OK - Here it is - BUSH BASHING allowed on this thread!! (for those that like the guy , about 2 threads up there is a space to express that)

He may turn out to be good prez. but for know in my opinon he looks like such an idiot!! Time will tell - I wonder what he will blow up first to show all us proud americans how STRONG and Powerful he is.

OK_ I feel better now.

-- kelly (kellytree@hotmail.com), January 29, 2001

Answers

How many did Clinton blow up in Serbia?

-- Leann Banta (thelionandlamb@hotmail.com), January 29, 2001.

Thinking it over, I probably shouldn't have written the above. I'm home with a lousy feeverish cold and feelin' crochety. Excuse my testiness. I'll go bring in fire wood and try to be good.

-- Leann Banta (thelionandlamb@hotmail.com), January 29, 2001.

I too can not say if he will be a good pres. ,can not judge someone on less then a week when he has almost 4 yrs to go.

-- renee oneill{md.} (oneillsr@home.com), January 29, 2001.

I ment month not week.

-- renee oneill{md.} (oneillsr@home.com), January 29, 2001.

I'm not looking for anything like greatness from him and I did'nt vote for him either. I think his experienced staff is gonna treat him like the crazy old aunt thats kept in the spare room. They'll trot him out for special occasions then lock him up before he makes some really stupid mistake.

-- john leake (natlivent@pcpros.net), January 29, 2001.

They kept Reagan outta sight, Clinton attempted to keep his datebook secret. All administrations cover something up. JFK had Marilyn sneak in the back door. The person in charge won't have as much effect on my crops as the drought. I don't fall into the rich mans tax bracket, or apply for public aid, so politics won't affect us that much over the next four years. If there is a total collapse, which is unlikely, the Y2K preperations will be utilized. So. I'm just gonna wait and see how it goes.

-- Jay Blair in N. AL (jayblair678@yahoo.com), January 29, 2001.

Well----! I guess i'll go back on my word just a little. I said I'd not post any political stuff anymmore. I think the man is sincere as much as any politican can be. After the last 8 years of moral degenerates in D.C. almost anything would be an improvment. I'm most excited about Bush's stand on Christianity issues. I'm sure he has other things that I don't approve of but he's still a politican. Like Jay says-they will not affect much we do out here as mu ch as the weather. Dan Quale was considered an idiot by many but I kinda liked the guy. Thought he had the right moral "frame of mind" and Christian values that I approve of. I'll not badmouth the new prez cuz we're not supposed to. We're supposed to pray for our leaders. Georgie w has my prayers!! Matt. 24:44

-- hoot (hoot@pcinetwork.com), January 29, 2001.

Not gunna bash the man...not gunna do it! (imagine my best Dana Carvey impersonation of Geo. Sr....) We are just getting the best of the finely-crafted candidates out of the market research factory, so I don't think there's that much difference between our new President and most others, quite frankly. In reality, it's the special interest groups and hardcore politicos behind the scenes that do the strategic planning. Our newest President is just the tactical expressor of those strategies. He is appealing to a certain market, just like George Clooney or Brad Pitt appeal to their various markets... Think I'm cynical? Why was all that money spent to market the candidate(s) then?

I do think we have had more eloquent leaders before, so I do hope that he doesn't stumble over his words with any serious faux pas. He will get better as he gets more experience. I have no doubt about that.

As to the nut-cases pulling the strings from behind the scenes, well, that's what we should really be concerned about!

-- sheepish (WA) (rborgo@gte.net), January 29, 2001.

I understand, and have no basic problem with, the desire for "Christian values". However, as anyone who has been paying attention to even this one forum can attest, not even the Christians can agree on what constitutes "Christian values" and some who call themselves Christians have (seemingly) gone out of their way to behave in very un-Christian-like ways. And then there is the large hunk of America that has totally different religeous (or no religeous) views, who also deserve to have their viewpoints represented fairly (after all, we all pay taxes).

