The Bush Resume

[Mark]

I got this via email the other day and thought I would share. I'm here to help. :D

RESUME
George W. Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Washington D.C.

PAST WORK EXPERIENCE

I ran for Senator and lost.

I bought an oil company, but couldn't find any oil in Texas; the company went bankrupt shortly after I sold all my stock.

I bought the Texas Rangers baseball team, in a sweetheart deal and built a stadium using taxpayer money.

With my father's help and name, I was elected Governor of Texas.

ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS GOVERNOR

I changed pollution laws in favor of the power and oil companies and made TX the most polluted state in the US.

And replaced Houston over L.A. as the most smog-ridden city in America.

Cut taxes and bankrupted TX government to the tune of billions of dollars in borrowed money.

I set the record for most executions by a Governor in US history.

I became US President after losing the popular vote by over 500,000 votes with the help of major Enron money and my father's appointments to the Supreme Court.

PRESIDENTIAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS

I attacked and overtook two countries.

I spent the US surplus and bankrupted the US Treasury.

I shattered the record for the largest annual deficit in US history.

I set an economic record for private bankruptcies in any 12-month period.

I set the all time record for the biggest drop in history of the US stock market.

I am the first president in US history to enter office with a criminal
record.

I set the record for most days on vacation in any one year.

After taking the entire month of August off, I presided over the worst security failure in US history. (9/11)

I set the record for most campaign fundraising trips by a US president.

I set the records for the least amount of press conferences of any
president since the advent of television.

I presided over the biggest energy crisis in US history and refused to intervene when oil industry corruption was revealed.

I have cut healthcare benefits for war veterans.

I set the all time record for the largest number of people worldwide to protest my policies in public venues (15 million) shattering the record for protest against anyone in world history.

I have dissolved more international treaties than any president in US history.

I have made my presidency the most secretive and unaccountable of any in US history.

I am the first president of US to have all 50 states simultaneously go bankrupt.

I presided over the biggest corporate stock market fraud in any country in history.

I am the first president to order a preemptive attack and the military occupation of a sovereign nation, and besides that I did so against the will of the United Nations.

I set the all-time record for biggest annual budget spending increases, more than any president in US.

I am the first president to have the UN remove the US from the Human Rights Commission.

I refused to allow inspectors access to prisoners of war and thereby have refused to abide by the Geneva Convention.

I am the all-time US and world record-holder for receiving the largest corporate campaign donations.

My largest campaign contributor and one of my best friends, Ken Lay, former CEO of Enron, presided over the largest corporate bankruptcy fraud in US history.

My political party used the Enron Private jets and their corporate
attorneys to assure my success with the Supreme Court during the 2000 election.

I am the first president in history to have a majority of Europeans (71%) view my presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and security.

In the past 2 years since the World Trade Center attack, I have
successfully prevented any public investigation into the biggest security failure in US history.

In a little over two years, I have created the most divided country in decades, possibly the most divided since the Civil War.

I entered office with the strongest economy in US history and have turned every single economic indicator downward in just 2 years.

RECORDS AND REFERENCES

I have at least one conviction for drunk driving in Maine.

My Texas driving record has been erased and is unavailable.

I was AWOL from the National Guard during the Vietnam War.

I refuse to take a drug test or answer any questions about drug use.

All records or minutes from meetings I, or my Vice-president, attended regarding public energy policy are sealed in secrecy and unavailable to the public.

These are just a few of my accomplishments as President, for inquiries and
more information, my father can be reached at the Carlyle Group offices, where he and James Baker are helping to divide up the spoils of the US-Iraq War and planning for the next assault.

[Sundog]

Your helpful attitude is a shining example to us all.

[hgc]

W didn't run for Senate; that was Daddy, in 1964.

[headscratcher4]

He did, however, mount an unsuccessful attempt for a Congressional seat...

[Mark]

Originally posted by hgc
W didn't run for Senate; that was Daddy, in 1964.

Oops. Change it to Congressional seat, please.

[specious_reasons]

It doesn't include any information about his education.

Surely, one could find something insulting to say about that, too.

[Mark]

Originally posted by specious_reasons
It doesn't include any information about his education.

Surely, one could find something insulting to say about that, too.

Probably too easy.

[Ziggurat]

Wasn't he a cheerleader too? Put that under extraciricular activities. Along with drinking.

[headscratcher4]

It doesn't include any information about his education.

