerable points throughout the U.S. and its overseas installations, and I'm not just talking about NYC or DC subways.

So I am not convinced that the excessive, dubiously constitutional methods, whether in terms of surveillance or trials, of Bush-Ashcroft are necessary or effective, when we have far more concrete things we could and should be doing. I have zero confidence in Tom Ridge, who is transforming himself into a buffoon. Even the First Lady felt the need to criticize him. Nor am I convinced about the war against Iraq. The arguments for it have been tendentious and incoherent, when the truth could easily have been set forth a long time ago. But truth and openness are in short supply in this White House, and I really fear that it is plunging us into an international abyss.