So my question would be, who's Christian values are we going to be subjected to, the "we are all one in the eyes of God and I love you no matter who you are" Christians, or the "Kill them all and let God sort them out" Christians? This is (I feel) a very salient point. I don't feel that GW is of the latter sort, but those who would lean on him to get their agendas passed (to hold onto or strengthen their power bases) may be, and my question is, "Is he smart enough and/or strong enough to resist them, publicly?" I fear not.

Therefore, while I have little against the man personally, politically, I'm scared spitless that he is going to be pressured into letting the extreme right-wing fundies try turn this country into a haven for intolerent, Crusade-mongering, hate-preaching, "My way or the highway" religeous despots. Sadam Huusein is not the only person on the planet who wants to rule a country with an "Iron fist of God" approach. Only the name of the religion is different, not the means or the methods.

-- Soni (thomkilroy@hotmail.com), January 29, 2001.

My concerns as well, Soni. The fact that Dubya's first act was to declare a national day of prayer and ask that "all Americans kneel humbly before the Lord God" sure doesn't give me any comfort.

Just for the record, I didn't vote for either of the big name bozos. (but I did vote)

-- Sherri C (CeltiaSkye@aol.com), January 29, 2001.

Be afaid, be VERY afraid.....{evil grin from a right-wing fundy}- oooh, we are very scary. Guard your children, we may starve them. Guard your old people, we may steal their medicine. And guard yourself, we may poision your air and your water.

Aw shucks, what was I thinking? We probably won't have time to terrorize the masses, as we will be too busy cleaning up the mess left by the previous occupants. And figuring out how to keep China from nuking us and maybe, just maybe restoring a vision of goodness and rational thought. Oh well, the fun will have to wait. {giggles & more giggles from a scary fundy}

-- Wendy@GraceAcres (wjl7@hotmail.com), January 29, 2001.

wow..an education president with such an astounding command of the english language.Maybe he could get some linguistic advice from Dan Quayle.

-- jz (oz49us@yahoo.com), January 29, 2001.

President bush is against abortion, for education, for restoring some morals. I rather like his accent....especially since I have the same one. Hallelujah! God bless America.

-- Amanda in Mo (aseley@townsqr.com), January 29, 2001.

Well, lets see Georgie doesn't want to take away your right to have guns (this applies mostly to men as I see it since women own far less guns). But, he does want to take away your right to do what you will with your body (this applies only to women). Does this make sense? I see it as a way to give men what they want, but not women.

Also, Georgie wants to ruin the last wilderness we have left by drilling for oil. Lets see, the oil would only last a few years and then we'd be worse off than before. No oil and no untouched wilderness. It would be nice if he was a visionary and would help promote sustainablilty with solar, wind, and geothermal, but I won't hold my breath.

-- debra in ks (solid-dkn@msn.com), January 29, 2001.

He needs to take speech classes to help him read his cue cards. I try not to listen to the news, because each day he tries to limit my rights as a woman and a citizen.

Remember folks, if you want to praise him go elsewhere. This is for those who are as tired of his good old boy ways as we may (or may not) be of the previous prez.

-- Anne (HT@HM.com), January 29, 2001.

It still bothers me some, even though it doesn't matter, that probably he lost Florida and doesn't deserve to be pres. But now that he is I really hope he doesn't rape the environment. That seems his biggest problem so far. If he starts rootin around the parks for oil I may have to dig out my ole protest hippy ways once again!!...Kirk

-- Kirk Davis (kirkay@yahoo.com), January 29, 2001.

Kirk,

It still bothers me some...

Well dont let it. When hand recounts were completed, in each and every county, Bush was even further ahead. He even ultimately received a net gain of 6 votes in Palm Beach. Now keep in mind that that does not include the 1500 military votes that were not allowed nor does it deduct the 5000 convicted felons from Gore or any of the other fraudulent democratic votes. Hey, dont feel too bad. If you guys sat down and actually took a look at the Bush/Gore positions you would find that they are really the same guy, a singular schizophrenic socialist entity that occasionally spells its name differently.

