57% of Americans Think Bush Is Not Honest

November 11, 2005

Quote:

Almost six in 10 — 57 percent — said they do not think the Bush administration has high ethical standards and the same portion says President Bush is not honest, an AP-Ipsos poll found. Just over four in 10 say the administration has high ethical standards and that Bush is honest. Whites, Southerners and white evangelicals were most likely to believe Bush is honest.

Why evangelicals?

/Bevin

November 11, 2005

Evangelicals are basically Bush's base, as I understand it. They're the people who tend to believe he can do no wrong. (And that the only alternative is the socialist, abortionist, capitalism hating, secular humanist Demoncrats. <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />)

November 12, 2005

The Democrats have been gearing up for next year's election by being on the attack. The poll shows they are succeeded. President Bush just started fighting back today. If he keeps it up I suspect we will see this number change significantly.

Please show my articles where various evangelicals have said Bush can do no wrong. If there are no such articles let's put the strawman away. I don't know anyone that says Bush can do no wrong.

November 12, 2005

Defending every single thing he does, rather than acknowledging that he makes mistakes, is de facto saying that he never does wrong.

November 12, 2005

Quote:

President Bush just started fighting back today

Yes, he did. In his own, should not be imitated, style - i.e: lie loudly, ignore everything that doesn't say what you want it to say, and accuse everyone who disagrees with you of not supporting our troops and giving comfort to the enemy.

Even the Republican's are beginning to break ranks, having seen how corrupt and self-serving this administration is.

Quote:

In a speech in Philadelphia, Sen. Rick Santorum (news, bio, voting record), R-Pa., criticized how the war has been presented to Americans — both by the media and the White House. Afterward, Santorum said the war has been "less than optimal" and "maybe some blame could be laid" at the White House. "Certainly, mistakes were made," Santorum said.

/Bevin

ps: Shane - I have been in the USA since 1982. In almost every election since then I have preferred the Republican line. I am not some Democrat who is out to get Bush. He is truely, and by head and shoulders, the worst US president in my adulthood.

November 12, 2005

Quote:

Shane said:

Please show my articles where various evangelicals have said Bush can do no wrong. If there are no such articles let's put the strawman away. I don't know anyone that says Bush can do no wrong.

I will go you one better, Shane. I will show you a person who basically has said that Bush can do no wrong....

But you need to do something...Go to the bathroom and look in the mirror...There you will see the person we have been talking about....

November 12, 2005

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

I will show you a person who basically has said that Bush can do no wrong....

But you need to do something...Go to the bathroom and look in the mirror..

Shane ~ post #194031 - Mon Nov 07 2005 06:44 PM:

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

I think I have shown many areas where I disagree with President Bush. I have great respect for him as an individual and a Bible-believing Christian, but that doesn't mean I agree with him on all things. We disagree on the some environmental issues, expansion of government, spending and putting preasure on big oil to name a few.

I hope to see less inflamatory, emotional-based comments like this - especially when they are not even accurate. Let's try to play nice with others.

November 12, 2005

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

He is truely, and by head and shoulders, the worst US president in my adulthood.

Since 1982.. I would say Reagon was a better President than G.W. Bush. I think his father did a better job than G.W. has but the Democrats got him good. He gave into them and raised taxes and than they turned around in 1992 and blamed him for the slowing economy. President Clinton was never really tested with anything major. After 1994 a strong speaker of the House pretty much set the agenda. President Clinton certainly did a better job than G.W. Bush at working with Congress and at the time Congress was of another party - unlike G.W. Bush.

Going back I think G.W. Bush has clearly done a better job than President Carter. I think, without question, G.W. Bush would have handled the hostage situation and economuy better. President Ford was never really tested and served for only a couple of years. President Nixion was a diplomat, but so is President G.W. Bush. I don't think China opened up becuase of Nixion but rather it just decided to do so and Nixion happened to be President. Nixion handled the Vietnaum war terribly as did LBJ before him and even JFK before him.

