It's happening again, something happens and everyone jumps down George Bush's throat and starts saying he's doing nothing and so on and so on. Isn't it convienient how whenever Bush does something good or useful, nobody says anything about it, yet they're quick to critisize and bitch about it when he does something they don't like, and claim 'he's a moron' or 'he doesnt do anything!' Michael Moore is a perfect example. Michael Moore doesnt' give a rat's ass about politics for the politics. He's in it for the money. Have you seen Farenheit 9/11? Have you seen the film made ABOUT Farenheit 9/11 showing how Michael Moore exaggerates everything out of proportion? It's not just Moore though, everywhere I go, forums, newsgroups, everywhere - people are always bitching about how useless Bush is and how he didn't save the world with his godlike powers. I really doubt that the people extending their critisizm could do a better job as president, and need to look at both sides of the story. [I feel pretty stereotypical of serious chat, posting a rant like this, but it needed to be said, I really am getting sick of the simple minded bashing from people who only know one side of the story]
In actuality most of the 'good' things everyone points to with Bush have alternative motives that focus on the greed of him and his cronies and usually end up not suceeding in their intended goal due to cut funding. Yes, that's right, he undercuts his own programs. See: No Child Left Behind Act.
As far as I'm concerned, what good has he done? But anyway, people are harping on him to fix problems HE causes, not save the world. He run's an oil company and he recently attained god knows how much from Iraq, yet oil prices are still so high, why you ask? Because Bush and his oil-pals aren't distributing it. Why not? Cause geuss who gets more money as the price goes up? THEY DO! He could easily lower the rates back down, especially now, but he doesn't. For other problems Bush has caused and not fixed: See "Starting a War we are currently losing."
I don't believe Bush owns an oil company anymore, that was a long time ago, and he ran it into debt. Cheney however does have a lofty position in Halliburton who has benefited to no end by the Bush Administration, what with the no bid contracts in Iraq and now with the recent no bid contract for repairs in New Orleans.
hitler build a great road system in the countries he occupied, i'm sure stalin did some good too, yes of course bush does some good somewhere (mainly for the rich and well to do) but shall we forget those who died in the wake of their ruling and presiding and what they had fucked up, and shall we praise them instead? shall we ignore those who die in illegal war in Iraq? do we forget the victims of poverty that grows under bush's rule? etc. etc.
What good thing has he done? If he's done anything good (and nothing really comes to mind to me, I may be missing something), it's vastly overwhelmed by the amount of bad things he's done. His screw-ups far outweigh the good things. Have you seen the 9/11 Commission Report? It backs up all of Michael Moore's accusations of the president in Fahrenheit 9/11. I haven't seen the film about him, but I've read about the accusations it makes against Moore and many of them are very little and inaccurate for the most part. You say to "look at both sides of the story", but you don't exactly elaborate on that said side of the story. Care to elaborate? You already know the side of the story many of his critics are always going on about. Failiure to stop 9/11, unjust invasion of Iraq, PATRIOT Act, huge debt, refusal to sign Kyoto Protocol, slow acting on Hurricane Katrina. May I also remind you how his administration is screwing over Canada? NAFTA laid down a ruling in Canada's favour that Canadian softwood lumber should be allowed to be imported into the US and they just won't obey the very organization they agreed to be a part of. It's the same way with the UN. The US think they can do anything they want without consequence. They don't care about stepping on anybodies toes because they're the almighty God-like nation. It's shame they're that powerful because I'd love to take them down a few dozen pegs for being so brazen.
I agree with Mark but I do think criticism against Bush is wayyyy too overhyped. If there is a problem, it's blamed on Bush.