How about:

Attended the finest schools in America, Andover Academy and Yale as part of an Afirmative Action Program for the otherwise undistinguished Children of Alumni or otherwise wealthy and prominent people (as a result of the humilliation of the experience, developed a life-long aversion to most affirmative action programs, though has been unable to successful attack the program that got him admitted).

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
Wasn't he a cheerleader too?

At least it's a skill he's put to good use in his presidency.

[shemp]

His resume style is execrable. He could use some help from these folks:

http://www.10minuteresume.com/

[subgenius]

I still like to stump people who voted for him by asking them to name specifically his accomplishments that qualified him for his current job. Other that "we hated Clinton/Gore" I've yet to hear one single response.


Oh, add my favorite qualification to his resume:

"He's not a crackhead anymore."

[Crossbow]

Just to add a bit of polish to the resume`, I suggest that he work in how he did his bit to keep the NVA out of Texas during the Vietnam War.

:p

[Tricky]

Originally posted by specious_reasons
It doesn't include any information about his education.

Surely, one could find something insulting to say about that, too.
How about, "I was refused admission at the University of Texas Law School due to poor grades."

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Tricky

How about, "I was refused admission at the University of Texas Law School due to poor grades."
Kudos to UTLS for its integrity.

[Crossbow]

During the 1992 Presidential Campaign, I often wondered why the first Bush often harped on the fact that Bill Clinton went to Law School in Oxford, England.

But now it makes sense.

Clinton did not have much money, but was able to get there under scholarship whereas his son, George W., could not even get into a domestic program even though he came from a rich family.

Boy, oh Boy! The things you find out in the JREF Forum.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Crossbow
Boy, oh Boy! The things you find out in the JREF Forum.

Yeah. For example:

Clinton did not have much money, but was able to get there under scholarship whereas his son, George W...

I'm amazed the tabloids haven't picked up on this already. Wonder who the mother was...
:roll:

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by headscratcher4
He did, however, mount an unsuccessful attempt for a Congressional seat...

So he was unable to win a majority in a small section of his state, but was able to win the entire state when he ran for Governor.

Maybe his congressional district was a Democratic stronghold. Anyone know?

[Mark]

Originally posted by Luke T.


So he was unable to win a majority in a small section of his state, but was able to win the entire state when he ran for Governor.

Maybe his congressional district was a Democratic stronghold. Anyone know?



In Texas? Doesn't seem likely, although I really have no idea.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Mark


In Texas? Doesn't seem likely, although I really have no idea.

It is very likely. Have you been watching the news lately?

The Democratic state House legislators have all run away to Arizona to avoid being outvoted on some redistricting legislation. The Texas Democrat Senate did the same a few months ago, except they ran away to Oklahoma.

[Mark]

Originally posted by Luke T.


It is very likely. Have you been watching the news lately?

The Democratic state House legislators have all run away to Arizona to avoid being outvoted on some redistricting legislation. The Texas Democrat Senate did the same a few months ago, except they ran away to Oklahoma.

Have you read about this? The Republicans, through redistricting, are attempting the most blatant, grotesque power grab ever. Tom DeLay has even invoked the Homeland Security legislation to attempt to arrest the Democrats. It's ugly.

I have always been a fierce non-partisan, but Republican, anti-American, antics over the last 2 years are enough to make me register as a Democrat. Or at least make me puke my guts out. It's obscene.

Edited to add this from the N.Y. Times:
“The Texas power grab is part of a trend. Republicans, who now control all three branches of the federal government, are not just pushing through their political agenda. They are increasingly ignoring the rules of government to do it. While the Texas redistricting effort failed, Republicans succeeded in enacting an equally partisan redistricting plan in Colorado. And Republicans in the Senate -- notably those involved in the highly charged issue of judicial confirmations -- have been just as quick to throw out the rulebook...



“And Mr. DeLay recently revealed how he felt about rules of general applicability. When he tried smoking a cigar in a restaurant on federal property, the manager told him it violated federal law. His response, according to The Washington Post, was, "I am the federal government."



-- NY Times, Editorial Observer, 5/27/03

This is why I have always been against either party controlling all branches of government.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Mark
I have always been a fierce non-partisan, but Republican, anti-American, antics over the last 2 years are enough to make me register as a Democrat. Or at least make me puke my guts out. It's obscene. You are unfamiliar with history. The Republicans got their ideas from the Democrats. California is the most gerrymandered state in the nation. Thank you Democrats.

