Hi,
Good answer in the previous answer.
Why get elected a second term? He was riding much higher; with many political "promises" of better things to come, and there wasn't a Democratic candidate who could have beat him.
|
Hi,
Good answer in the previous answer.
Why get elected a second term? He was riding much higher; with many political "promises" of better things to come, and there wasn't a Democratic candidate who could have beat him.
Scot, you hit the nail on the head! If the war in Iraq had not been going on some of his other policy would have come under closer scrutiny and in my opinion exposed his lack of a domestic policy and his pandering to interest groups with his energy bill. Would his ratings been so high without the war? I doubt it!:cool: :mad:
Which begs the question. Was one of the reasons the war was started, especially when it was, to provide impetus to his re-election?Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
I have no proof to offer,but I do know he was very aware his father was a one term president and he didn't want to repeat the legacy, also he knew the war would lead us to be in Iraq for years but I have no solid proof to say this was part of an "agenda". But I also have no proof that GWB is not the anti-christ either! I do know that a lot of fat cats are getting very rich because of this war! That's a fact!:cool: :mad:
[QUOTE=ScottGem]That's a very good question. Its got no cut and dried answer. But there are several factors involved.
One reason is the American party system. Many people (on both sides) vote blindly along party lines. Another reason was the lack of a strong opposition candidate. Bush was also still riding the 9/11 tragedy. QUOTE]
Voting blindly along party lines and riding high on 9/11. That's a good explanation. Thanks for the response. About the illogical nature of voters, that's the main reason why Socrates was against democracies both direct and representational. Man primarily reasoning justify his decisions based on emotion.
WE WILL KNOW FOR SURE IN 2008
It was the mysterious, self-proclaimed Internet prophet John Titor, I believe, who warned us in 2001 that "2008 was when we all realized that the America we thought we were living in was gone forever" or something to that effect. Whether there was anything to the whole bizarre Titor saga, he may have been right about 2008. What happens in 2008 in America? Or rather what is scheduled to occur in America in 2008, just like it is scheduled to occur every four years?
Yes, the presidential election. The very centerpiece of our entire democracy.
And who is widely held to have stolen the last two elections via election fraud? Of course, GW Bush.
But it's a little harder to steal an election when you're not legally allowed to be on the ballot, so if GW wants to keep his power in 2008 he'll have to come up with something a little more drastic, some whole new way to hold the American Presidency. He might try to simply have the laws changed so he could legally run for a third term, and in fact he already has his people working on that, but I don't for a moment believe that he views this as his only path to retaining power. There is nothing in the prophecies to suggest that the Antichrist will be at the mercy of public opinion; he is presented there more as possessing absolute power than as as just having remarkable popularity. Bush could easily retain control of the government for a third term through a military coup if another "emergency" occurred and he had an arguable reason to declare martial law. He wouldn't need to convince everyone that he had the right to take such a step, nor even a majority of the population. All he would need would be plausible deniability of any premeditated intent to circumvent the election laws, and any number of national crises would provide that shelter for him.
Would he really dare do something like that? Bush's popularity has already had very little to do with how long he stays in office. He stole his first Presidential election, then orchestrated a national disaster to supplement his powers, and then stole his second election to keep those powers. Why should we think he will suddenly decide to start playing by the rules in 2008?
If he is the Antichrist, stealing a third term will be the single most predictable move he will make in his entire career.
And then we will know.
Peter Novak
"Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ [... ]
That day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first,
And the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction,
Who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship,
So that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God.[... ]
And you know what is restraining him now so that he may be revealed in his time.
For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work.
Only he who now restrains it will do so until he is out of the way.
And then the lawless one will be revealed."
- 2 Thessalonians 2:1-8
I think if people cared more about today and the immediate future they would be better off!
I also think Bush has a real SH - - job... but somebody's got to do it!
Has Bush ever denied Christ?
"And you know what is restraining him now so that he may be revealed in his time.
For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work."
:eek: :eek: :eek:
Quote:
Originally Posted by magprob
I understand the lawlessness referred to in this scripture as the slow development of the apostasy during the first century and the man referred to is a composite or a type and not an individual. Of course opinions differ on this and others prefer to understand the man of lawlessness as one person. In any case, assuming that the scripture refers to one person, why choose Bush? That's my question to you.
I refur to Dubya as the figure head or puppet that is doing the bidding of the main body of the secret movement that is going against the law of human rights to reach an end that seems to be known only to them... and a few outsiders. The civil rights and basic protections of Americans and Europeans in free countries, and other countries where those tenicles reach, are being shuffled like a deck of cards in preparation for a "new deal". I am very happy with the U.S. Constitution and I consider it the "LAW." This force or hidden movement does not and they are breaking the law in their quest to gain control of the masses. Thus, lawlessness on a massive scale. Bush (Dubya) could not pull it off on his own as I think we all agree!
