Tuesday, March 18, 2008

President George W Bush Is A Great President

It has been a while since our last blog entry on the US Elections and as you may know John McCain has secured the Republican nomination. The Democrat race on the other hand is still very close, Osama (Barack) Obama leads Hillary Clinton however the race looks set to be decided at the Democrat National Convention.

Although to be honest folks…I don’t really care. My preferred Presidential candidate can’t run because the American Constitution prevents him from doing so. I mean of course George W Bush. This wonderful man has been the leader of the free world for almost 8 years now and during that time he has accomplished many achievements.

Standing Firm
At a time when almost all the world’s leaders were going crazy and ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, President Bush stood firm and made the correct decision…he did not ratify Kyoto. What President Bush realised was climate change was a natural process and had nothing to do with CO2 emissions. Bush understood that any targets in reducing CO2 emissions would have no effect on the climate and would only serve to harm businesses.

World Security
His Presidency saw a rise in terrorism by al-Qaeda and many countries around the world had a problem with dealing with terrorists. President Bush kindly offered to deal with the terrorists for them. He rounded them up and placed them in a detention centre called Guantanamo Bay. This of course made the world a much safer place.

Saddam Hussein, former dictator of Iraq, failed to comply with 11 UN Resolutions so President Bush had no choice but to liberate the Iraqi people from a brutal, evil man and rid Iraq of terrorist groups. Iraq was not an overnight success but President Bush has decided to stay the course until the job is done and not cut and run like some of our so-called allies have done.

I consider President Bush to be one of the greatest Presidents of all time. He stood firm against the climate nutters; he made the world a safer place; he liberated the Iraqi people; he pointed out to the world, the axis of evil; and of course he had many more achievements, too many to put in a small blog article. This man is brilliant and I will miss him when he eventually leaves office.


Anonymous said...

How can you possibly say that George Bush is "one of the greatest Presidents of all time."?

I see you have failed to mention his views on Darfur and how he can justify the mass murder that is taking place there by not classing it as 'Genocide'. In addition, you have not mentioned fact that he is a corrupt oil explioting tycoon that is destroying the planet. This is shown by his dealings with Shell and Texaco for his own personal benefit and how he is allowing the transnational corporations run rampant and exploit people in Africa for profit, as they are paid low wages in appalling conditions, to give the people of the USA cheap clothing.

Furthermore, he has also ignored all of the new promintent evidence on Climate Change, so that he can continue to make profits from the oil he receives from the Middle East. You can also see how the points made on the Great Global Warming Swindle are all disproved by debates with real scientists, these are shown on Youtube.

As a Moderate, on the political scale, there is no use trying to pass off my views as Liberal, since they are actually all true.

Rumsfeld said...

You hippie prat ^^.

Its funny you should mention Africa, the President's recent trip there highlighted his immense popularity on the continent, where he enjoys approval ratings around 80%! The people obviously don't think he's exploiting them.

And President Bush has indeed labelled the situation in Darfur as genocide, which he said way before the likes of George Clooney and his far left rabble got involved.

Your reliance on YouTube for your arguments underlines your stupidity. If you believed YouTube, you would think Ron Paul was going to be Republican nominee!

I wholeheartedly endorse Lionheart's praise of President Bush. The President is a towering figure in modern politics, and his skill and political genius must be savoured in his final year of office.

Anonymous said...

To start, I would love to know where you got this evidence that he enjoys approval ratings of 80%, as I am sure the corrupt leaders are actually the ones who are voting and there is a very little possibility that the people that are being exploited are getting to vote themselves.

The fact of genocide is that there was an interview, only 2 months ago, on BBC News where George Bush actually admitted himself that the situation did not actually class as genocide.

Additionally, how can you think that a rational debate over climate change can class as "stupidity" just because it has been put on Youtube. That, naturally, shows your arrogance of the issue because Youtube holds a whole host of thought provoking political debates that have been taken from television programmes.

I think that everyone can finally breathe a breath of fresh air, when he is finally removed from office as he refuses to actually move on in modern politics since he still listens to religious radicals from the red states and the fact that he refuses to help give America a clean and self-reliant source of energy.

Rumsfeld said...

The President has in fact set up the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate independent of the communist Kyoto Protocol as a means to develop clean energy sources. He has also sought to ensure America's energy security by supporting efforts to cleanly open up the ANWAR oil reserves in Alaska. However, his efforts have been blocked by the Far Left.

And BBC's 6 O'Clock News of all places actually highlighted the President's huge popularity in Africa, no doubt due to his tripling of US aid contributions to the continent.