-- William in WI (gnarledmaw@lycos.com), January 29, 2001.

I loved that he ran on this education platform, yet the first point of business was to get ole Ashcroft the anti-women, anti-different! Then two seconds after Ashcroft says he will not go after Roe vs Wade, it's Bush who stops all federal funding for abortions. This is great isn't it! Wrong! This also could stop all federal fundings for certain types of birth control, and also for the morning after pill that has just been o.k. by the FDA. Get the hell out of my bedroom and uterus Bush! Vicki

-- Vicki McGaugh TX (vickilonesomedoe@hotmail.com), January 29, 2001.

i think one bush in the white house was enough. if you think g.w. is so good on education talk to some teachers in texas. maybe earl pitts is right wake up america. bob inse.ks.

-- Bobco (bobco@hit.net), January 29, 2001.

You know, I was going to post this in reply to Debra in KS's question about whether or not there are other Ecocentric people on the forum. I decided to post it here, though, since it wouldn't be nice to go so off-topic on her, and secondly b/c I figure it might fit in better here (although I considered posting it on the "tickled pink" thread, too.) So in reply to Debra's question, I wrote, and submit for your viewing pleasure herewith:

"So, does that make you a "faith-based" group? If so, you may already be a winner! President Bush wants to support faith-based groups by providing them with Federal taxpayer's money to aid in charitable and social service-type distributions. (New Executive Order) If so, you might want to consider elevating your status in your community by becoming the local charity center. You will have to have the Feds audit your books, which I think has always been frowned on by established churches (that autonomy thing!) and probably synagogues and mosques (I don't know about them) but I don't think there is any regulation as to who you have to hire or anything. That way, you won't have to hire anyone who doesn't agree with your ecocentrist philosophy.

Unless of course, I am misunderstanding this current Executive order, it would be a great way to reach out and bring others with similar thoughts (or hey, even better! those you would like to convert!) into your fold! On the other hand, though, you might want to consider that getting a handout from Uncle Sam might make you somewhat beholden to the Fed's politics or they'll take your funding away. Anyway, sounding like someone who believes in something different than let's say, established Christianity, I thought you might benefit from hearing about this new policy."

Just a few things that I was thinking about when I heard about President Bush signing the Executive Order (which was always so popular among conservatives when Clinton was in office...LOL) which permits my and your tax dollars (which cannot be used to, oh, let's see, fund social service organizations overseas which permitted abortion counseling) to be used to support faith-based organizations (which the Constitution is not permitted to define, but I have a hunch might mean Christian churches, nudge, nudge, wink, wink...) to aid (by hiring anyone you want or more importantly, NOT having to hire anyone you don't want: minorities, women, handicapped, etc.) in helping charities at the local level. I think the Constitutional separation of Church and State might need to be considered here...or maybe anti-discrimination laws, and oh, something about Federal officers being permitted to review Church records, which of course any audit would require (and as a taxpayer, I would mandate!)

Aw nuts...(yawn)...I guess I'll just go back to ignoring him again...

btw, the idea acutally was kind, but the method of execution is really flawed. Churches, etc. DO have the pulse of local charity needs, but I would rather everyone joined and tithed and pledged, and we could leave the Feds out of our business!

-- sheepish (WA) (rborgo@gte.net), January 29, 2001.

Thank you, it was a viewing pleasure!

-- Joy Froelich (dragnfly@chorus.net), January 29, 2001.

I am new to this forum but I THOUGHT it was supposed to be about homesteading. Guess I was wrong.

-- Maylene (zedanka@aol.com), January 29, 2001.

Maylene, just because you are a homesteader does not mean sticking one's head in the mud.

-- Lynn Goltz (lynngoltz@aol.com), January 29, 2001.

Aren't we rushing this beating up on Bush deal? He hasn't been there very long. At least he hasn't stolen things from the White House yet. Or burned anyone up in a church yet. I didnt' vote for him, but have been pleasantly surprised so far. But I don't know if it is because he is doing good, or if he is just so much better than Bill Clinton.

