Bush compares Revolutionary, terror wars

[LiberalNation]

Then how do you explain Bush sticking to his plan knowing full well that people either don't understand it, don't like or want to see him be even MORE agressive PRIOR to the last presidential election?

Bush isn't up for re election again and has always been like that. That's why his approval ratings are in the toilet. He believes what he believes and wont listen to anybody else.

[avatar4321]

Bush isn't up for re election again and has always been like that. That's why his approval ratings are in the toilet. He believes what he believes and wont listen to anybody else.

That is exactly what we should have in a leader. One who makes decisions for whats best in this nation based upon principles rather than polls.

[LiberalNation]

Not if the leader happens to be "wrong" and continuously makes some very big mistakes for the country he is leading.

[5stringJeff]

Not if the leader happens to be "wrong" and continuously makes some very big mistakes for the country he is leading.

That's why we have elections every four years - to determine whether we want to keep said leader or get a new one. In this case, the majority of Americans (actually, the majority of the Electoral College) voted to kepp him.

[avatar4321]

Not if the leader happens to be "wrong" and continuously makes some very big mistakes for the country he is leading.

Which is why we have terms, term limits, and elections.

[LiberalNation]

True but it doesn't make said person a good leader just because he has the quality mentioned.

[avatar4321]

True but it doesn't make said person a good leader just because he has the quality mentioned.

whether he is good or not is debatable but he is leading. you cant lead people when you change positions with every whim of the public. Especiallly when polls can lie about what the public is wanting.

[Gunny]

I pointed out what giving a president the power to do absolutly anything if he says it's in the name of protecting the country will and could lead to. A president who justifies blatently wrong things in the name of protecting us.

You "pointed it out" by stating:

Yeah lets kill off all American who disagree with the prez, a fascist state is a great idea.

Now you are saying giving the President such power can and will lead to such.

Please provide evidence to support your theory.

[Gunny]

because it was full of republicans loyal to the party and they didn't want to seem weak on terror thinking it would be bad for the next election. They kind of miscaculated on that one.

Bullshit. Everyone who deserves to be called an American wanted some payback for 9/11. Those that didn't are pussies, doomed to exist at the whim of others.

[Gunny]

Not if the leader happens to be "wrong" and continuously makes some very big mistakes for the country he is leading.

Yeah, but he seems to be "continually wrong" only to leftwingnuts. To rational-thinking people, he's only wrong some of the time, and definitely not about anything you lives spend your days ranting about.

[LiberalNation]

Now you are saying giving the President such power can and will lead to such.

Please provide evidence to support your theory.

Look at NAZI Germany, yeah that's an extreme example but Hitler did take away the Germans rights and consolidate his power under the guise of protecting Germany from threats like the evil commies and Jews who were terrorists bent on destroying them.

Note I am not comparing the Bush admin to Hitler and Nazis, he’s not even close but it does show what giving one man so much power has long has is says what he’s doing is necessary to protect the country can lead to very bad things.

[Gunny]

Look at NAZI Germany, yeah that's an extreme example but Hitler did take away the Germans rights and consolidate his power under the guise of protecting Germany from threats like the evil commies and Jews who were terrorists bent on destroying them.

Note I am not comparing the Bush admin to Hitler and Nazis, he’s not even close but it does show what giving one man so much power has long has is says what he’s doing is necessary to protect the country can lead to very bad things.

Hitler was not President of the United States, nor did the US Congress authorize him as CinC to use whatever means necessary to protect the American people.

Evidence that supports your allegation would be presenting a US President who has done such a thing, not Attila the Hun and/or Gengis Khan.

[LiberalNation]

Evidence that supports your allegation would be presenting a US President who has done such a thing, not Attila the Hun and/or Gengis Khan.

That hasn't happened yet so of course I can't. That doesn't mean giving one man absolute power under a certain set of conditions wont lead to it though if you look at history and history repeats.

[Gunny]

That hasn't happened yet so of course I can't. That doesn't mean giving one man absolute power under a certain set of conditions wont lead to it though if you look at history and history repeats.

You're right ... it hasn't happened. Your statement is baseless fearmongering against President Bush.

History can't repeat itself without a precedent.

[LiberalNation]

It has a president just not in the US yet.

and no it's not fearmongering against Bush. He is about a lame duck now anyway.