Maybe it's his membership with Skull & Bones Society?
That was very interesting N.K.. . I have a dumb question though...
Did G.W. graduate from a law school? The article notes him grad. From Yale but being rejected from another law school. So did he just go onto business/politics after Yale? :confused:
Endgame for the Constitution
PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS | May 3 2006
The Bush administration has done more damage to Americans and more harm
To America's reputation than any other administration in history. Yet,
A majority of Republicans still support Bush. This tells much about
Blind party loyalty.
By encouraging the move offshore of American jobs and manufacturing,
Bush has run up tremendous trade deficits that have undermined the
World's confidence in the dollar as the reserve currency. Recently,
Both Chinese and Russian government officials warned of the dollar's
Shaky status. The fall in confidence in the dollar is evidenced by the
Sharp run-up in the price of gold. In January 2001 the price of gold
Was about $240 per ounce. Today the price is $660 per ounce.
The price of gasoline has risen from around $1.30 per gallon to over
$3.00 per gallon. Obviously, Bush's war in the Middle East did not
Ensure the oil supply.
On Bush's watch, three million US manufacturing jobs have disappeared.
Tens of thousands of highly qualified US engineers have lost their
Employment. US job growth has fallen six to seven million jobs behind
Population growth. Recent college graduates are employed as waitresses
And bartenders.
Illegal immigration has continued to explode. While Bush spends $1
Trillion and many lives trying to control borders in the MIddle East,
America's borders remain undefended and over run. Bush advocates
Amnesty for the illegals who have invaded America while Bush invades
Distant countries.
On false pretenses Bush invaded Iraq, a country that comprised no
Threat to America. American high explosives have devastated Iraq and
Its infrastructure and killed at least 100,000 Iraqi civilians, people
Who Bush claims to be bringing freedom and democracy.
All stability has disappeared from Iraq. Iraqis now live in fear of one
Another as well as fear of American troops. On April 28 Iraqi vice
President Adil Abdul-Mahdi said that 100,000 Iraqi families have been
Uprooted by the sectarian violence unleashed by Bush's overthrow of
Saddam Hussein.
Not content with the uncontrollable mayhem he has brought to Iraq, Bush
Hopes to expand the catastrophe by attacking Iran. The US Secretary of
State, sounding like the warmonger she is, says the US may ignore the
United Nations and attack Iran on its own initiative. This would be the
Second time that the Bush administration initiated wars of
Aggression--war crimes under the Nuremberg standard established by the
US.
Bush claims that he is higher authority than both US law and
International law. In the past, US presidents vetoed laws with which
They disagreed. Bush signs the laws and ignores them.
Bush has declared himself to be the sole judge of the limits of his
Powers--a claim that violates Bush's oath of office to uphold the US
Constitution. Bush has set aside the Bill of Rights by detaining people
Indefinitely without charges, by kidnapping and torturing people, and
By spying on Americans without warrants. These are actions that are
Illegal under law as well as unconstitutional. All of these violations
Of law and the Constitution are serious impeachable offenses.
Yet. Congress is supine as the Bush regime exercises dictatorial
Powers. The exercise of these dictatorial powers by the executive is a
Far greater danger to American liberty than are Muslim terrorists.
Bush's apologists claim that only terrorists have anything to fear.
However, unaccountable executive power is inconsistent with free
Societies. America is no exception. Unless Bush is impeached and turned
Over to the war crimes court in the Hague, Americans will never reclaim
Their liberties from an executive branch that has established itself as
The sole judge of the limits of its powers.
As Jacob Hornberger, president of the Future of Freedom Foundation
Wrote last month, "we now live in a nation in which the president has
the omnipotent power to ignore all constitutional restraints on his
power." Bruce Fein, a Justice Department official in the Reagan
Administration said that Bush "is moving us toward an unlimited
executive power."
The Bush regime's practice of excessive secrecy and denial of
Information to Congress allows the regime to avoid judicial review of
Its power claims. Bush ignores Congress and evades the courts.
When President Richard Nixon made excessive claims for presidential
Powers, principled Republicans revolted and helped to bring down Nixon.
Today's Republicans are loyal only to power. They have no principles.
By supporting Bush, Republicans are bringing down
People look at Bush’s invasion of Iraq and see a miserable failure. But a failure to do what? Democratize Iraq? Eliminate Iraq’s WMD arsenal? Reduce global terrorism? If those were, in fact, the reasons for invading Iraq, then the invasion would have to be classified as a failure. But what if the real reason was to secure Iraq’s oil supplies, perhaps not for immediate use, and perhaps not even for use by the United States? Then the invasion of Iraq would have to be judged a success, a “mission accomplished,” so to speak.Or take Bush’s seemingly irresponsible handling of the domestic economy. How can any sane person fail to understand that cutting revenue while increasing spending will produce deficits, and that those deficits cannot increase in perpetuity? Sooner or later that accumulated debt has got to have consequences. Bush appears to be acting as if there were no tomorrow.