-- (ratdogs10@yahoo.com), January 29, 2001.

Oh yea, I forgot to mention my extreme pleasure at the choice of John Ashcroft for Attorny General, ahh...does my heart good!!

And can you believe President Bush would have the nerve to defund oversees abortion funding?!!? You mean my hard earned money will not be funding the killing of forgein babies?!!? What next?!?! No more funding to kill American babies?? Man, things are gettin' out of control now.

Ya' all have a nice evening!

-- Wendy@GraceAcres (wjl7@hotmail.com), January 29, 2001.

Wendy, a lot of people don't like abortion. A lot of people don't particularly want their tax money used for it, anymore than they want it to fund say, tobacco growing, or I'm certain, much better examples that I can't think of.

The sad thing is that many foreign women will now not have access to any other family planning services. So...they won't have access to contraception, which leads to, you guessed it, unwanted pregnancies, which leads in too many cases to illegal, unsafe abortions, and tragically, death for the woman. That's just the reality of it.

If you believe abortion is killing, and that killing is a sin, does it make more sense to kill two? The unborn and the mother, too? Taking away the only sources for family planning is sometimes the end result of that decision. I would bet that just like in the U.S., there were many women who did not like abortion, AND FOR THAT REASON, used the family planning clinics which are now not funded by the U.S. These clinics will fold, and these women must be greatly upset by "our" decision. Less contraception, more unwanted pregnancies, ergo more abortion. Not a pretty picture. Unless, of course, we really don't care about third and fourth world women, which I suspect is really the case in some folks' minds.

And it does seem ironic to lift this "burden" from the taxpayers back, but then to saddle us with the E.O. concerning faith-based charity support. To me, anyway.

-- sheepish (WA) (rborgo@gte.net), January 29, 2001.

There are a lot of foreign based family planning organizations that don't provide abortion services. Their funding will not be affected.

-- diane (gardiacaprines@yahoo.com), January 29, 2001.

Well said Soni and Sheepish!

-- john leake (natlivent@pcpros.net), January 30, 2001.

Maylene,

This forum has homesteaders here and we discuss homestead issues. We also discuss anything else for entertainment and exercise as it comes up. Threads like this just flex our diversity some. Now we all try to tag our thread titles or make them descriptive to content so as not to "blind side" anyone. These threads like this are just a little winter horn rattlin' before spring. BTW welcome to the Countryside Forum, best little town in Cyberworld.

-- Jay Blair in N. AL (jayblair678@yahoo.com), January 30, 2001.

Not trying to co-opt this post into a defense of young Mr. Bush but two questions come to mind. One, when Mr. Clinton ok'ed federal money going to faith based organizations, did you protest as much or is it just because you disagree with some of the faiths now represented? Two, why does "family planning" have to be inextricably tied to abortion? can't these same groups present contraceptive and planning services without mentioning abortion? why are these groups so dependant on our federal money to support these programs and does anyone know how much money we are talking about? Bonus question- Has Ms. Streisand left the country,yet?

-- ray s (mmoetc@yahoo.com), January 30, 2001.

WHAT!?!? My money wont be sent to foreign countries and used to kill babies!?!? We better do something...Hey wait a minute, isnt it you socialists who are always tossing around phrases like "its for the children" and "if it will save just one life"? Well, its for the children and will save more than one life so suck it up and quit whining.

...they won't have access to contraception, which leads to, you guessed it, unwanted pregnancies, which leads in too many cases to illegal, unsafe abortions, and tragically, death for the woman. That's just the reality of it.

Only in happy fuzzy dont believe in reality and its not my fault liberal land. The reality is that my money should not be going to any foreign country for any reason and that this whole program has nothing to do with contraception.

The reality is that we have attempted numerous times in various countries to provide forms of contraception and get these people some type of family planning counciling. When given birth control pills they eat whole packs of them because if one is good then a whole bunch must be better even if we tell them that it doesnt work that way. They pull their condoms over their walking staves as fertility fetishes despite having gone through classes on their proper usage. They show up at family planning meetings for the free cookies and they laugh at the notion that anyone could be so ignorant as to want to limit the size of their family. They dont want your "help" and they dont want to use the tools you give them. Abortion is not a form of contraception.

