List Good things the current President has done while he is in office here.

1235

Comments

  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    For everyone


    nope sorry not for me. I live and work in downtown chicago. I work less then 1 block from the sears tower. I live blocks from a federal building. the 95 story trump building is going up next to me. I take the subway or some for of public transportation daily. I travel, by plane, domestic and internationally at least once a month. the sears tower, more then once, has been in plans by el queda to be attacked.

    security is an issue. for you on the farm? no your safe, dont worry
  • gabers
    gabers Posts: 2,787
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    And it shouldn't even be that big of an issue...of all the things to fear everyday, the chances of dying from a terrorist attack are extremely remote before and after 9/11. Just use logic people! With this kind of irrational stressing, I'm surprised many don't shit their pants when they hop into the car everyday.

    Great point.
  • aNiMaL
    aNiMaL Posts: 7,117
    jlew24asu wrote:
    again, thankfully our country has not ben attacked since 9/11. if it was, who would you blame? certainly not el queda. probably bush. and both would deserve blame.
    Every 4 hours there is an attack on US soldiers fighting a war in a country that previously, until we got there, had NOTHING to do with the war on terror.

    The fact that we (as of yet) have not been re-attacked on US soil since 9/11, I believe is just dumb luck. Our Airports are no safer than they were 6 years ago. Our major water supplies are unprotected. Our electrical grids are unprotected. Our nuclear plants are unprotected. The Bush administration hasn't taken hardly any of the recommendations from the 9/11 Commission report seriously or implemented them at all.

    You keep sleeping under your false sense of security that GW will come riding up on his high Texas horse to save your ass. Ask the folks in New Orleans how fast GW and FEMA will come to your rescue.
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    jlew24asu wrote:
    nope sorry not for me. I live and work in downtown chicago. I work less then 1 block from the sears tower. I live blocks from a federal building. the 95 story trump building is going up next to me. I take the subway or some for of public transportation daily. I travel, by plane, domestic and internationally at least once a month. the sears tower, more then once, has been in plans by el queda to be attacked.

    security is an issue. for you on the farm? no your safe, dont worry

    No farm, sorry.

    The odds of you being killed or injured in a terrroist attack even in Chicago are extremely remote.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • aNiMaL
    aNiMaL Posts: 7,117
    jlew24asu wrote:
    you seem like you might be a smart guy, let try saying something intelligent. how does questioning the motives of our government have anything to do with this conversation?
    Because you tried to dismiss things I said as, and I quote, ""left wing bais""

    That gets us nowhere. But thanks for playing.
  • aNiMaL
    aNiMaL Posts: 7,117
    jlew24asu wrote:
    the thread asked what good things has bush done. I gave answers to what I think is good. i.e. no attacks since 9/11 and a good economy.

    lets try again instead of pointess "me bashing"
    And did you expect the rest of us just to sit here with our hands folded in our laps and not respond to your claims?

    I am sorry if you feel we are "me bashing" you...but we are all in this conversation together.

    I just happen to disagree with the sentiment of most of your statements on this subject.
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    No farm, sorry.

    The odds of you being killed or injured in a terrroist attack even in Chicago are extremely remote.


    thanks to bush's strong policy to not allow el queda to have a base of operations and training camps. yes your right
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    jlew24asu wrote:
    thanks to bush's strong policy to not allow el queda to have a base of operations and training camps. yes your right

    The odds are probably higher now, actually. Bad decisions including violent occupations usually adds more fire to the flames.

    The odds were just as remote before Bush and 9/11.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • aNiMaL
    aNiMaL Posts: 7,117
    jlew24asu wrote:
    thanks to bush's strong policy to not allow el queda to have a base of operations and training camps. yes your right
    Too bad he didn’t do anything about it when he first took office (when the CIA and FBI were finally on the same page, agreeing that Al-Qaeda WAS responsible for the USS Cole attacks). Too bad they didn’t take anything president Clinton left them to continue his fight against Osama Bin Laden seriously. Too bad he demoted Richard Clark. Too bad he didn't take much about terrorist seriously until after 9/11. And too bad after 9/11 all that the president saw was a way to go to Iraq and a way to take advantage of a vulnerable, fearful country to gain support so he could execute his own personal agenda that he had since day one of being in office.
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    aNiMaL wrote:
    Every 4 hours there is an attack on US soldiers fighting a war in a country that previously, until we got there, had NOTHING to do with the war on terror.

    The fact that we (as of yet) have not been re-attacked on US soil since 9/11, I believe is just dumb luck. Our Airports are no safer than they were 6 years ago. Our major water supplies are unprotected. Our electrical grids are unprotected. Our nuclear plants are unprotected. The Bush administration hasn't taken hardly any of the recommendations from the 9/11 Commission report seriously or implemented them at all.

    You keep sleeping under your false sense of security that GW will come riding up on his high Texas horse to save your ass. Ask the folks in New Orleans how fast GW and FEMA will come to your rescue.


    those brave solider you speak of are there by choice. they expect to be attacked. not sure what you point was.

    dumb luck? how about the countless attacks that have been stopped? plans un-covered? how do you have any idea about the safety of our water supply? or electical grid? or nuclear plants?

    airports arent safer? seem safer too me. all check bags are scanned and most of us know who travel what little you are allowed to bring on an airplane.

    in chicago for example, we have the country largest water treatment plant. get that? largest in the country. it sits on the lake next to navy pier. both are right on the lakefront next to downtown chicago. security it extremely tight there. no cars can get near it and security guards are always visible.