It seems to me that you are blinded by left wing propaganda and anti-Bush hysteria which is completely devoid of the facts

Anonymous said...

The Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate has not yet put in any measures to reduce America's CO2 emmissions and it has been set up outside Kyoto because this allows Bush to have complete control. This enables him to slow down progress for renewable energy resources so he can continue to produce revenue through the transnational corporations, such as Shell.

The ANWAR oil reserves should naturally be protected from use as mining for the oil is destroying the natural landscape, hence the sensible reason for not allowing Bush to get his greedy hands on it. Moreover, these reserves would only last mere years with the current consumption from America. The only properly solution is renewable resources.

President Bush's 'popularity' in Africa is a complete fabrication. The US Aid was tripled in 2004, when the previous aid was only $15 million and that was a total disgrace from the world's richest MEDC. In addition, the aid contributions have continued to decline since then, since Bush wishes to make Africa more "self-reliant" and Africa cannot possibly become more self-reliant, at this stage, until they have been relieved of their debt. Even Russia has donated $500 million in aid, which naturally shows Bush's selfishness.

From the above, you can clearly see that your information is outdated and false. You really do follow the stereotypical blind following of what the corrupt American media teaches you.

Rumsfeld said...

^^You're whole argument is a world of left wing fairytales and make believe.

President Bush has indeed tripled the US African aid budget, but what you don't realise is that the American people also give millions more out of their own pockets and don't particularly want the state to do it for them.

And what evidence do you have that the President is a Shell big wig? You are peddling lunatic fantasy.I think the world would be fascinated to see it.

Anonymous said...

I think your entire argument is a world of naivety and disillusion; but then again you are talking far right wing insanity.

I never denied that he had not tripled the US African Aid; but I am saying that $75 million is nowhere near enough to cover the amount of debt Africa is left in and it as I have said before it has reduced since then. In addition, I can assure you that the American people cannot possibly donate enough money to cover this, which again shows your naivety.

I would like to refer you to this website, which proves that President Bush has dealing with the oil company Shell:


Now you can clearly see that you are so obsessed with trying to be right wing and supportive of the Neo-conservative government that you have ignored the facts.

Now then, as I have shown the world the evidence you will no doubt produce some vague point to combat my reply and since you have not actually used any hard evidence to back up your accusations, it makes your argument worthless and obviously now seem fantasy.

Rumsfeld said...

I was expecting a real scoop, yet we are sold short with a conspiracy theory by an Observer [ie the left wing Guardian] journalist with a history of outlandish accusations.

You have said that the President has dealings with companies such as Shell and Texaco for personal financial gain, yet this article in no way produces such evidence! All it says is that the US government sought advice from a FORMER Shell CEO. Seeking expertise from senior industry figures seems normal to me. You're clearly scraping the barrell and obviously have nothing to back up your pathetic fantasies.

And why should the Americans completely bail out Africa? The plan is for $50 BILLION over 5 years already, not $75 million like you say.

Go and smoke the rest of your pot.

Anonymous said...

I must say that I do find it amusing how you must resort to ill observed insults to try and combat my reply.

Now back to business. You have obviously tried to cherry pick evidence to support your argument from the article when there is none to be found. I will now simplify the article for you so you cannot get it wrapped around your neck. The article states that Bush planned to make the profits from the oil by making it state controlled business, thus creating making money for the Neo-conservative government. In addition, he has constant relations with large oil companies ever since he began his own oil business in Texas, in 1978, when he merged with competing oil companies to revive his business. These relations have grown since then, leading to the primary goal of state control for oil customs.

"And why should the Americans completely bail out Africa?" I have to say that I have never heard anything so ridiculous and selfish. Africa is in a dire state with people starving, homeless and war ridden. How can you not even offer them the chance for equality, when it is partially America's fault for their situation to begin with, the exploitation for manufactured goods is a prime example.

Finally, the $50 billion that you have referred to is actually the amount of exported goods that Africa can now give to the US. It has nothing to do with aid at all! Moreover, it allows Africa to be exploited further because they can now put more people to work in sweat shops to make goods for the US.

Now that I have proven every point of yours incorrect since the start of the debate, even those that you have stopped mentioning after I defeated you on each issue, such as: Darfur, Climate Change and America's energy supply, I can safely say that I have won this debate.

Rumsfeld said...

Yeah, yeah I see you have smoked more drugs and dreamt up some more crackpot accusations.

Once again you fail to prove your main accusation [or any of the others] that President Bush is on the payroll of major oil companies and has made personal gain from any such relationships if they exist. No matter what rubbish you spout, there is not a shred of evidence to support this.

