Do the words “Cult of Personality” (with all their attendant negative connotations) mean anything to you?
Your protected what?
Also defense. Remember when Conservatives were on the side of a strong national defense? Well, Bush fouled that up too.
I know - isn’t that beautiful?
A Bush-bashing thread. How refreshing.
Regards,
Shodan
A Bush-bashing thread bashing. How predictable.
No backs.
Regards,
Shodan
How refreshing. A post devoid of any content.
Now a comment explaining why there is such a clear break with history, why Republicans are left so alone in approving of this obviously compentent President, why so many independents have been fooled into seeing him as incompentent along with the partisan Democrats, much more so even than for previous unpopular Republican administrations, that would be content.
Please explain why those unafiliated voters, many who voted for Bush twice, are now, along with the Dems, stupid well beyond any historic norm leaving only Republicans in unprecedented sole possession of the realization of how wonderful of a job Bush is doing.
Regards to you too.
Don’t complain, it could have been full of his usual content.
I gotta admit, I don’t understand this one.
It’s grade school terminology. Imagine that.
What’s wrong with bashing Bush? He’s a terrible President. What should we do, praise him? The OP was looking for possible arguments to convince his Dad of Bush’s overall crappiness. That’s what we’re trying to give him (At least before the thread was sidetracked.) What did you think the thread was going to be about.
Related: Kucinich is calling for the impeachment of W. I know the idea of “the illegal war”, but what seriously would be the best bet for an impeachable offense? I know that Ford said that “high crimes and misdemeanors” are whatever the House says they are, but is there something that’s spot on, on-the-books illegal that Bush can be personally tied to, like perjury for Clinton?
The US Attorney thing has the earmarks, in some cases, of obstruction of justice. I’m fairly sure that, barring a resignation in the next few weeks, Gonzales, at least, will find himself up against The Big “I”. Whether Congress can winkle anything incriminating out of this administration’s concrete wall of secrecy that could take it higher is a crapshoot, though.
In reference to which, I just found out from the liberal blogs this morning something I did not know…neither Bush nor Gonzales use e-mail for internal communications. Probably for exactly this reason.
The first forty-five thousand times? Nothing.
The same thing every political thread is about on the SDMB - unfortunately.
I realize you folks never tire of the endless, circular, repetitious channeling of that voice that seems to be whispering in some posters ears. You’ll have to pardon me if I pop in occasionally and interrupt it.
And if you don’t want to, oh well.
Regards,
Shodan
The argument I like is that the State Of The Union speech is a constitutionally required duty of the President. If Bush deliberately conveyed information to Congress that he knew to be false (e.g., the infamous “16 words”), then he has violated his oath of office and his constitutional duties.
Scooter first. 
The OP–who, IIRC, is a moderate conservative himself–asked for specific arguments to make to his Dad about why Bush is bad. Saying “It’s been done” wouldn’t be that helpful to him.
I can’t speak for other posters, but there ain’t no voices in my ears. Just the accumulation of awful facts.
Good luck with that. The sixteen words you mention are literally true.
I realize that “high crimes and misdemeanors” can mean whatever Congress says, but then the Dems will have to deal with the fall out of “lying under oath is OK, but saying the truth, not under oath, is a crime.”
And not even with a lot of “that depends on what the meaning of is, is”.
Regards,
Shodan
So what you are saying is, if Clinton was guilty so is Bush? I agree.