    I said "left wing bais" because you fail to acknowledge both of the facts I presented simply becuae you are liberal.

    fact one. we have not been attacked since 9/11. some have tried and failed.

    fact 2. our economy is very strong. did you see the dow today? probably not, it soared past an ALL time high.
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    aNiMaL wrote:
    Too bad he didn’t do anything about it when he first took office (when the CIA and FBI were finally on the same page, agreeing that Al-Qaeda WAS responsible for the USS Cole attacks). Too bad they didn’t take anything president Clinton left them to continue his fight against Osama Bin Laden seriously. Too bad he demoted Richard Clark. Too bad he didn't take much about terrorist seriously until after 9/11. And too bad after 9/11 all that the president saw was a way to go to Iraq and a way to take advantage of a vulnerable, fearful country to gain support so he could execute his own personal agenda that he had since day one of being in office.


    and too bad clinton didnt get him when they attacked us AT HOME in 1993. thats a full 7 years before bush came along
  • aNiMaL
    aNiMaL Posts: 7,117
    jlew24asu wrote:
    and too bad clinton didnt get him when they attacked us AT HOME in 1993. thats a full 7 years before bush came along
    Nobody knew of an Al-Qaeda in 1993.

    And nobody knew that Al-Qaeda had anything to do with Black Hawk Down in Somalia. And the right-wingers then didn’t think we should have been there and wanted to leave the next day. Clinton stayed and had an orderly change over to the UN.

    Clinton did more before 9/11 to curtail Al-Qaeda. He tried and failed, but as President Clinton puts it, at least he tried. It was more than the current administration did before 9/11.

    Can you tell us what the current administration did to be proactive before 9/11?
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    aNiMaL wrote:
    Nobody knew of an Al-Qaeda in 1993.

    And nobody knew that Al-Qaeda had anything to do with Black Hawk Down in Somalia. And the right-wingers then didn’t think we should have been there and wanted to leave the next day. Clinton stayed and had an orderly change over to the UN.

    Clinton did more before 9/11 to curtail Al-Qaeda. He tried and failed, but as President Clinton puts it, at least he tried. It was more than the current administration did before 9/11.

    Can you tell us what the current administration did to be proactive before 9/11?


    o i disagree. when they attacked the WTC in 1993 everyone knew of el queda. clinton threw up some missles into afgahistan, missed osama, knew they missed, and thought that was enough to scare him or something.

    bush was in office barely 8 months before we were attacked on 9/11. I dont know what could have been done in those 8 months to get him. invade afgahistan based on an attack that happened 7 years prior? sure that would have been nice.
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    I think most people accomplish a lot in their jobs in 8 months.

    Bush had a sweet vacation.

    Who goes on vacation as soon as they get hired anyway?
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Ahnimus wrote:
    I think most people accomplish a lot in their jobs in 8 months.

    Bush had a sweet vacation.

    Who goes on vacation as soon as they get hired anyway?


    you bring nothing to the discussion
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    jlew24asu wrote:
    you bring nothing to the discussion

    I'm bringing common sense.

    What employer will grant you a vacation even 3 months into your job? None.
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • aNiMaL
    aNiMaL Posts: 7,117
    jlew24asu wrote:
    when they attacked the WTC in 1993 everyone knew of el queda.
    It's not up for debate. The facts are; no one knew who they were. I am not saying Osama Bin Laden wasn’t known....but the word Al-Qaeda wasn't known.
  • aNiMaL
    aNiMaL Posts: 7,117
    jlew24asu wrote:
    you bring nothing to the discussion
    Not true. That person brings up a fine point. GW felt it necessary to take a month long vacation after winning the election when clearly there were a lot more pressing issues that he should have been dealing with....like the current terrorist threats.
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    aNiMaL wrote:
    Not true. That person brings up a fine point. GW felt it necessary to take a month long vacation after winning the election when clearly there were a lot more pressing issues that he should have been dealing with....like the current terrorist threats.


    and did you know six months into clintons term he took a 3 week vacation to martha vineyard? all presidents pull that shit. they work from the "second white houses" if all we are going to talk about is vacation time, i'll find better places to discuss real issues.
  • aNiMaL
    aNiMaL Posts: 7,117
    jlew24asu wrote:
    o i disagree. when they attacked the WTC in 1993 everyone knew of el queda. clinton threw up some missles into afgahistan, missed osama, knew they missed, and thought that was enough to scare him or something.

    bush was in office barely 8 months before we were attacked on 9/11. I dont know what could have been done in those 8 months to get him. invade afgahistan based on an attack that happened 7 years prior? sure that would have been nice.
    Not true about Al-Qaeda in 1993. Osama, yes. Al-Qaeda, no.

    It's obvious you don't know what he could have done in the 8 months before 9/11 and you will defend Bush's every last lack of moves he didn't make when HE could have....but so clearly didn't even try.

    Clinton was president when it was all coming to light for everyone involved and the facts are clear on everything he did try to do. And he admitted that he obviously failed.....but you cannot deny that he did try. Which is 100 times more than Bush did when he took office.

    How can you defend Bush's lack of ANY effort whatsoever before 9/11 to combat the clear and obvious threat of terrorism?

    And how can you or anyone defend his decision to go to war with Iraq and deceiving the American people with treating Iraq as the same war?

    You have already admitted (I believe) that you do not support (or something like that) the war in Iraq as the war on terrorism....so you have to see how the wasted time, money, and resources we have poured into Iraq would have and could have been spent so much more wisely on the actual war on terrorism. And you bet that is on Bush’s shoulders.

    EDIT: I just re-read your statement about your opinion on the Iraq war and the war on terror. You said that it doesn't have to do with terrorism anymore....but that it did before. Do you mean before we invaded or after we invaded? Because that's what's at issue here. I feel it has been a huge waste of resources to go to Iraq in the first place. How do you feel about that?

Categories