And you have not won on the other points at all. Unlike you I am not foaming at the mouth with ridiculous anti-American bile. The original points I made still stand true so I am not going to continually repeat myself just because a mentally deranged cretin says they are not.

And to finish off, you might want to read this about the President's African efforts from the not exactly pro-Bush Independent. It reaffirms that what I said was true all along, and that you are the loser of this debate.


Anonymous said...

I cannot see why you have to keep referring to drugs when I have never actually touched any in my life! I am far too intelligent for that.

If you read all my previous statements you can clearly see that I have proven that oil companies have been involved with the Neo-conservative government, through the state control of oil imports and exports, and faced the evidence you are obviously just turning the opposite direction by pretending I have not said a word.

Furthermore, the "anti-American bile" that you said I have stated is absolute tosh. I truly admire the U.S.A., I just dislike the corrupt leader and his government.

Another fact that you have said is that you will not repeat yourself. I did not actually want to hear you repeat yourself, since I only need to hear fascist babble once. The fact is that you never actually replied to some of the points I made and that is because you simply could not.

If you actually provided a working link that would be helpful; but
I am sure that the link you have provided will be full of comments from the corrupt leaders of Africa and how they are making a nice sum of money from the exploits of their suffering people, so I am sure it is not necessary for me to read it.

Consequently, as I can see that you have now resulted to using insults and an argumentative tone for the debate it clearly shows that you have lost and I am the superior politician.

Heß said...

Anonymous mentions the situation in Darfur. As you know Darfur is not an international concern rather it is an internal squabble between the various tribes that exist within the region. Now I do believe that President Bush has described the situation in Darfur as a genocide, although whether he has or hasn’t is not of any concern. As far I am concerned the situation in Darfur is not a genocide and is just a minor tribal conflict.

Internet Link
As for the suggestion that Rumsfeld’s link does not work, that is outrageous. I have tried the link myself and it works fine. I suspect that you do not know how to copy and paste a link, which is probably why you are unable to see the article Rumsfeld referred to.

As for the allegation that Bush is on the board of Shell, I have heard nothing about this, although that is probably because Bush is not on the board of Shell.

You mentioned that Bush is corrupt. This is not true! The USA has not had a corrupt President since Bill Clinton was in office. Remember Whitewater! Also Clinton is guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice.

Africa is of no concern to the West at all, and the fact that Bush has given aid to Africa just underlies the generosity of this great man. You mention people are starving and homeless, and that Africa is war ridden. Well, whose fault is that??? THE AFRICANS THEMSELVES. These people have tons of children in the hope that they will all go out and work to earn some money but what they don’t understand is that having lots of children means there are lots of mouths to feed. Yes, Africa is war ridden but again that is the fault of the Africans themselves who insist on fighting over the smallest piece of land or for the tiniest amount of power.

If you have any other points then feel free to air them. I will only be too happy to explain the truth to you and dispel your myths and fantasies.

Anonymous said...

You guys tell him. Oh yeah and what about Bush saving our economy after 9/11? We should have lost so much because the world TRADE center was destroyed, but we ended up fine.

Anonymous said...

Well, Lion, it ceases to be a "small tribal conflict" when its basically one tribe (islamic pureists) have all the guns (relatively speaking). Seriously can you draw up some differences between Darfur and the original "genocide" of the Kurds by Saddam? I personally think we should go in there and start carpet bombing the fuck out of every single military installation that comes up on the map.

I am neither a leftist or a right winger, personally im with george washington when i say political parties/neo ideologies are for sheep.

That being said, if George Bush is going to play the "crusade against evil" (islam) card, then he needs to do it right and start clearing up darfur. why hasnt he? like anyone who plays the damn religion card (including islamic "purists"), it has nothing to do with "evil people" or "religious terrorists".

We will go where the money is, not where the evil people are. As shameful as it is, George Bush is being as sensible (if not amoral) as one can be and is simply trying to get American hands on valuable oil. Why? Because we can, wtf are you going to do about it?

Now if Darfur was an oilfield like Kuwait...There would be a "Liberation of the poor people of Darfur" faster than you can say "oil rig"

Anonymous said...

Will candidate John McCain keep child predators out of our country?

you be the judge.

surely, Sen. John McCain has painted himself as "Tough On Immigration" but what do the facts say about him when you do the research on his voting record?