The reality is that huge portions of this money is siphoned off into the pockets of the petty dictators running the countries that these people are in and only serves to enable their war machines. This program is simply political palm grease and kills a few more than that one you "saved"...

The reality is that each person is responsible for their own actions. If you decide to pound rail road spikes through your head it is not my problem, it is not my fault, it is not my responsibility to attempt to stop you from doing it. The onus rests squarely on your shoulders. In the same way, I am not causing this pregnancy, she is. I am not forcing her to these clinics, she is going of her own will. Dont even attempt to portray her as the victim.

The reality is that the fedgov does not have the authority to take my tax dollars and send them to any foreign country for any reason. These monies, unconstitutionally collected, belong to the people and should be returned to the people in one form or another. Not distributed around the world in some sort of socialist poverty equalizing scheme.

-- William in WI (gnarledmaw@lycos.com), January 30, 2001.

If I ever drive by a motor vehicle accident, I'll remember to not stop and render aid. After all, they probably weren't even wearing their seat belts...not my responsibility for the error of their ways!

William (and all) (and gee, just when it was getting good!) I am chosing to not participate in political or religious threads for a while, owing to the fact that there is too much strife on the forum right now. Tough decision for me to make, actually. So, see you on the homestead topic threads...

-- sheepish (WA) (rborgo@gte.net), January 30, 2001.

THIS IS FOR "WILLIAM IN WI": I don't know what state you are referring to, but it isn't the Florida I live in!!!! "When Hand Recounts were completed, in each and every county," is NOT A TRUE STATEMENT!! Every hand recount that was started, was STOPPED by the Bush Group (with help from the courts). My county had no (as in zero, zilch, etc.) recount. The county to south of me had six (6) duffle bags of uncounted ballots that didn't turn up until AFTER Bush was APPOINTED President!!!

-- Florida GAl (flagal@isgroup.net), January 30, 2001.

Jay, Thank you for your hospitality.

-- Maylene (zedanka@aol.com), January 31, 2001.

The moron doesn't even know the Constitution of the country his daddy is using him to run for a few more years.He thinks states should be the ones making decisions concerning any Native Reservations or populations in their boundaries......how can we be considered Soveriegn Nations with Treaty powers with the Feds if some moron lets states handle it?For that matter, how can we be Sovereign if we have to ask permission? I dunno about you but DUI's & coke snorting don't quite measure up as 'moral' actions to me.Not that I like the other geeks any better, far as I'm concerned there isn't a cigarette papers' worth of difference between any Republicrat or Demican that I can tell, it just boils down to which multinational corporations they let make the decisions while they're in office. Cynical? Based on the governments' relationship with native folks from the beginning I think of it as realistic...... How can you tell when a politician is lying to an Indian? Watch his lips; if they are moving........

-- Sparrowhawk (sparrowkiak@yahoo.com), January 31, 2001.

"If I ever drive by a motor vehicle accident..."

Yeah, and 'They' (don't you love that term for someone? It makes it so easy to remove Them from Us!!! So it doesn't matter about THEM.) haven't exactly had the benefit of being the richest nation on the face of the earth, with free education given to every child for twelve years either. So the heck with them if They're gonna go out and be purposely ignorant like that!!!! Darn 'em all to Heck!!! (of course, every extra child means that much less chance for an education for any others, and then they'll have move children they can't afford education for...)

I wonder how many people Mr. Bush killed when he bombed Iraq? Oops, that's right, that was Them. Don't abort 'em, just bomb 'em. Granted, that was his father, but I don't have any warm fuzzy feelings about this administration when they're already trying to overturn US law prohibiting the assassination of foreign leaders.

-- Julie Froelich (firefly1@nnex.net), January 31, 2001.

