people hate Bush, no one even gives him a chance Options

[jo3]

Sometimes a political figure becomes so hated that he can't do anything right in the eyes of his enemies. President Bush has achieved this rare and exalted status. His critics are so blinded by animus that the internal consistency of their attacks on him no longer matters. For them, Bush is the double-bind president.

If he stumbles over his words, he is an embarrassing idiot. If he manages to cut taxes or wage a war against Saddam Hussein with bipartisan support, he is a manipulative genius.

If he hasn't been able to capture Osama bin Laden, he is endangering U.S. security. If he catches bin Laden, it is only a ploy to influence the elections.

If he ignores U.N. resolutions, he is a dangerous unilateralist. If he takes U.N. resolutions on Iraq seriously, he is a dangerous unilateralist. If he doesn't get France to agree to his Iraq policy, he is ignoring important international actors. If he supports multiparty talks on North Korea, he is not doing enough to ignore important international actors.

If he bombed Iraq, he should have bombed Saudi Arabia instead, and if he had bombed Saudi Arabia, he should have bombed Iran, and if he had bombed all three, he shouldn't have bombed anyone at all. If he imposes a U.S. occupation on Iraq, he is fomenting Iraqi resistance by making the United States seem an imperial power. If he ends the U.S. occupation, he is cutting and running.

If he warns of a terror attack, he is playing alarmist politics. If he doesn't warn of a terror attack, he is dangerously asleep at the switch. If he says we're safer, he's lying, and if he doesn't say we're safer, he's implicitly admitting that he has failed in his core duty as commander in chief.

If he adopts a doctrine of preemption, he is unacceptably remaking American national-security policy. If the United States suffers a terror attack on his watch, he should have preempted it. If he signs a far-reaching antiterror law, he is abridging civil liberties. If the United States suffers another terror attack on his watch, he should have had a more vigorous anti-terror law.

[ComradeRed]

[quote]go read some history books...ur history's all wrong.  there had been previous taxes and tariffs before the stamp act (which was considered the one that started all the problems), but the colonists didn't care (enough to start a war).  what got them was that the Parliament was making laws, and the colonists had no say in it.  they called it "taxation without representation."  Britain claimed that the Parliament represented all of Britian's colonies through virtual representation, but the colonists didn't see it that way.  so that's when the colonists started to rebel.  not because of the little tax.[/quote]

Hmm... I have a 5 on the AP US History test, and I wrote my DBQ essay on how it was, in fact, the tax. Guess what region of the country was affected most by the tax? New England. Guess what region rebelled first? New England. It was due to a tax. Taxation without representation was just a pretext ... even if hte Colonies WERE given representation in parliament, THEY WOULD BE OUT VOTED EVERY TIME. So the colonists did not desire taxation with representation, they desired taxation with CONSENT, which is a different thing entirely. The declaration of independence accuses George III of "Taxing us without our consent"... not "taxing us without giving us representation."

[quote]and by the way, income tax is a progressive tax.  that means it varies.  those who make a lot of money pay a higher percentage than those who have a lower income.   so no, the income tax percentage isn't at 45%.[/quote]

The House of Representatives estimates that the total federal taxes for the AVERAGE AMERICAN is 47%.

[quote]look at the good things johnson did.  without medicare and social security, a LOT of ppl today would be screwed (especially the elderly)[/quote]

Precent of Americans with health insurance before Medicare: 85%
Percent of Americans with health insurance AFTER medicare: 65%

Average yearly return on social security payments: -0.2%
Average yearly return on throwing your money in a bank: 2.5%

Social security and medicare screw the poor. Without social security, the poor could actually take what little hard earned money they got and use it to make themselves richer, instead of paying fat bureaucrats in Washington.

If you think we should keep social securitry, let me ask you this: Would YOU buy an annuity from a company run like social security if it were voluntary? If your answer is yes, you are crazy or suicidal. End of story.

[quote]you do realize that many people wanted the war...until people realized that too many soldiers were dying, and we were getting no where.  that's when Americans decided to go on marches and demand the government to withdraw their troops.[/quote]

... And government troops backed by Johnson killed many of them. It doesn't matter if "many people wanted the war" -- just because many people wanted it doesn't make it right. Many people wanted slavery -- was that right?

Johnson only increased the number of troops there.