On 06/06/2007 McCain voted "NO" on passing an amendment that would:
" prohibit undocumented immigrants convicted of aggravated felonies, domestic violence, stalking, violation of protection orders,CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN, or crimes relating to the illegal purchase or sale of firearms, from gaining legal status."

c'mon john, can't we at least keep the child molesters out of our country?

but that's not all;

Far from his supposed support of American patriotism, he wouldn't even vote yes to declare English as our common language, when he voted "NO" to an amendment entitled "To preserve and enhance the role of the English language." But prehaps it was the wording that confused him; here's the synopsis of that amendment:

" a vote to adopt an amendment that declares English to be the common language of the United States."

I mean you wouldn't think we'd even need a vote on that, but who knows?

Maybe Johnny boy is just confused in general, here's an excerpt from an interview he did with Bill O'Reiley back in May 31 of 2007:

O'REILLY:"--they want to bring in millions of foreign nationals to basically breakdown the structure that we have. In that regard, Pat Buchanan is right. So I say that you've got to cap it with a number."

MCCAIN: "In America today, we have a very strong economy, low unemployment. So we need additional farm workers, including by the way, agriculture."

This bizarre response from McCain comes back in 2007, when we had a strong economy right? I mean it's not like gas prices were skyrocketing along with unemployment or home foreclosures, last year right?

But lets get back to his voting record, I mean we already know you can't trust what he says, he's a politician after all!

What about voting on another bill in 2007 to reduce the number of foreign nationals working here in the United States? How did our Senator from Arizona vote on that?

He didn't.

Apparently he either didn't show up to work that day, or he just did not feel it was important enough to vote on. After all, as he said to O'Reilly, "--we have a very strong economy, low unemployment. So we need additional farm workers--"

Hey, I don't know about you but I think alot of folks who lost their farms to foreclosure last year as a direct result of fuel prices and legal actions by the Monsanto Corporation might have something to say about that statement!

But surely he supported spending billions of tax dollars to create that stronger border fence with mexico right? Well... not so much at first.

McCAin voted "NO" on a bill "To appropriate an additional $1,829,400,000 to construct double-layered fencing and vehicle barriers along the southwest border"

but perhaps it just didn't include enough pork-barrel spending for him, he later flip-flopped on his decision when they took out the bit about "reduces discretionary funds in the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations on a pro rata basis by $1.83 billion" which would have neatly paid for the border fence by cutting homeland security's ability to spend $1.83 billion on whatever the hell they want Seems we don't need to have any control over what homeland security decides to waste our money on, thank you very much!

But maybe we're being to hard on the guy. Surely he's got strong views on immigration, he just doesn't always remeber to vote the right way.

Here's a quick run down of his views on immigration, and all other issues as stated by himself in an Issue Positions Test of 2004: (sorry, he has refused to participate in the 2008 version, I wonder why?):


remember, "x" marks the positions he DOES support!

Finally, don't believe everything the media tells you. Do your own research, here are some links to the voting records mentioned here, and the O'Reilly Interview:







http://votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=13888&can_id=53270 english as american language

http://votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=17107&can_id=53270 funding for military intelligence

http://votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_member.php?cs_id=13435 deny immigration to child molestors,

Anonymous said...

Great Satire!

Anonymous said...

Anonymous, shut your mouth. You have no clue what your talking about. Who has made you safer? Bush. Who gave you more taxes back? Bush. Who caught Hussein? Bush. Who tripled African aid? Bush. Exactly. Who is putting us in debt more? Obama. Who is turning a country into a socialist country? Obama. Who is closing down the the prison where the people who killed americans are? Obama. Obama is a Hugo Chavez and guess what 80 % of his country is in poverty. They have the same policies. Who is cutting defense so terrorists can harm us? Obama. Wow sounds a lot like Clinton. I remember what happened when he left office. Do you? Ya 9-11. Obama is a jimmy carter raising taxes to a new high and a bill clinton for cutting defense.

Anonymous said...

pcam you are a fucking moron. ONe two three four Bush's mother is a whore...

Anonymous said...

Anonymous, grow up! You are acting like a child, and have know idea what you are talking about. But that sounds about right, because the majority of well educated people in America vote republican. Want to know why that is, because they know what is going on in the world, and know who the best leader will be.

Anonymous said...

Oh and that leader is NOT Obama!

Anonymous said...

David Suiter ties a sleaford framework without the incompetent. Suiter balances a test variant under the public miracle. Suiter accords court. Suiter mounts an excellent separator above the global pitfall.

AlecW1234 said...