On Reagan and George W., I hope people don't confuse style with substance. Reagan was the vision guy. He set the vision and then let others carry it out. (The reason his datebook was closed was because of John Hinkley). George W. approach is more of the government as a corporation. He is the CEO and Chaney is the COO. Cabinet positions are more of a Vice-President for XXX. He sets the agenda and lets others work on implementing it, stepping in only where necessary. Eisenhower, as a military officer, had much the same approach where cabinet meetings were more like military staff meetings. You give your updates of importance, then sat down and shut up.

Let's at least give the guy his honeymoon period.

-- Ken S. in WC TN (scharabo@aol.com), January 31, 2001.

Florida Gal Not to replay the election fiasco, but can you sight your source for the report of these 6 bags of ballots. Are the the same unsubstantiated sources that claimed police roadblocks stopping voters from goiong to the polls of which I still haven't seen one credible news source stating time, place or the names of witnesses or officers involved? The one recount that has been completed by the press and whose results were reported in several papers was in Miami- Dade county and did show Bush picking up 6 votes when the votes were examined by "independent" observers under the rules established during the election. Sight sources, not rumors.

-- ray s. (mmoetc@yahoo.com), January 31, 2001.

Sheepish,

There lies the problem. You are unable to distinguish between voluntary individual action and unconstitutional government mandated "good works". If you are stopping at an accident and assisting of your own volition without expectation of compensation then you are engaging in a conservative behavior. If an accident occurs, then you form a committee and develop a federal government "Roadside Safety Program", give yourself the authority to steal further funds from your fellow Americans to fund it "because its for their own good", create a ninja clad enforcement agency that breaks into peoples homes and kills them in their beds for crimes like not stopping at the accident, and then send in a medical airlift squadron to extract the now dead victim, then you have engaged in liberal behavior.

-- William in WI (gnarledmaw@lycos.com), January 31, 2001.

Ugh, at the risk of igniting....William, that is the best "picture" of the difference between liberalism and conservatism I have had the pleasure to view. Well said, well said. I've said it before, but I will say it again, I love your post's!

-- Wendy@GraceAcres (wjl7@hotmail.com), January 31, 2001.

"The reality is that we have attempted numerous times in various countries to provide forms of contraception and get these people some type of family planning counciling. When given birth control pills they eat whole packs of them because if one is good then a whole bunch must be better even if we tell them that it doesnt work that way. They pull their condoms over their walking staves as fertility fetishes despite having gone through classes on their proper usage. They show up at family planning meetings for the free cookies and they laugh at the notion that anyone could be so ignorant as to want to limit the size of their family. They dont want your "help" and they dont want to use the tools you give them. Abortion is not a form of contraception."

My, aren't we a tad hasty to judge "these people"! I find it extremely hard to believe that you have hard and fast data on this theory. Sorry to say, but it sounds a little...gulp...racial to me. And you've already contradicted yourself. First you say they use the birth control by the pack thinking more is better, then you say they don't really want to limit their family size. Could it be that you really don't know and are just stating what you assume? I don't mean to sound judgemental, but as a nursing student with a background in Social Sci I feel that you are stereotyping.

-- elle (eagle-quest@juno.com), January 31, 2001.

Elle, back when many of the contraceptives were NEW (and I remember those days--I'm so OLD!), there were a number of anecdotes about the mishaps and misunderstandings of how to use the various methods. One from the USA (rather than a foreign country) was about a woman who complained to her doctor that she didn't like the contraceptive he had prescribed. It was a vaginal suppository, but she was EATING it and didn't like the bitter taste! The thing is, those things mostly happened "way back when", like in the 1970's, when, as I said, it was all new information. Some stories never die, just keep making the rounds . . . .

-- Joy Froelich (dragnfly@chorus.net), February 01, 2001.

Elle,

At first I was going to reply something along the lines of "well then you should spend some time investigating for yourself because its happening today in various African countries" but then I realized that you must have known that or you wouldnt have been able to trot out the liberal mantra of "racist". Nice try though.