Anti-American? :mad:

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Mark
Have you read about this? The Republicans, through redistricting, are attempting the most blatant, grotesque power grab ever. Tom DeLay has even invoked the Homeland Security legislation to attempt to arrest the Democrats. It's ugly. You know, such a claim makes me question your next one.

I have always been a fierce non-partisan, but Republican... Ever hear of Richard J. Daley, how about the teamsters? 200 years of American history and politics and this is the worse that you know of? How can you be fiercely non-partisan and not know the history of politics in America. What is it you base your ideology on?

Take a poly sci class someday.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Mark
This is why I have always been against either party controlling all branches of government. The one thing I will agree with.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by RandFan
You are unfamiliar with history. The Republicans got there ideas from the Democrats. California is gerrymandered/Democrat state in the nation.
Gerrymandering comes from a time before either Republicans or Democrats existed. It was named for Elbridge Gerry (http://www.bartleby.com/65/ge/GerryEl.html), a Jeffersonian, who as Governer of Massachusetts in 1811, redrew districts like a "grotesque salamander", hence the term.

Republicans did not invent gerrymandering, but the Texas Repubs. have gone farther than ever before, stretching one Austin district all the way down to the coast more than 200 miles away. (Some wags have called this "Perrymandering", after Governer Perry) Also, redistricting was, by rule, only to be done in the years after the census. The Texas R's threw out that rule, along with every rule for allowing debate. Then, after cutting programs for the poor everywhere across the state, they tried to portray the "renegade Democrats" as heartless.

They have illegally used Federal resources to hunt them down, held a hate-filled party to destroy the Democrats' recently vacated headquarters (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/2058919), and in short, behaved like total asses.

BTW, these are also the same legislators who are leaning towards allowing "intelligent design" to be taught in Texas public schools.

No, I really can't think of much good to say about them.

[Mark]

Originally posted by RandFan
You know, such a claim makes me question your next one.

Ever hear of Richard J. Daley, how about the teamsters? 200 years of American history and politics and this is the worse that you know of? How can you be fiercely non-partisan and not know the history of politics in America. What is it you base your ideology on?

Take a poly sci class someday.

I don't approve of the Democrats doing it either, which puts me ahead of your partisanship. But the Republicans have taken it to a whole new level by trying to arrest the Democrats and invoking the Homeland Security Act. You can use all the grumbling emoticons you want, but the Republicans and their attempts to circumvent, and even repeal the first and fourth ammendments is anti-American. Deal with it.

As I said, what puts me ahead of you is that I don't make excuses when either party pulls this kind of crap.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Tricky
BTW, these are also the same legislators who are leaning towards allowing "intelligent design" to be taught in Texas public schools.

No, I really can't think of much good to say about them. Fair enough, we Californians have Gray Davis, you have the legislature. I guess you will have to wait for the next election to do something about them.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Mark
I don't approve of the Democrats doing it either, which puts me ahead of your partisanship. But the Republicans have taken it to a whole new level by trying to arrest the Democrats and invoking the Homeland Security Act. You can use all the grumbling emoticons you want, but the Republicans and their attempts to circumvent, and even repeal the first and fourth ammendments is anti-American. Deal with it.

As I said, what puts me ahead of you is that I don't make excuses when either party pulls this kind of crap. I make no excuses, politics is politics. Labeling it anti-american and making extreme and demonstrably wrong claims reveals your partisianship inspite of your protestations (There are far worse power grabs in history).

If you want we can all pretend that you are not partisan.

[Mark]

Originally posted by Tricky

Gerrymandering comes from a time before either Republicans or Democrats existed. It was named for Elbridge Gerry (http://www.bartleby.com/65/ge/GerryEl.html), a Jeffersonian, who as Governer of Massachusetts in 1811, redrew districts like a "grotesque salamander", hence the term.

Republicans did not invent gerrymandering, but the Texas Repubs. have gone farther than ever before, stretching one Austin district all the way down to the coast more than 200 miles away. (Some wags have called this "Perrymandering", after Governer Perry) Also, redistricting was, by rule, only to be done in the years after the census. The Texas R's threw out that rule, along with every rule for allowing debate. Then, after cutting programs for the poor everywhere across the state, they tried to portray the "renegade Democrats" as heartless.

