Reply
Thu 10 Jun, 2004 02:18 pm
The poll of the day on CNN was, Is Moammar Gadhafi trust worthy the results were 93% no. I wonder if the question was, is George Bush trustworty what the results would be.
What is your opinion, do you think G. Bush is trustworthy?
Nope.
The more I learn about the guy, the less I feel I can trust him. I'm sure someone here can go into a whole thing about particulars.
I think what started me not trusting him very much was how hyped I was when he said he would get Osama "dead or alive". When I noticed a few months later how the words "Osama Bin Laden" didn't even come out of his mouth anymore, thats when I started saying, "heeeeey.... somethin' fishy is goin' on"
Well I think the most obvious action he is criticised for was the decision to invade Iraq under the guise of eliminating Iraq's WMD, and to this day none were found which has led to a multitude of occasions in which he was deemed to be no trustworthy by the media, and individuals across the world. Clarke's book only contributed further to the image of Bush being untrustworthy.
I refuse to trust anyone capable of getting themself elected.
Sam
The only thing we can trust Bush to do is fill his pockets and that of his cronies with money. Oh, there is a second thing, destroy the basic foundation of our country by ignoring the constitution he swore to uphold and defend.
Wiyaka wrote:The only thing we can trust Bush to do is fill his pockets and that of his cronies with money. Oh, there is a second thing, destroy the basic foundation of our country by ignoring the constitution he swore to uphold and defend.
How so? You just made unfounded claims.
Only when he's a permanent resident of Texas.
Well, at least from the results of our unscientific poll he is thought to be more trustworthy than Gadhafi.
But not by a hell of a lot.
I am sure the results are a little skewed here. Fortunately, A2K does not represent the American population.
Is it safe to say, that most of the votes on this thread were cast by liberal Dems?
I'm a conservative and think President Bush is trustworthy. As far as Mrs Clinton is concerned, that, of course, is a different matter, the possible basis for a separate and distinct thread.
Woo.
Disagree with Bush and they think by striking out at Clinton they are answering the criticism, like kids in a name calling fight. Consider this, please, Miller: I did not vote for Clinton last time he ran and I have spent considerable time criticising the man. But what does that have to do with the fact I consider Bush the worst president in our history?
edgarblythe wrote:Woo.
Disagree with Bush and they think by striking out at Clinton they are answering the criticism, like kids in a name calling fight. Consider this, please, Miller: I did not vote for Clinton last time he ran and I have spent considerable time criticising the man. But what does that have to do with the fact I consider Bush the worst president in our history?
My comments were directed at
Mrs. Clinton, not her husband.
I misread the MRS part, but what I said is still the truth. If you think by saying perhaps Hillary is not trustworthy in any way answers the the question in this thread, you are mistaken. That's a little kid's name calling tactic, not a discussion related to the thread.
Cinton, Clinton, you people have Clinton on the brain. The question was about Bush. You know the loose cannon in the oval office.
Check the latest "error" tripped over
Colin: We goofed
on terror-dip data
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON - Despite U.S. contentions that worldwide terrorism declined last year, the State Department acknowledged yesterday its conclusions were dead wrong.The findings had been used to boost one of President Bush's top foreign policy claims: success in countering terror activity.In fact, the number of incidents and victims rose sharply, officials said."I can assure you it had nothing to do with putting out anything but the most honest, accurate information we can," Secretary of State Powell said. "Errors crept in that, frankly, we did not catch here."A report issued in April said attacks declined last year to 190, the lowest level in 34 years, and had fallen 45% since 2001, Bush's first year as President.State Department officials are working to determine the right figures. "We will be correcting whatever needs to be corrected," Powell said.Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), who had challenged the findings, said he is pleased that officials "have now recognized that they have a report that has been inaccurate, and based on the inaccurate information they tried to take self-serving political credit for the results that were wrong." "[Powell] says it wasn't politically motivated, so I will accept that," Waxman said. However, he added, "We are still left with the fact that this report is useless until it is corrected."
Trick question or a joke?
The shrub is less trustworthy than most used car salesmen.
But let's see-Clinton - "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" -yeah right.
Bush I - "Read my lips, no new taxes" except for this one and that one and the other one.
And before that was Ronnie who we were terrified would start world war three because he's was likely to doze off with his finger on the switch at 10:00 am. (And then get his wife to explain why)
I don't think the US does a really good job choosing any of it's leaders. And my own nation elected the most worthless slimy little turd in the country.
Amazingly enough, I trust Hillary to do what she thinks is best for her constituents. I just don't like her.
is'nt it rather a mute point whether or not a dangerously misguided person can be trusted to carry out their dangerously misguided plans, or not.