Link :Questions & Thoughts
And the Oscar goes to:
While I can't deny some of the "beefs" we have against Bush- the question still asks "is he the antichrist?"
The issues you raise are more of a political one. Republicans always benefit the rich, and Democrats benefit the less rich.
Now a little story, por favor. When my daughter heard that I didn't vote in 2004, she ( a grad student) said quite"dramatically"- "How could you not vote for Kerry? Bush is the "Demon seed!". Oh forget about it. First of all, "Don't be saying things like that about him. He is a Christian man. A you, dear daughter, shouldn't be talking like that! You are a born-again Christian. So cool it! "
I keep in mind that she has friends and some of those friends like to say things b/c they are cool. Yeah, so cool? Like how cool it is to have the next diagnosed mental illness and take Prozac for? Oh how cool is that. This one or that one saying that they think that one has a Borderline personality disorder?
I think some of them have too much money or time on their hands b/c - I don't want to put anything really in her mind but- Is this "troubled" friend cutting their f------ arms up? I don't think so!
So now we have Bush- a Republican. He's helping the businesses' bottom line, but not the workers' paychecks.
So, where's the Democrat? Or Independent?
For the time being, we should pray for those in authority and our country. The Bible says- BLESSED are the PEACEMAKERS-- not the PEACEKEEPERS... there is a big difference.
And what's happening from what I read -- that in the job that Bush has to do... that PEACE is a PROCESS!
God BLESS! :rolleyes:
The American voters have to accept some of the responsibility for electing some of the duffess characters to represent us so hopefully the next elections will bring about enough change so we don't have to worry if the Antichrist is our president or not!:cool: :eek:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cgirl
OMG, I cannot believe you are blaming the poverty in New Orleans and Katrina on Bush, apparently you have nothing better to do!! Poverty exists all over this country, it is not the president's fault no matter who the president is. If you do not like the poverty, then start giving out money and letting people stay in your house. Those people were not forgotten, the CHOSE not to leave New Orleans. And, please do not tell me you are blaming the levies on Bush!! Why didn't Clitoris, sorry Clinton fix them?
He is not worrying about his pocketbook he is worrying about the country. Go to WAR, kill those people before they kill my 4 year old!! Did we have a choice with the planes flying into the WTC? H** NO!!
At least this man is doing the job he was elected to do!! He is not in the Oval Office getting his you-know-what sucked off!! That is the man that wanted only for his pocketbook and his penis!!
Anyone thinks they can do a better job under the circumstances then you run for office!! How many of you voted? If you did not vote you have no right to criticise!!
First, if you read what you quoted from CGirl, she did say; " No, this is not all Bush's fault,". As for blaming the levees on Bush, it was Bush's administration that cut funding that might have strengthened them. So, yes, you could lay some of that blame on Bush.Quote:
Originally Posted by J_9
As for Bush worrying about the country, you apparently aren't paying much attention. How much time has Bush spent vacationing on his ranch?
As for whether he is doing the job he was elected to, that is highly debatable. But lets say he is doing the job, then he is doing it very badly.
Your trying to justify Bush by citing Clinton's sexual escapades is just trying to divert focus from the real issue. Yes Clinton's presidency was marred by the Lewinsky thing. But try an look past that peccadillo. Try looking at how good the economy was under Clinton. Whatever problems Clinton had, you can't say he wasn't there doing his job, you can't say he didn't care about his constituents. I can't say the same for Bush.
Look at the good Clinton continues to do. They announced today that he has convinced the drink industry to cease selling sugared sodas to schools to help combat obesity in kids. Can you imagine Bush convincing the Oil industry to forgo profits to lower prices?
And yes, not only did I vote, but I worked in both the Gore and Kerry campaigns.
I always voted since I was 18 and I can say George sucks as a president and all our grandkids will be paying for it! The best antichrist impersonation I've ever seen!:cool: :eek: :mad:
Well I didn't vote obviously, because I am not an American citizen and don't live in the United States. But I still believe I have a right to an opinion about the president, because the President of the United States is an extremely important person in the grand scheme of things... he's basically the leader of the free world. So decisions he makes (especially foreign policy decisions) don't just effect Americans they also effect those of us who are outside the USA.