They have illegally used Federal resources to hunt them down, held a hate-filled party to destroy the Democrats' recently vacated headquarters (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/2058919), and in short, behaved like total asses.

BTW, these are also the same legislators who are leaning towards allowing "intelligent design" to be taught in Texas public schools.

No, I really can't think of much good to say about them.

The interesting thing is that when the national media cover this at all, they usually report it as though the Democrats are being comical or obstructionists. So much for the "liberal" media.

[Mark]

Originally posted by RandFan
Fair enough, we Californians have Gray Davis, you have the legislature. I guess you will have to wait for the next election to do something about them.

Ah yes, Gray Davis with a 35 Billion Dollar Deficit, bad. (1.8% of the State economy)

George W. Bush with a 450 Billion Dollar Deficit (650 if he weren't raiding Social Security), good. (4.2% or 6% of the National economy, depending on which figure you use).

I wonder when Republicans will start caring more about their country, and less about their party?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Tricky
Also, redistricting was, by rule, only to be done in the years after the census. Yes, and Presidents by rule are supposed to get their federal judge nominations by simple house vote. But Democrats in the house threw out that rule this year and in an unprecedented move used the filibuster to force a cloture vote 2/3rds for Bush to get his nominees. I guess it depends on who is throwing out the rules.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Mark


Ah yes, Gray Davis with a 35 Billion Dollar Deficit, bad. (1.8% of the State economy)

George W. Bush with a 450 Billion Dollar Deficit (650 if he weren't raidning Social Security), good. (4.2% or 6% of the National economy, depending on which figure you use).Tax revenue for the US did not have an increase signigicantly greater than costs. California DID!

Big difference.

I wonder when Republicans will start caring more about their country, and less about their party? Are we still pretending that you are not a partisan?

[Mark]

Originally posted by RandFan
Tax revenue for the US did not have an increase signigicantly greater than costs. California DID!

Big difference.

Are we still pretending that you are not a partisan?

I'm not. I never voted for Clinton. I never voted for either Bush.

However, rank and file Democrats tend more often to be questioners about their own positions (I am not talking about the leaders), while rank and file Republicans tend to be so smug and morally certain about all their positions. So, in that sense, yes, I do tend to favor the Democrat viewpoint.

And I'm glad you think bankrupting the Federal budget via an ill-advised tax cut and grossly increased spending was better than bankrupting it some other way. Me, I disagee; I think bankrupting it under any circumstance is a bad idea. And I felt the same way when Carter was in office and the deficit was in the hundreds of millions.

Funny how, all my life Republicans have been telling me deficits are bad (I agreed with them). Now they say they are OK (Unless you are Gray Davis). Were they lying then? Or now?

[billydkid]

I am a libertarian so I certainly don't believe in any sort of enforced equality (other than that guaranteed by the Constitution and alluded to in the Declaration of Independence.) But wouldn't it be interesting to see where all of us would end up if we all had to actually start from scratch. I wonder where the likes of George W. would end up had he had to start from ground zero. He is clearly an absolute mediocrity of a human being. I wonder how far he would have gotten if he had come from where I came from - nobody and nothing and nowhere. I think it is a safe bet he'd be stocking shelves at Walmart or maybe he would have worked himself up to assistant manager at a McDonalds. Life is not fair and I would suppose it's not supposed to be, but it would sure be interesting to see what would happen if it was.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Mark
[...while rank and file Republicans tend to be so smug and morally certain about all their positions. So, in that sense, yes, I do tend to favor the Democrat viewpoint. Yeah, I see what you mean. Take this thead for instance. No smugness or moral certainty. Riiiight! Tell me more about your not being a partisan. You are selling the point so well.

And I'm glad you think bankrupting the Federal budget via an ill-advised tax cut and grossly increased spending was better than bankrupting it some other way. Where did I say that I was glad about grossly increased speinding?

Funny how, all my life Republicans have been telling me deficits are bad (I agreed with them). Now they say they are OK (Unless you are Gray Davis). Were they lying then? Or now? Odd since the Democrats I know are doing the same thing.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by billydkid
I wonder where the likes of George W. would end up had he had to start from ground zero. He is clearly an absolute mediocrity of a human being. It should be noted that he did not wash out of Flight Training which according to my cousin and uncle (pilots) not something mediocre people do. He graduated college. The average person will not. I don't think Bush is a mental giant but I don't think he is the simpleton those on the left love to make of him.