So I don't see G.W. Bush as a above or below average President. As an individual I think a lot of him. As a President I think of him as average.

However in the past 10 years the news media has become polorized to the point it is starting to resemble the yellow jornalism the nation started off with. I think more people identify with a specific political party today than they did 20 years ago and that is because of the Right and Left media. I think FOXNews has the right idea of trying to be balanced instead of objective and hopefully we will see more networks move in that direction - especially now that some of the old news anchors are retiring.

November 12, 2005

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Defending every single thing he does, rather than acknowledging that he makes mistakes, is de facto saying that he never does wrong.

I tune into and listen to a few minutes of the Right-wing extreames here and there and I have even heard them criticise the President from time to time. I have never heard anyone that belives he can do no wrong. So it seems that is just a strawman - but perhaps someone is out there saying something I haven't heard.

November 12, 2005

Perhaps in the past month and a half the Right has started acknowledging that Bush has made mistakes, but it was pretty tough to find before that.

But anyway, maybe it was a strawman (although I didn't actually advance it as an argument in the first place). I was just trying to answer bevin's question about why evangelicals continue to support him so strongly. The second half of my answer is also relevant: they consider him so much better than the alternatives.

November 13, 2005

Quote:

Nixon handled the Vietnaum war terribly as did LBJ before him and even JFK before him.

VietNam was a disaster. The Americans/Australians/New Zealanders were utterly stupid to get involved. Nixon was smart enough to realize a no-chance-of-winning situation and to get out.

Somalia was a disaster. Clinton was smart enough to realize Bush-senior had really screwed up and to get out.

No US president in my lifetime has so successfully ruined the world's opinion of the USA as has GWB.

He has clearly demonstrated that the only thing his administration cares for is the almighty dollar in the pockets of his cronies. He has demonstrated he is prepared to lie, bully, bribe, and crush in search of that goal.

He has also demonstrated that he believes that he has the right as president to order torture, kidnapping, secret prisons, and stamping on the protecting the rights of citizens - and will do so to protect his administration.

/Bevin

November 13, 2005

I try not to engage in personal slander of others. Regardless if they are members of Club Adventist or President of the United States. God is no respector of persons and I try to follow His example.

November 13, 2005

A truthful statement is not slander.

He has clearly demonstrated that the only thing his administration cares for is the almighty dollar in the pockets of his cronies.

---- Look at the no-bid contracts and the payments to Halliburton

He has demonstrated he is prepared to lie,

---- He was CERTAIN Iraq had WMD

bully

---- lots of threats at all levels, personal to international

bribe

---- Turkey, for instance

, and crush

---- Why invade Iraq, and no other places?

in search of that goal.

He has also demonstrated that he believes that he has the right as president to order torture

---- VP Cheney is doing this as we write

, kidnapping,

---- Italy is trying to get CIA personal extradited there because they kidnapped someone on Italian soil, and shipped them to Egypt to get tortured

secret prisons,

---- acknowleged by the administration

and stamping on the protecting the rights of citizens

---- the more people know about his anti-terrorist legislation, the less they like it

and will do so to protect his administration.

/Bevin

November 13, 2005

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Look at the no-bid contracts and the payments to Halliburton

President Clinton did the same thing. No-bid contracts for Haliburton for the Cosovo War. Too bad President Bush didn't give out no-bid contracts to Haliburton for huricane relief. The private sector is much more efficent than the government.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

He was CERTAIN Iraq had WMD

As was Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and the rest of the world. Even the grand puba of liberalism Hans Blix was only "starting" to suspect Saddam didn't have any when the US invaded.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Bribe... Turkey, for instance

Turkey was not offered a bribe. That is something the wackos at moveon.org would claim. Turkey was offered money for the use of their resources. That is like saying a person renting a house is bribing his landlord so he can live there. It is rent, not a bribe.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Why invade Iraq, and no other places?

