I thought Bush was doing fine until he caved to the media & threw his cabinet under the bus. That's when he became marginalized. Until then...he was awesome. Most people loved that he defied the lib biases for what they were.

BTW...I am not saying he is perfect...but he is still way better than any of the candidates they are shoving down our throats.

Yes he did
Bringing Our Troops Home
Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/

yes i seen that

that is his campian site he says what you want to hear there

when in a debate he said what i posted

do you actually expect honesty on a politcally motivated website i will listen to msnbc reporting on his answer in the debate ---not his speech writer designed web page

Press Iraq’s Leaders to Reconcile
The best way to press Iraq’s leaders to take responsibility for their future is to make it clear that we are leaving. As we remove our troops, Obama will engage representatives from all levels of Iraqi society – in and out of government – to seek a new accord on Iraq’s Constitution and governance. The United Nations will play a central role in this convention, which should not adjourn until a new national accord is reached addressing tough questions like federalism and oil revenue-sharing.



I heard him the night he won in NC by such a large margin saying exactly what I just posted!

I dont think bush threw them under the bus, they wre total failures from rumfsfeld on down to the guy who let New orleans drown. Every thing done by this administration has been a total failure. From the economy to the war it is a dismal record

Not vetoing every pork filled spending bill that came across his desk.

when he opens his mouth.

Daniel I respect what you tried to do in this thread without co-operation. They won't provide you any specifics or proof. Just the same thing over and over again.

Because the proof has been provided in previous threads for months. It's also on the news.

I consider this a compliment considering that anything Bush does wrong is still WAY ahead of any lib democrat. LOL Orack? Hillary? McCain? LOL PLEEZE!!!

Nope...rumsfeld et all were not failures. Bush's caving in was what failed us all. He is about as good as having some democrat in office now....or some wishy washy republican for that matter.

No the facts has NOT been provided. Maybe one in fifty posts has some fact(s) in it, butmost of it is personal opinion with absolutely nothing to back it up except an article here or "someone else says this" there. And lets not forget the irrefutable statistics.

And also, even if it had been provided in other posts, site rules dictate you have to follow the guidelines of every thread, and the guidelines int his thread specifically stated that if you were goig to post an opinion, you needed to provided soe form af factual evidence to back yourself up with. So no matter how many times yuo feel your (or others) opinions have been backed up in other threads, you failed to follow the guidelines of this specific thread.



Now, to explain why I put speficic instructions to a lot of my political posts: Way too many people jump in with the popular voice, or the bandwagon as it passes, without ever verifying the source of information or wether it is true or not. Then they start spewing off their beliefs and opinions, without ever having taken the time to research it themself, and thus spread a lot of disinformation, which is what almost every political person in the world wants to happen. It keeps the public confused and uninformed, thus easier to fool and control.

So, I ask that anyone posting an opinion, explain why the have this opinion, and put in the guidleines that they have to use their own words and feelings to do so, not copy and paste someone elses, and say absolutely nothing else.

Sorry but this is not civics class this is free form forum where people can write and explain anything how they want to. What is up with these "instructions" in a free speech, free form, forum???

It feels too bossy.

yup and it is speaking down to people and that is not cool.

I feel President Bush did not vetoe enough bills. Reason I think it was a mistake? TOO MUCH PORK BARREL was attached to each bill presented so as to get the bill passed. Subsequently, a ton of money could have been saved if it were not for the 'favor owed' pork barrel jibberish.


People really do not understand the 'whys' of a veto. People never look into the records and see WHY a bill was vetoed. i.e., pork barrell shoved into the bill.

List of United States presidential vetoes
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia•

The word veto does not appear in the United States Constitution, but Article I requires every bill, order, resolution or other act of legislation by the Congress of the United States to be presented to the President of the United States for his approval. When the President is presented the bill, he can either sign it into law, return the bill to the originating house of Congress with his objections to the bill (a veto), or neither sign nor return it to Congress after having been presented the bill for ten days exempting Sundays (if Congress is still in session, the bill becomes a law; otherwise, the bill does not become a law and is considered a pocket veto). The list below contains many of the bills vetoed and pocket vetoed by Presidents.

I am only going to make a few comparisons President Bush's Vetos and Bill Clinton's vetoes:

President Bush:
Regular vetoes 8
Pocket Vetoes 1
For a total of ONLY 9 vetoes
Vetoes overridden 1



Bill Clinton:
Regular vetoes 36
Pocket vetoes 1
Total vetoes 37
Overridden vetoes 2


George W. Bush Vetoes (Please note that only 1 veto was ever overridden. And why were the rest not vetoed? Not enough votes meaning democrats and Republican alike both House and/or Senate agreed with President Bush's vetoes of a bill!!)

1. July 19, 2006: Vetoed H.R. 810, Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005, a bill to ease restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. Override attempt failed in House, 235-193 (286 needed).

2. May 1, 2007: Vetoed H.R. 1591, U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007. Override attempt failed in House, 222-203 (284 needed). A later version of the bill that excluded certain aspects of the initial legislation that the President disapproved of, H.R. 2206, was enacted as Pub.L. 110-28 with the President's approval.

3. June 20, 2007: Vetoed S. 5, Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007.

4. October 3, 2007: Vetoed H.R. 976, Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007 ("SCHIP"). Override attempt failed in House, 273-156 (286 votes needed).

5. November 2, 2007: Vetoed H.R. 1495, Water Resources Development Act of 2007. Overridden by House, 361-54 (277 votes needed). Overridden by Senate, 79-14 (62 needed), and enacted as Pub.L. 110-114 over President's veto.

6. November 13, 2007: Vetoed H.R. 3043, Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2008. Override attempt failed in House, 277-141 (279 votes needed).

7. December 12, 2007: Vetoed H.R. 3963, Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007[18]. Override attempt failed in House, 260-152 (275 votes needed).

8. December 28, 2007: Pocket Vetoed H.R. 1585, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008[19]

9. March 8, 2008: Vetoed H.R. 2082, Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008.[20] [21]. Override attempt failed in House, 225-188


I am not posting Clinton's vetoes as it seems to be meaningles to the left wing libbers. They are quite capable of going to Wikepedia and seraching themselves.

Plus, I have entered enough information as this post is directed towards President George W. Bush.

Lindyy



Edited by Lindyy on Fri 05/09/08 09:53 AM

Winx and
Dragon in particular:

That is NO EXCUSE, if we are to participate in a specific thread, we must in all fairness and RESPECT, follow the rules and requests of the OP. After all, it IS his/her thread.

If we make a mistake, admit it and go on, that simple

Lindyy

This is a direct cut form the general rules and guidelines. It has also been stated directly from either Mike or Van, that people must respect a topic, and that if you dont want to follow the topic in hand, then dont post (paraphrased of course).

not once did I speak down to you or anyone else. I aksed you to simply follow the guidleines of this particular thread. if you can not or choose not to do so, then please do not respond at all.

And it is not being bossy to put limitations on a specific thread in order to try and keep it maintained in the way it was intended by the person startying the thread.

It is however rudeand arrogant to think you have the right to come into a thread, not follow the topic or guidelines of the thread, and then complain when you get asked to do so. or to come into a thread and just do whatever you want, or tellthe poster of the thread that they are wrong for putting guidleines behind their own thread.

Thank you for the reasoning and such behind your belief. One questio nI have though, is wether or not you know where we could get the information on WHY president Bush vetoed each particular proposal? I am simply curious to see what his reasonings were.