[headscratcher4]

Originally posted by RandFan
Yes, and Presidents by rule are supposed to get their federal judge nominations by simple house vote. But Democrats in the house threw out that rule this year and in an unprecedented move used the filibuster to force a cloture vote 2/3rds for Bush to get his nominees. I guess it depends on who is throwing out the rules.

A technical quibble...the Senate confirms judges, not the house.

A political quibble: I suspect that all of the many Clinton Nominations that the Republican Senate killed and stalled by "proceedure" went completely by your notice...Presidents don't get their nominies unless they can get the proc.sess to work for them...fillabusters are part of the process...one party's obstructionist fillabuster technique is the other party's patriotic attempt to preserve the constitution, Congressional power, etc.

My only point is, if you didn't condemn what happened to the clinton judges, don't condemn what the Dems are doing to a very few Bush judges...by EVERY measure, Bush is getting far more of his judges through and confirmed and in much faster time....Besides, the ones that are being fillabustered are really scarey...at least if you believe in small things like seperation of church and state....

[Malachi151]

Need to add:

I was busted for shop lifting while attending Yale.
I was busted for posession of cocaine, but was let go and my records were sealed after my daddy called.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by headscratcher4
A political quibble: I suspect that all of the many Clinton Nominations that the Republican Senate killed and stalled by "proceedure" went completely by your notice... No, not at all. There is a difference though. In this instance there are enough votes to move the nomination out of commite. The Democrats have decided that since they can't otherwise stop a floor vote that they would use the fillibuster. Like I said, such a move for judges is unprecedented.

My only point is, if you didn't condemn what happened to the clinton judges, don't condemn what the Dems are doing to a very few Bush judges... My only point was to rebut Tricky's notion that there was something particularly nefarious about doing thing differently than tradition calls for. It's called politics, the Republicans are seeking advantage every bit as much as the Democrats. If one is going to be fair then one must agree to that fact.

And yes I freely admit that the Republicans did much the same. I very much opposed what they did to Lani Guiner (she wasn't nominated as a judge).

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Malachi151
Need to add:

I was busted for shop lifting while attending Yale.
I was busted for posession of cocaine, but was let go and my records were sealed after my daddy called. ??? People make mistakes. Could you explain the importance of this? I never thought Clintons personal problems made him a bad or average leader.

[Malachi151]

Funny how, all my life Republicans have been telling me deficits are bad (I agreed with them). Now they say they are OK (Unless you are Gray Davis). Were they lying then? Or now?

See, at the time they were good, but now they are bad. At the time when they were a good thing the Republicans were against them, now that we need ot change strategy the Republicans are for them. They are pretty much for whatever is worst for the country at all times, you can pretty much just make that a safe bet.

After the war it was good to run a deficite to grow the economy, but as the economy grew there was need to step that down and start paying it off, and then when we switched to Supply Side economics that is not compatable with deficite spending.

Once you switch to supply side then you have to do the opposite, then you need to no deficite when you are going supply side, because then that is what is supposed to stimulate the economy and you don't want a deficite to exaserbate the natural credit problems of a supply side economy.

Now, we have the absolute worst. Now we are mixing Supply Side with Keyansian theory in a way that is not intended to work together and it will be a nightmare.

[ssibal]

What is the big deal? You can make a 'bad' resume like that one for any president.

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by Tricky

Gerrymandering comes from a time before either Republicans or Democrats existed. It was named for Elbridge Gerry (http://www.bartleby.com/65/ge/GerryEl.html), a Jeffersonian, who as Governer of Massachusetts in 1811, redrew districts like a "grotesque salamander", hence the term.

Republicans did not invent gerrymandering, but the Texas Repubs. have gone farther than ever before, stretching one Austin district all the way down to the coast more than 200 miles away. (Some wags have called this "Perrymandering", after Governer Perry)


Have you ever seen some of the "minority majority" drawn districts across the country? I mean some of them are truly bizzare. There is one in North Carolina that follows goes along an interstate highway to pick up every black community even spaced 100s of miles apart.

Gerrymandering is of course not new and will be practiced as long as their is re-districting.

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by Mark
I got this via email the other day and thought I would share. I'm here to help. :D

I became US President after losing the popular vote by over 500,000 votes with the help of major Enron money and my father's appointments to the Supreme Court.


Can this claim about Enron money influencing the Supreme Court be supported?