Iraq had a cease-fire agreement with the US. They had violated that agreement on several occations. When a nation violates a cease-fire agreement.. that normally means people start firing again.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

He has also demonstrated that he believes that he has the right as president to order torture

Every man that has been President since the CIA was formed has allowed them to torture. Now we may believe that Bush should have stopped this but let's not start attacking him as an individual for a political disagreement we have with him.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

the more people know about his anti-terrorist legislation, the less they like it

What about France?!?! Has anyone seen what kind of laws are being made in France? Makes President Bush's anti-terrorist legislation look like the Bill of Rights.

I can disagree with a politician without attacking him or her on a personal level. I disagree with the Reverand Al Sharpton on a number of political issues, but I don't attack him as an individual. He claims to be a Christian so I consider him a brother in Christ.

November 13, 2005

Quote:

I think I have shown many areas where I disagree with President Bush. I have great respect for him as an individual and a Bible-believing Christian, but that doesn't mean I agree with him on all things. We disagree on the some environmental issues, expansion of government, spending and putting preasure on big oil to name a few.

Gee, that last reply to Bevin, and couple that with the above statement only shows that I was right...You do defend the President....

Quote:

I hope to see less inflamatory, emotional-based comments like this - especially when they are not even accurate. Let's try to play nice with others.

[]http://media.damnfunnypictures.com/forum%20pics/MiscAgainstRules.jpg[/]

I wasn't being mean...I was stating what I have observed. And according to the last bit of exchanged between you and Bevin over the President, I would say you are defending the President over some serious issues that many have with him.

Shoot, you can't take a bit of ribbin' when it comes to who is on which side.

November 13, 2005

Quote:

57% of Americans Think Bush Is Not Honest

DUH! What a revelation! They all lie. The synonym for politician is liar. Religion doesn't matter. They just do what they think is best "For the better Good". Lie, cheat steal, whatever!

Now I will go hide so I won't get beat up.

This is why I am silent in political forums, but the devil made me do this one.

November 13, 2005

Shane said:

Quote:

As was Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and the rest of the world. Even the grand puba of liberalism Hans Blix was only "starting" to suspect Saddam didn't have any when the US invaded.

Thats a typical right wing talking point. They key difference is that they did not take the country to war with the loss of 10's of thousands of lives. Many believed there were probably WMD but they were not certain enough or did not deem it dangerous enough to go to war! Bush wanted a war. He was wrong. Rummy said, "we know where they are". Did he see picture were there first hand accounts. They were all to willing to believe becasue they wanted the war regardless of the cost in lives.

Thats dispicable. This Admin has taken Politricks to a new low.

Quote:

That is like saying a person renting a house is bribing his landlord so he can live there. It is rent, not a bribe.

If the tenant pays $30,000/month instead of $1,000/month then something strange is going on.

Quote:

Iraq had a cease-fire agreement with the US. They had violated that agreement on several occations. When a nation violates a cease-fire agreement.. that normally means people start firing again.

The war did not occurr because a ceasfire agreement was broken.

The Neo-cons wanted to remove Saddam to redraw the mid-east. WMD was the best argument for war. They "fixed the intellegence" thats pretty clear now because there were no WMD's. I don't believe that the CIA, DEA are that bad!

Quote:

Every man that has been President since the CIA was formed has allowed them to torture.

If that is the case why the need for rendition?

Quote:

What about France?!?! Has anyone seen what kind of laws are being made in France?

What laws are you talking about?

November 13, 2005

Quote:

the more people know about his anti-terrorist legislation, the less they like it

What about France?!?! Has anyone seen what kind of laws are being made in France? Makes President Bush's anti-terrorist legislation look like the Bill of Rights.

And what does FRANCE have to do with standing for fairness with prisner of war? During WW2, if a german had to fall into enemy hands, it was "surrender to the Americans"...Why? Because they treated thier prisners MUCH more humanly than the Russians...And I could be wrong about this, but I was under the impression the geneva conventions were hammered out at the urging of the Americans....

The country of the United States has the reputation for being human in thier treatement of prisoners of War. When we have reports that our soldiers are NOT treating the prisioners humanly, what's to prevent our enemies from just outright slaughter of our soldiers?