What good thing has he done? If he's done anything good (and nothing really comes to mind to me, I may be missing something), it's vastly overwhelmed by the amount of bad things he's done. His screw-ups far outweigh the good things. Have you seen the 9/11 Commission Report? It backs up all of Michael Moore's accusations of the president in Fahrenheit 9/11. I haven't seen the film about him, but I've read about the accusations it makes against Moore and many of them are very little and inaccurate for the most part. You say to "look at both sides of the story", but you don't exactly elaborate on that said side of the story. Care to elaborate? You already know the side of the story many of his critics are always going on about. Failiure to stop 9/11, unjust invasion of Iraq, PATRIOT Act, huge debt, refusal to sign Kyoto Protocol, slow acting on Hurricane Katrina. May I also remind you how his administration is screwing over Canada? NAFTA laid down a ruling in Canada's favour that Canadian softwood lumber should be allowed to be imported into the US and they just won't obey the very organization they agreed to be a part of. It's the same way with the UN. The US think they can do anything they want without consequence. They don't care about stepping on anybodies toes because they're the almighty God-like nation. It's shame they're that powerful because I'd love to take them down a few dozen pegs for being so brazen. [/b][/quote] Mark, no offense, but how can you say it backs up everything Michael Moore said if you've never even seen the movie? The movie was simply trying to make Bush look bad. Most of the movie was simply scenes of Bush acting stupid, which he does a lot -- there was very little factual evidence. And, when there was "evidence", it actually wasn't factual -- Moore's been proved to have doctored a number of sources for the movie, and a lot of what he's said has been proven incorrect. He did make a few excellent points, but for the most part it was just trying to make Bush look bad. Propoganda, pretty much: it relied heavily on Bush's mental lapses more than anything he actualyl did wrong (that is to say, stupid things he's said more than what he's done as a President) to sway your opinion. You can find lists of what Bush has accomplished if you search Google. You can also find lists of his huge blunders. There's always two sides to every story, as Neil said. You yourself said you don't even know anything good he's done, so how can you say "His screw-ups far outweigh the good things"? Have you ever thought that if you're only going to look for the bad things that Bush has done that, chances are, that's all you'll find and all you'll believe? Look at both sides of the story. He's done a ton of stupid things, but he's also done quite a bit of good things as President -- just look around. I dare you. He's no scholar by any means (the man can't even pronounce "nuclear"! ), but he's not the devil as most people here make him out to be.
I couldn't agree more. And you can call me a conspiracy theorist or a fucking psycho for all I care but I will die believing that Bush was responsable for 9/11. Sceptics are always saying prove that he did it and then say the ones who believe this are over paranoid losers who probably spend their days in their rooms on a computer looking up all this 'nonsense'. I think its safe to say that the majority of sceptics wouldn't be bothered to research the facts and just sit there and take in all the shit the news presents to them. If they say prove to them that he did it well I say in response prove to me that he didn't do it.
Ant, that's all fine and dandy, but can you explain some good things he's done instead of just telling us that they're out there somewhere?
I'm personally interested to where all this talk about Moore fabricating everything in Fahrenheit 9/11. He provides links to government docs to back up every statement made. The 9/11 commission supports him 100%, as far as I know. So...where's this talk coming from? Neo-conservative media? Money is also not his ultimate objective. The political situation of the country is. Proof? He withdrew his movie from an awards race, forget which one, which would've produced who knows how much money and publicity, so that he could instead try to air his movie on public airwaves before the election to reach as many people as possible with his message. It didn't happen. But he tried. More than a lot of people can say.
Search Google. It's not hard at all -- you'll find the good things he's done (and also that list of "accomplishments" that's actual a list slamming him). If you want to find it, you will... if you don't, then you won't. Most people here don't want to find it, and all they'll do if I post links are post their reasons why they disagree with what he did was "good", so it's a lost cause for me to get people here to be bi-partisian. Shade: The 9/11 Report doesn't support him 100%. The 9/11 report and Fahrenheit 9/11 focus on mostly entirely different information for the most part, in fact. It agrees with him on some issues, but I'd say for the most part it is something entirely different. And, again, I don't mean to sound rude when I say this, but why are you all assuming that the two (the report and the movie) are linked? If you haven't read the report, or haven't seen the movie (or, worse, haven't done either), then why would you comment saying what they're about?