Pcam, how can you possibly credit the least popular president since Washington with "keeping us safer" and helping with ANY economic problems? After Clinton, we slowly went economically downhill for the entire 8 years, ending with this enormous crash at the very end, right in time for Obama to come in and get all the blame for it.

And on safety, not only should Bush not be praised, but depending on how much involvement he actually had in deciding our course of operation, he should be jailed. Now I don't know if he is for sure the one directly responsible for the horrible unamerican mess that happened in Guantanamo bay prison, because details on things like that are often kept from the public, but whoever is directly responsible whether it be Bush or not should pay for their crimes. We allowed "suspected" terrorists with little evidence to be jailed there without record for however long the government damn well pleased, or until they "talked." Seeing as none of them ever got trials, some obviously were innocent. Did I mention the torture? Ah, yes. Who could forget that. Because that's what this country is REALLY all about isn't it? Methods like shocking of the testicles and waterboarding of "suspected" terrorists. I read an article a few months back about one Islamic man's story who found himself in guantanamo. He was tortured, and later found innocent (after the Canadian government stepped in, lucky for him he wasn't from this country and there was a country stepping in to help him out). If there was definitely one man, who's to say there weren't more? But don't worry, America was safe! I'm sure there was absolutely no way that we could have been kept safe without torturing innocent people for a greater good, ignoring the foundation of basic principles in our Constitution in the process. Right Pcam? But I'm glad he "kept us safe" so well. Oh, except for that one time, on 9/11. But he kept us safe all those OTHER times. Hooray for the 99% president!

old days said...

i wish all you Bush haters would come up with your own opinions. you watch that fat cow mike moore, and all of a sudden you know everything. and its the same thing, ah he went to iraq for oil, he was behind 9/11 BLAH,BLAH,BLAH. Bill Clinton said himself we need to rid saddam and take care of iraq. funny how none of you HATERS mention that.

Unknown said...

I applaud You Heß, I wholeheartedly agree!!! I truly admire President Bush, because he is an individual and he does what he knows is right, not blindly follow world concensus which is flawed, especially with Kyoto for example. For the same reason, I admire President Klaus from Czech Republic, he too is rational to see how the impairments global warming Kyoto would have to business. I recommend highly reading 'Blue Planet in Green Shackles' which is about the costs global warming protocols such as Kyoto impair freedom, both freedom wise, and also bad for the economy.

I agree that President Bush is a most commendable and admirable character for having integrity to stand his ground to do what was right and necessary.

I agree with regards to the security point too. I read this really really smart quote from Him which regarding security:
" Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this could have been avoided:. We have an obligation to call this what it is - the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history"

I just found that really profound and it reinforces my admiration for him . I feel very sorry for him that he gets a lot of criticism, but I think in long term, his great contribution will be appreciated, because he was able to stand his ground to do what's right!

Anonymous said...

I personally view Bush as a hero! Now, I'm not going to lie. I am partially biased as he grew up in my hometown. That, however, has very little to do with why I look up to him. People are always making claims and others demand proof. The next minute, they trade roles. The way I see it, there will always be good and bad things about presidents (still trying to get a bright side on Nobama, though) and there will always be proof of claims or criticism for lack of proof. What matters is if the good outweighs the bad, and in Bush's case, it most certainly does. Now you may have noticed that I have said nothing in support of Bush or in opposition to Bush haters. This is because I do not wish for my individual opinion to be countered by a bull-headed politics nut. And if you're even daring enough to hate Bush as a person, then I sicerely pray for you. While not the best president ever, he is truly a great man. And in closing, I say good day.

Unknown said...

George Bush rocks!!

Bush supporter said...

Let me just mention before I start, that whoever hates this president is naturally going to search for the most begative things about him and ,usually, ignore or refuse to believe the true and positive things he's done. This could go with disliking Bush, Obama, etc.

Now, I am personally a fan of Bush. He may have not always done what everyone else liked and may have not been liberal enough for the liberals...(which goes without saying... but he did do one thing that not many presidents have done.. and that one thing is to follow through with everything that he said he was going to do. Bush haters would be the first people to bitch about that if he didn't.

Now, as for this whole Kyoto safe envirnoment stuff, he did take steps, did he not? Good. And for anyone to make comments on him not allowing America to breath safe reliable air because he didn't pass that one thing... is ridiculous. With no complete proof that that would help the environment...why should he just go through with that? That would make him ignorant thus giving people more reason to bitch.

Also... he did give some money to Africa... it may not be more than Russia, but he gave... and that's important. Since when did charity become a competition? 75 million is no small sum and besides that, he is not fully responsible for Africa. He is multi tasking, and doing it well.