I don't mean that Enron did or not support Bush in the campaign but this seems to imply bribes.

[billydkid]

Originally posted by RandFan
It should be noted that he did not wash out of Flight Training which according to my cousin and uncle (pilots) not something mediocre people do. He graduated college. The average person will not. I don't think Bush is a mental giant but I don't think he is the simpleton those on the left love to make of him.

And I would suppose that Dan Quayle is above average too? If George W. Bush had not been born who he was he would never even have gotten into flight training. I have known many, many different sorts of people from all different classes of society in my life - those born with silver spoons and those born into families for whom every day was a struggle to survive.

The most brilliant person I ever met - and I am talking savant level ability in mathematics - was an unwed teenaged mother. I met her taking night classes at community college. She had grown up in a broken, poverty stricken, alcoholic household. An upbringing not unlike my own. And there was no welfare, no medical care, no dental care - just a pervading sense of worthlessness.

As it happens, sadly, she faltered in her quest to make a better life for herself and her daughter. By rights she should have been teaching at MIT. I managed to make some sort of a life for myself and my family. I would wager my right nut that had George W. Bush come from that sort of environment, without privilege, with no reinforcement of one's value or place in the world,without any opportunity except that you can make for yourself he would have made precious little of himself in this world.

[subgenius]

"not a simpleton" is hardly something you would put on a resume, much less cite as a qualification to be president.
Still waiting for the great (specific) accomplishments that so qualified him.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by subgenius
"not a simpleton" is hardly something you would put on a resume, much less cite as a qualification to be president.
How about "I am not a crook"?
http://webby.umeedu.maine.edu/coehd/sixties/rmn.jpg

[subgenius]

I remember (vaguely) when they were replacing John Mitchell for Attorney General of the US and the qualification was "He's not a convicted felon."
Real comforting. Quite a high standard there.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by ssibal
What is the big deal? You can make a 'bad' resume like that one for any president.
Wrong.
Most of them have some achievments, and qualifications, even if you can also find "bad stuff" to put on the resume.

Maybe you'd like to take my challenge to list George's achievments that qualified him to be president?
Warning, no generalities accepted.

Bonus points for Clarence Thomas' "qualifications."

[RandFan]

Originally posted by billydkid
If George W. Bush had not been born who he was he would never even have gotten into flight training. Boy, you missed that one by a mile.

Speculation: George W. Bush wouldn't have gotten into flight training if he had not been who he was.

Question: How the HELL do you know?

Fact: HE DIDN'T WASH OUT!

I would wager my right nut that had George W. Bush come from that sort of environment, without privilege, with no reinforcement of one's value or place in the world,without any opportunity except that you can make for yourself he would have made precious little of himself in this world. Being willing to wager your left nut means nothing, it proves nothing. It is your opinion and you are entitled to it. The fact is that getting through flight training is not easy. Many wash out. Mediocre people don't finish. Since you KNOW what Bush would or would not have done in a different situation maybe you can also read minds? Have you thought of betting that left nut of yours against Randi's Million Dollar Challange?

Another thing, many people in America came from nothing. I was born in poverty. I grew up with welfare. I worked two jobs going to college. I now own my own consulting business. My brother is dyslexic, he busted his a** to learn how to deal craps and worked his way up to floor man. As I said recently he has a very good standard of living. He has purchased a very large home and owns several cars and a boat. We didn't get as far as bush but I also know people who went from poverty to millions.

I'm sorry about your friend and you are right life is not fair but don't go around telling me that you know who will and who won't make it.

[KelvinG]

I think having a dumb twit as president of the USA should serve as inspiration for dumb twits everywhere.

Think of all the children that might be given a second chance when their parents stop and think "Hey, if George W. did it, maybe Junior here can as well."

[RandFan]

Originally posted by subgenius
"not a simpleton" is hardly something you would put on a resume, much less cite as a qualification to be president.
Still waiting for the great (specific) accomplishments that so qualified him. I seriously doubt anything would impress you as to Bush's qualifications. He was a governor that some think did a great job. Tricky will tell you that is not true. That is fine. After 911 he acted decisevly. He acted as many had suspected he would but then again I don't think he could have acted in any way that would have pleased you.

Democrats think he is an idiot. Surprise, surprise.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by KelvinG
I think having a dumb twit as president of the USA should serve as inspiration for dumb twits everywhere. Yeah, and your a f**king idiot. What the hell have you done? No one is going to elect you president are they? You probably couldn't make dog catcher and your calling Bush a dumb twit? F**CK YOU!