The right wing will find "facts" to prove Michael Moore is a liar, and the left wing will find "facts" to prove the right wing is lying about Michael Moore being a liar. Then the right wing will find even more "facts" to say the left is wrong about the right lying about Michael Moore, and then the left will find some more "facts" to say the right is wrong again. It's a never ending cycle. So, "This documentary said this, that documentary said that" is a moot point. They all make up crap about each other. I think whats even more pathetic, however, is the fact that most people on the right can never actually say anything about Michael Moore without bringing the words "fat ass" into the sentence. Every damn post or article I read written by a neocon about Michael Moore can be summed up into one sentence: "He's a fat ass pig so that means he's lying!"
Mark, no offense, but how can you say it backs up everything Michael Moore said if you've never even seen the movie? The movie was simply trying to make Bush look bad. Most of the movie was simply scenes of Bush acting stupid, which he does a lot -- there was very little factual evidence. And, when there was "evidence", it actually wasn't factual -- Moore's been proved to have doctored a number of sources for the movie, and a lot of what he's said has been proven incorrect. He did make a few excellent points, but for the most part it was just trying to make Bush look bad. Propoganda, pretty much: it relied heavily on Bush's mental lapses more than anything he actualyl did wrong (that is to say, stupid things he's said more than what he's done as a President) to sway your opinion. You can find lists of what Bush has accomplished if you search Google. You can also find lists of his huge blunders. There's always two sides to every story, as Neil said. You yourself said you don't even know anything good he's done, so how can you say "His screw-ups far outweigh the good things"? Have you ever thought that if you're only going to look for the bad things that Bush has done that, chances are, that's all you'll find and all you'll believe? Look at both sides of the story. He's done a ton of stupid things, but he's also done quite a bit of good things as President -- just look around. I dare you. He's no scholar by any means (the man can't even pronounce "nuclear"! ), but he's not the devil as most people here make him out to be. [/b][/quote] What? You've read my words wrong. I saw Fahrenheit 9/11 the first day it came out. I didn't see the movie about him being a "Stupid Fat Ass" (or whatever ridiculous and immature name they threw on the movie). "I haven't seen the film about him [Michael Moore], but I've read about the accusations it makes against Moore and many of them are very little and inaccurate for the most part." I'm seriously starting to doubt whether you've seen the movie because it provides alot of evidence. Sure it involves alot of clips of him acting like a fool. But there's things like the FBI's released documents, the facts about Bush receiving the briefing memos, his decreasing of the Counter-Terrorism budget, their evacuating Bin Laden's from the country, that was all evidence. None of that was made up. It was scathing review of the Bush administration. Sure, it was biased. I'll admit that. But it also showed alot of truth and evidence, which was backed up by the 9/11 Commission Report. What doctored evidence/source do you speak of? Again, you're twisting my words. I never said I didn't know of anything good he's done, I said I can't recall anything good he's done that's in any way comparable to all the bad things he's allowed to happen and has done. I'm a follower of American politics, but I can't recall very much at all that he's done for the good of this world that even amounts to the terrible things he's done. I try to be fair, but when all I see is bad decisions and wrong moves on his part instead of things that improve our world, I can't be bothered to go search for all the good he's done. From what I know, he's not done much, if anything at all, to make our planet a better place. Please, educate me if you're so knowledgable of his good decisions. What good has he done for this world? I'd be happy to listen.