As for J_9's post, I feel like I should defend what I wrote. 1st off, yes I DID vote. Secondly, I am not saying poverty is Bush's fault, but it is a known fact that his campaign has always benefited the rich and hurt the poor, and soon our middle class will be wiped away to nothing. Katrina was not his fault, BUT maybe if he wouldn't have been so focused on being the BIG TOUGH president trying to "save" the Iraqi people, those people in New Orleans would have been better informed and gotten out of there. AND NO, they were not all "informed" and chose to stay, some of them did not have the means to get out of there, and the whole busing thing proved to be a big mess. Yes, there is poverty all over the country, Katrina was just a perfect example of how America's people are being forgotten by the Bush administration. I've said it once and I will say it again, Bush needs to focus more on what is happening here in the United States, like the drug problem that is killing our teens everyday in this country, and poverty is one of the main causes of this. WE AS A NATION ARE BEING IGNORED!!
Politics of oil: Cheney visits Kazakhstan
U.S. eyes huge resources, also notes country's weak human rights record
The Associated Press
Updated: 9:48 a.m. ET May 5, 2006
ASTANA, Kazakhstan - Vice President **** Cheney traveled to Kazakhstan on Friday for talks with President Nursultan Nazarbayev, seeking to maximize access to the vast oil and gas reserves in the central Asian nation with a troubled human-rights record.
Cheney became the fourth top administration official to visit the former Soviet republic in recent months, underscoring the importance placed on a country that is strategically located and an ally in the war on terror, as well as rich in energy resources.
Administration policy favors development of multiple means of delivering Kazakhstan's energy supplies to markets in the West and elsewhere.
Among them, Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher told Congress recently, the United States is “working on securing the flow of oil” from North Caspian oil fields by tanker to a pipeline terminus in Azerbaijan. That route would bypass Russia and Iran. There has also been periodic talk of building a pipeline under the Caspian Sea.
Rights record 'remains poor'
Energy aside, one senior administration official said the vice president would prod Nazarbayev to make further democratic reforms in the country he has ruled since the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991.
“The government's human-rights record remains poor,” according to a recent State Department report.
It was unclear how Cheney would attempt to balance the two concerns — American energy needs in a time of high prices alongside a desire for political reforms. His talks came one day after a speech to East European leaders in Lithuania that sharply criticized Russia for backsliding on democracy.
One senior administration official traveling with Cheney said the remarks, which drew quick criticism from Moscow, had been “very well vetted” in advance within the administration.
Officials disclosed belatedly that while in Lithuania to attend a meeting of eastern European leaders, Cheney had met Thursday afternoon with Inna Kulei, the wife of the jailed Belarusian opposition leader, Alexander Milinkevich.
Meanwhile, a private group said Kazakh authorities on Friday barred an opposition leader from traveling to the capital Astana for a meeting with Cheney.
Police refused to grant Galymzhan Zhakiyanov permission to leave his home city, the commercial capital Almaty, the For a Fair Kazakhstan Alliance said in a statement. Zhakiyanov and other leaders of the alliance were invited to meet with Cheney in Astana on Saturday.
Last month, Zhakiyanov and another opposition leader, Bolat Abilov, were barred from leaving the country for meetings with European officials. Sentenced to seven years in prison for abuse of office, Zhakiyanov was considered the Central Asian nation's highest-profile political prisoner before his early release in January.
HERE IS A PRIME EXAMPLE OF THE TRUE REASON THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH ANOTHER COUNTRY-OIL;)
Yes, but I hear it's the Democrats that are against tappinginto our own oil because of environmental issues, ie: Alaska, Gulf of Mexico, Arizona, Texas, etc.
Why do they do that? I don't understand the BIG environmental issue regarding that?
:cool:
Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's not a big issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by 31pumpkin
Its not true that Democrats per se are against tapping into resources. However, many people, Democrats among them, are concerned about the environmental impact of such actions. If you are not aware of the very real impact of such actions, I suggest you do some research because there are too many things to go into in a forum like this.Quote:
Originally Posted by 31pumpkin
I will say this, the planet has a relatively delicate balance in its ecology. Anything that has an impact on that balance can, and often does, have repercussions that have not been given full consideration in the past. Smog, Acid rain, global warming, endangered species are all consequences of the wanton rape of the environment in the past.
At least I'm an objective thinker. You like to use that word IGNORANT a lot! You don't win anybody over with that attitude.
Why don't you put your arrogance in your back pocket and maybe be able to describe the environmental issue ! Describe- "PER SE". Is it not the Democrats that are against drilling or not. Are my media sources wrong?
Because YOU, a seemingly Democrat, don't seem to be very convincing.
Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by 31pumpkin
http://today.reuters.com/investing/f...ALASKA-OIL.XML
No mention of Democrats, it's the environmental groups.
Alaska Oil Drilling - GovSpot Issues
Look at the Supporters and Opponents, no mention of Democrats
BBC NEWS | Americas | Senate blocks Alaska oil drilling
The plan fell 4 votes short. Obviously all the repubs aren't buying into it.
Do you want me to continue?
To all participants,
As this thread has gone so far off course from the original question I'm closing it.
Thank you.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:47 PM. |