[quote]the US wanted to stop the spread of communism, so they tried to stop the north from taking over the south.  this was all during the cold war, which was after WWII and after the Korean War, 2 other times where the US tried to stop communism from spreading.[/quote]

If Johnson really wanted to stop Communism, he should've picked up a rifle and went to Vietnam. The fact that he drafted HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF AMERICAN CITIZENS IN BLATANT VIOLATION OF THE THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT shows that he was (a) no better than slave-owners of the early 19th century, and (b) a total coward more worried about his political butt than integrity and honor. Johnson has teh deaths of 60,000 Americans on his hands.

[quote]ok...i believe in a centralized government over strong state governments and a weak centralized government.  but Bush isn't a dictator.[/quote]

A dictator is someone with absolute power. As I have shown unrefuted earlier, Bush has absolute power (or pretty damn close to it) in the United States.

[quote]our economy's actually doing better than it used to (post 9/11),[/quote]

You know, there's a saying: Mussolini may have been a dictator, but at least he made teh trains run on time (some of these trains include the concentration camp trains).

[quote]  and the government doesn't kill people for speaking out against them (Amendment #1 - freedom of speech, freedom of the press).[/quote]

No, we just lock them in Guantanamo Bay.

And yes, our government DOES kill people for speaking out against it. I suggest you look up the Gordon Kahl Murder, when FBI Agents stormed the house of a nonviolent tax protestor from Arkansas, beat him with their rifles, cut his limbs off, and shot him in the head. www.constitution.org/abus/gkahl/kahl.htm

The First Amendment isn't followed at all. The FCC is a blatant violation of the First Amendment. Back when the COnstitution was written, the First Amendment was taken to mean that Congress had NO LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY TO MAKE ANY LAWS ABOUT COMMUNICATION. Hence, when the Alien & Sedition Acts were passed, which made it unlawful to publish false information about the government, VIRGINIA AND KENTUCKY THREATENED TO SECEDE FROM THE UNITED STATES.

It's a shame state governments don't have as much integrity today.

[quote]don't even try to say that our government is like that of Mussolini's, or Hitler's, or Stalin's.  they're NOTHING alike.[/quote]

Maybe it's not that bad, but we have an incarceration rate of 0.7% ... this incarceration rate reflects over two-thirds nonviolent offenders.

According to the NSD, one of the best indications of the oppressiveness of the government is the amount of nonviolent offenders in jail. Non-violent offenders are people who have NEVER HARMED ANOTHER HUMAN BEING, and yet are in jail due to oppressive laws.

Guess what? This rate is higher in America THAN IN ANY OTHER INDUSTRIALIZED COUNTRY. This rate has caused the UN to kick us off the Human Rights Committee. We might not be Nazi Germany, but King George's England is not a major strecth, and is, in fact, a conservative estimate of oppression.

FOOTNOTE: Analyzing the definition of fascism

[quote=American Heritage Dictionary]A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator,[/quote]

Under King George 43rd and also King Kongress.

The fact is today, the US has very centralized authority. Issues such as labor, education, etc. -- all formerly left to the States -- are now the perogative of B.B.

[quote] stringent socioeconomic controls,[/quote]

Certainly. The President has the legal fiat to set prices, seize commodities, organize and control the means of production, and declare martial law. American business regulation costs over one-quarter of the GDP annually. Our government regulates what you can and cannot do in the privacy of your own home, something that is a trademark of oppressive governments, such as fascism.

[quote]suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship,[/quote]

Under the PATRIOT Act, you can be arrested for taking certain books out of a library. The McCain-Feingold Act prevents you from displaying political ads at certain times. FCC rules further hinder political discourse. Murders of radicals such as Gordon Kahl and his sons, brought up above, as well as the brutal suppression of dissent in the 70s, the last time we were faced with a crisis, certainly constitute 'terror and censorship'. The fact that the government now says that it has the right to PUT YOU IN JAIL INDEFINITELY WITHOUT ANY SORT OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW should be just as terrifying as if Bin Laden were your nextdoor neighboor and had a stockpile of AK-47s in his house.

[quote]and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism[/quote]

Well, maybe not racism, but notice how Bush has invoked American patriotism and "waving teh bloody shirt" to delude Americans into thinking the War on Iraq will actually help stop terrorism?

There's nothing wrong with being a Patriot, or even a Nationalist. I sympathize with many very pro-American groups such as American Conservative (www.amconmag.org), but being a Belligerent Nationalist is bad.