Sorry, Shane, but publicied reports of torture of prisoners do the US no good. And to support it is to support the inhuman treatment of soldiers against a time honor document, the geneva convention.

November 13, 2005

When looking at this thread on the Main Index it showed up as "Re: 57% of Americans Think ..."

My first reaction was "Wow! That's way higher that I would have expected!"

Graeme

/me goes and takes shelter in the corner, head bowed...

November 13, 2005

More inflamatory emotionally charged comments... It is disappointing that some don't even want to play well with others <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

[]http://media.damnfunnypictures.com/forum%20pics/MiscAgainstRules.jpg[/]

November 13, 2005

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Thats a typical right wing talking point. They key difference is that they did not take the country to war with the loss of 10's of thousands of lives.

Over 100 Democrats in Congress voted to go to war. Among those were Senator John Kerry and Hilary Clinton. They were not lied to by the President. They got their intelligence information independent from the President.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

The Neo-cons wanted to remove Saddam to redraw the mid-east.

First, I know you are somewhat new here, but we try not to use inflamatory, emotionally-charged comments. Those that do this repeatedly are subject to being banned from specific forums here. The term "neo-con" is often used in such a context simular to the term "bleeding heart". While I am much closer to the middle than the far right, I am sensative to those at the extreames. So let's proof-read our posts before posting them, say a prayer for guidence, and try to play well with others. <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Secondly, no lines have been redrawn in the middle east. That is what everyone is trying to avoid and what Saddam was trying to do.

November 13, 2005

I do not favor torture. What I have done is try to put it in prespective. During WW2 the POWs held in prison camps were treated well, once they got there. However many POWs were tortured and killed before ever getting to a prison camp.

The CIA was established in 1947 and has been involved with torture and all kinds of secret activities that we still know nothing about. In recent years the CIA has had a lot of egg on its face. First was 9/11, which was a major intelligence failure. Second was WMDs, which was another major intelligence failure. So a lot of heat is on the CIA, as it should be. Yet the CIA was messed up before G.W. Bush ever arrived in Washinton.

I do defend G.W. Bush from false, partisan attacks. One will notice I have not defended him in regard to environmental issues, budget issues, space exploration, lack of healthcare reform or forgien relations with Mexico. I do not toe any party line. I side with the liberals on somethings and with the conservatives on other things. I call things as I see them and am open to disenting opinions.

And I think I play well with others. I do not call names or attack others because they disagree with me.

November 13, 2005

Would someone please explain to Shane what "inflamatory emotionally charged comments" really are, before I embarrass him publically ...again?

November 13, 2005

Quote:

I do not favor torture. What I have done is try to put it in prespective. During WW2 the POWs held in prison camps were treated well, once they got there. However many POWs were tortured and killed before ever getting to a prison camp.

Dick Cheney and GWB are actively opposed to John Maclean's anti-torture legislation. They want the president to be able to order the CIA to torture people. Do you think this is good or bad?

/Bevin

November 13, 2005

As per Brother Matthews and Bravus, inflamatory emotionally charged comments are defined by the one being offended - not the one making the comments. So if I say something and someone is offended, it doesn't matter if I intended to offend them or not. What matters is that they were offended so I need to make the change and not expect them to be less sensative or know my intentions.

Sign In

57% of Americans Think Bush Is Not Honest

Recommended Posts

bevin

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Bravus

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Dr. Shane

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Bravus

Link to comment

Share on other sites

bevin

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Neil D

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Dr. Shane

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Dr. Shane

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Dr. Shane

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Bravus

Link to comment

Share on other sites

bevin

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Dr. Shane

Link to comment

Share on other sites

bevin

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Dr. Shane

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Neil D

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Fran

Link to comment

Share on other sites

lazarus

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Neil D

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Planey

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Dr. Shane

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Dr. Shane

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Dr. Shane

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Neil D

Link to comment

Share on other sites

bevin

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Dr. Shane

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Join the conversation

Browse