I've already said that if someone wants a list of his "good decisions" they can search Google. I could post a list of my opinions, but all you (or anyone else here, for the most part -- I'm not attacking you in particular) will do is critique every single one and say why you disagree with them. Again, you can search Google if you want to find them. I can understand if you think "well, he's just backpedaling now because he doesn't know anything", but I'm just doing it because I don't want to spend hours replying to endless quotes about why people disagree with things. But if someone wants to believe that I don't know what I'm talking about (wouldn't be the first time, and everyone has their own opinion), that's fine by me -- you can't please everyone. My fault about the movie -- I misunderstood what you said. And, there were numerous inconsistencies with Moore's stories and numerous doctored headlines in the movie. That I will provide you with a few links on (these are just the two I remember seeing, I'm sure there's a few more), as they're not really opinions: http://www.aberdeennews.com/mld/aberdeenne...ics/9069379.htm http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723 Edit: Dangit, the Aberdeen article's down, but here's what it said:
So...you expect me to prove your statement correct? I don't see what entirely is wrong with "critique", and I thought you would have the drive at least to be willing to prove your statements. If not so, why even make the initial statement in the first place? Whatever, just my thoughts, I'll look through google. Edit: Ooh, here we go, first hit on google: Abortion & Traditional Values 1. Banned Partial Birth Abortion — by far the most significant roll-back of abortion on demand since Roe v. Wade. 2. Reversed Clinton's move to strike Reagan's anti-abortion Mexico Policy. 3. By Executive Order (EO), reversed Clinton's policy of not requiring parental consent for abortions under the Medical Privacy Act. 4. By EO, prohibited federal funds for international family planning groups that provide abortions and related services. 5. Upheld the ban on abortions at military hospitals. 6. Made $33 million available for abstinence education programs in 2004. 7. Supports the Defense of Marriage Act — and a Constitutional amendment saying marriage is between one man and one woman. 8. Requires states to conduct criminal background checks on prospective foster and adoptive parents. 9. Requires districts to let students transfer out of dangerous schools. 10. Requires schools to have a zero-tolerance policy for classroom disruption (reintroducing discipline into classrooms). 11. Signed the Teacher Protection Act, which protects teachers from lawsuits related to student discipline. 12. Expanded the role of faith-based and community organizations in after-school programs. My values disagree with all of them but 8 and 9. So, there's 2 out of 12. oop, wait...I detect some bias... Character & Conduct as President 1. Changed the tone in the White House, restoring HONOR and DIGNITY to the presidency. 2. Has reintroduced the mention of God and faith into public discourse. 3. Handled himself with enormous courage, dignity, grace, determination, and leadership in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 hijackings and anthrax attacks. He almost single-handedly held this country together during those searing days: Just three days after the attacks, in his address at the National Cathedral, the President reassured the nation when he said: "War has been waged against us by stealth and deceit and murder. This nation is peaceful, but fierce when stirred to anger. This conflict was begun on the timing and terms of others. It will end in a way, and at an hour, of our choosing." On Friday, September 14, 2001, President Bush visited Ground Zero. Standing on a crushed and burned fire engine atop the smoldering pile at Ground Zero, he put his arm around a retired firefighter who had volunteered to help, and began speaking to the crowd. Rescue workers shouted that they could not hear him. Someone handed him a small American flag and bullhorn. The President spontaneously shouted: "I can hear you. The rest of the world hears you. And the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon." The crowd roared with cheers and chants of "USA! USA! USA!" Then he raised that American flag and rallied a nation. Oh yes....there's a touch of bias and fabrication in there. Next hit? The next his is mocking him. Next? The next is the White House's official site, an interview with Bush himself. May be a smidgin slanted. The next is the same. The next is the same. The next is the same as the first, but on a different site. The next is a "half true" account of economic growth, violating the "broken window theory", which you should be familiar with. So...as you can see...google doesn't do too much for me. Would you be so kind as to provide your own reasons?
I'm sorry, but the bad out-weighs the good. I mean, why should we give him a pat on the back when he does something small, since he has done so much damage.
Wow, what have I started.... Basically all I was trying to do was explain how upsetting it is to see people always blame crap on bush. I guess I just typed too much...
The fact is that whatever thread that even has the name Bush in it is bound to start an uproar of both Bush bashings and arguments on why he's a good president. The very fact that he wouldn't go into New Orleans in the first place disgusts me, what kind of 'model' leader asks for support from other countrys (why he's said that I aint got a fucking clue considering America has more money than any other country and are quite capeable of supporting themselves,but thats not the point) and yet makes sure hes got a clear 5 mile radius away from New Orleans.