I think that george Bush could possible be the worst president that we have ever had, we are trillions of dollars in debt and we are in a war that appears to have no ending, please tell me what you think.
None of you people have done anything to add to the discussion. This is why people mock America... we can't even stand behind our leader. Disgusting antipatriotism, all of it... You have to have respect for the office of the president, even if you don't like whoever is in charge. I fucking HATE Obama, but if (God forbid) he wins, I'll have no choice but to stand behind him. It's my duty as an American. It's everyone's duty. If you don't like it, then get the fuck out. There's the door, go to Canada where they sit around bashing us all day.
I don't think there is much we could do that would get foreign countries (more precisely, foreign people) to stop mocking us. Whether we stand behind the Prez or speak out against him, they will mock us either way.
Maybe if we elect a democrat, they will stop mocking us.
Mmmmmmm, on second thought, no. They probably won't. P.S. who cares?
Garifu speaks truth. Mockery makes the world go around. So does hostility, as Mega implicitly conceded in his statement about Canada.
In light of this, how relevant is patriotism, how is patriotism relevant and where is it relevant? I would say that having respect for the office of President (or any such office) is a fine thing- at the very least one should appreciate what it stands for, for better or for worse. Mouthing off indiscriminately is not worth much.
Either way, Dubya just happens to be a very easy figure (note I didn't say person) to mock. So, too, is the PM of Iran ("in my country, homosexuality does not exist," yeah right), Kim Jong-il of N. Korea (Team America: "I'm so wo-o-onery!", PM Rudd of Australia (for his habitually flaunting his 'impeccable' Mandarin)...the list goes on.
I think he is a big part of the cause of global warming because of his decision not to sign the Kyoto treaty, the guy's an oil man, it's the reason he became so rich and signing the treaty would have meant reducing the use of the very oil that made his Campaign(or more specifically, the oil that made him the money for his campaign). So, essentially, he is the reason why the U.S. releases most of the world's emissions(about 30%, or so I've heard in Wikipedia).
It's a (almost) pretty accurate assumption that presidents go bad during their second terms and Bush is no exception, he was OK during a good part of his first term, but started to go during his second term, the main reason for his reelection being(if my sources are correct) his performance during the 9/11 attacks and his willingness to fight terrorists(which seems to be the man's "selling point".
Please correct me if I'm wrong about any of this, I'm just typing down things that I know and have read about and watched; I don't even live in America so I could be wrong about my opinions on Bush, he's a good man, but presidency usually corrupts no matter who is put in power.
Well, I'm not going to take all that on, but I would like to make a small semantic correction before hardcore Republicans start tossing strawmen at you:
So, essentially, he is the reason why the U.S. releases most of the world's emissions(about 30%, or so I've heard in Wikipedia).
This implies that Bush is alone responsible for the U.S. emissions being the magnitude they're at, but that's a pretty hard argument to follow up. Rather, it's better to say that he's a major factor in the continued levels of U.S. emissions (seeing as he didn't singlehandedly create the U.S. industry).
I also don't know exactly how much of a direct link goes between oil money and campaigning- I think the reason for supporting economic growth over environmental responsibility is more tied to ideology.
1. I'm not implying that Bush alone is causing the emissions to be that high, I'm just saying that he could have lessened it even to a noticeable extent by signing the treaty (although I do admit I was wrong in some points of that sentence)
2. I only assumed that the money his family earned from the oil helped him in his campaign, again, I tell you I'm not from America, and don't know as much of the events and systems there as most Americans
3. Hardcore Republicans won't be able to find me , and besides, I didn't say that republicans are bad or anything like that, I'm just mean to say that I believe that Bush made the wrong decision.
Well yes, I was keeping all that in mind. I just felt the need to pre-empt useless flames from people with over-sensitive knees.
Not being from America myself, my main issue is that I really don't know exactly who is running what, and how accountable Bush is for 'his' own decisions while in office (there are a plethora of conspiracy theory documentaries that will try to persuade you that he's little more than a puppet, whether this absolves him or damns him further).
It's a big country, a big administration and I doubt any single person or group of people have the full answer.
The government is all corrupt, and I don't care who is in office, this statement holds true. THERE ARE NO GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS WHO AREN'T CORRUPT, ANYWHERE ANYTIME. They will be corrupt. Not only that, but our vote doesn't even count for the president. It's decided by the electoral college who GENERALLY follow the popular vote, but sometimes shit goes awry. In the case of Bush, I tend to think it's a good thing, though there are many who disagree with me. People like to go along with their friends, and bashing the president seems to be all the rage with these young types these days... Most of them have no idea what they're talking about.
Well, yes, I think I could offer a little more detail on that- it's possible that bashing authority figures is the rage because cynicism makes one appears smarter. And people like to look smarter...without actually looking like they're *really* that much smarter as to appear blatantly intellectual...