-- William in WI (gnarledmaw@lycos.com), February 01, 2001.

Joy,

"... those things mostly happened "way back when", like in the 1970's"

Yeah, I suppose the information I have is getting old because Im talking primarily about instances way back in the late 90's.

-- William in WI (gnarledmaw@lycos.com), February 01, 2001.

My goodness, William, that's news to me. Would you care to cite your sources so that I and anyone else interested could read them? I've been trying to search on the web. So far, the only thing I could come up with was mention that about 20-40% of women on the pill, in Africa, missed taking 1-2 pills per cycle. Most common reason was forgetting. Seems likely to be a common problem everywhere, even if not at as high a rate. Oh, and anyone who'd like to suggest some good search words or phrases to try to research this subject, without having to wade through porn sites, please post them. :-/

Kelly, sorry, we've gone off of the topic. If we're annoying you, please post! :-)

-- Joy Froelich (dragnfly@chorus.net), February 01, 2001.

William and Wendy....I love you guys!!! As far as information regarding how birth control is or isn't used in other countries I would imagine Christian missionaries would be a very good source to confirm this with. Of course the subject is really neither here nor there....we ought to stick to improving this country instead of trying to babysit the world. Just imagine what could be done here in the USA if we stuck to strictly humanitary aid overseas(emergency food after natural disaters and such) and put that money to work here. Why we could pay police officers, other emergency personel and teachers what they should be getting! There are thousands of other great uses for that money right here at home. I don't see other countries trying to come over here and help us. We sure could use some help cleaning up our slums and making our cities(and out in the boonies too) safer!

-- Amanda in Mo (aseley@townsqr.com), February 01, 2001.

I don't get annoyed THAT easily (at least on internet- I know I can always shut it off). I just started this thread to give amanda the possibilty to share her happiness with Bush and others to to share their unhappiness with him. The funny thing is that everyone is going to the wrong post to defend their ideas as far as the prez goes. It would be easier and less fighting if everyone went to the appropriate thread and gave their opinons there. Personally I really don't care too much if someone likes him or not. I find it interesting to know your opinons on the guy. Actually I think ANYONE that would want to be the president of the USA must be frickin nuts (why would anyone want to set themselves up in the position to have EVER LITTLE FACT of their WHOLE life analized, scrutinized and judged upon???)

-- kelly (kellytree@hotmail.com), February 03, 2001.

I don't trust a man whose office was bought by Daddy's friends. This man stated in 1999 "that there ought to be limits to freedom". While he was governor of TX, that state became one of the most polluted in the nation with Houston #1 polluted city in the nation. As far as his tax cuts go, I've never made over $19,000 a yr in my life. I bet that vast majority of people in the US don't either. I guess what I'm trying to say is that if you don't make over $30,000 a yr...bend over!!! By the way, I didn't like Gore either! Where's Harry Truman when you need him?

-- Tresa Lamb (blamb@webzone.net), February 04, 2001.

Not bashing President Bush, today. Actually, the older I get, I realize that the life I'm living in 2001, is probably the result of choices I made in 1991. Do you remember when Bill Clinton was first elected, and after 5 or 6 months started taking credit for all kinds of prosperity in America. You and I both know that whatever GDP or employment figures might have looked good at that particular time were the result of years of previous manipulation, by a previous administration, (whether good or bad). And Mr. Bill and Sluggo just happened to be in the driver's seat at the moment. I never heard about JFK's moments with Marylyn Monroe, until YEARS later. Bill Clinton's story is yet to be written. We'll hear a more accurate version about 15 years from now on NOVA, or some other documentary. As for George W., in the words of Karen Carpenter, "We've only just begun". I think so far, though, the only fellow that really wanted to fight has been the only one injured by the President, and that would be Sluggo... ...................

-- action dude (theactiondude@yahoo.com), February 04, 2001.

I was Hoping John McCain would have made it to office, but it wasn't in the cards.

-- action dude (theactiondude@yahoo.com), February 04, 2001.