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by RandFan
Yeah, and your a f**king idiot. What the hell have you done? F**CK YOU!

lol, somebody's mad. :mad: :mad:

And I'm afraid I can't tell you all the great things I've done. It would reveal who I really am, and I'm not interesting in giving up my privacy.

But, grrrrr, keep up the swearing there RandFan.
Heh, heh.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by KelvinG
And I'm afraid I can't tell you all the great things I've done. It would reveal who I really am, and I'm not interesting in giving up my privacy. I just found out about the great things you've done. I just received a PM. It seems they involve shaved hamsters, rubber gloves and feral cats. I'm impressed. Unfortunately I understand you now have to wear depends. Oh well, I'm sure it was worth it.

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by RandFan
I just found out about the great things you've done. I just received a PM. It seems they involve shaved hamsters, rubber gloves and feral cats. I'm impressed. Unfortunately I understand you now have to wear depends. Oh well, I'm sure it was worth it.

Heh, heh. Good one.:rolleyes:

[RandFan]

Originally posted by KelvinG
Heh, heh. Good one.:rolleyes: thanks, have a good one. I'm going to bed.

[Mark]

Originally posted by RandFan
Boy, you missed that one by a mile.


Fact: HE DIDN'T WASH OUT!



True. He went AWOL for a year.

[Ion]

Gee, Radio Frequency tries to get angry:
Originally posted by RandFan
Yeah, and your a f**king idiot. What the hell have you done? No one is going to elect you president are they? You probably couldn't make dog catcher and your calling Bush a dumb twit? F**CK YOU!
with Radio Frequency stumbling in a poor U.S. grammar of "...and your calling Bush a dumb twit?".

Instead of the better grammar by a foreigner like me "...and you are calling Bush a dumb twit?".

Now, to rescue anyway "...and you are calling Bush a dumb twit?" from Radio Frequency's shortcomings, I answer the question:

yes.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by RandFan
I seriously doubt anything would impress you as to Bush's qualifications. He was a governor that some think did a great job. Tricky will tell you that is not true. That is fine. After 911 he acted decisevly. He acted as many had suspected he would but then again I don't think he could have acted in any way that would have pleased you.

Democrats think he is an idiot. Surprise, surprise.

Just looking for specifics not "some think he did a great job."
It was your characterization of him as not an imbecile.
Anyway he's doing a fine job now. Or so some think. Peace and prosperity ain't all its cracked up to be.

It ain't a "Democrat" thing necessarily. I was/am impressed by McCain (who as I recall is a Republican) who was screwed out of the nomination by big money. There's a man of substance, integrity and experience. Would we be having this thread if he were in there? No.
Its OK to criticize, especially on valid points. That's American.

[Malachi151]

If it were not for the fact that my life would be ruined by it, I would punch Bush in the face if I met him. I despize the man. In reality the best I would do is just roll my eyes at him and not shake his hand.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Malachi151
If it were not for the fact that my life would be ruined by it, I would punch Bush in the face if I met him. I despize the man. In reality the best I would do is just roll my eyes at him and not shake his hand.
Or maybe just give him the "Hawaiian Good Luck Sign."
(It seems George may have a drooling problem as well.)

[Tricky]

Originally posted by RandFan
I seriously doubt anything would impress you as to Bush's qualifications. He was a governor that some think did a great job. Tricky will tell you that is not true.
Darn straight I will. (And I was here the whole time.)

Bush came in to office thanks to slimeball politics His campaign made a big deal of the fact that Ann Richards had been an alcoholic, something she admitted. No mention was made of Bush's DUI. In Richards' term, school scores were up, pollution was down, public services were... well, good for Texas. Bush immediately pushed through a tax cut (and Texas has been broke ever since). He cut school funding and he vetoed a Patients' Bill Of Rights (it was passed over his veto, and he then tried to take credit for it when running for president.) There's lots more.

But possibly the worst thing he did was to "grandfather" the pollution requirements, meaning older factories did not have to meet new pollution guidelines. As a result, pollution in Texas, especially Houston, is the worst it has ever been. And guess what? He's doing the
same thing (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/2060620) to the nation.

Texas will be a long time recovering from Bush. It looks like the damage to the US may be even worse.

[Mark]

Originally posted by Tricky

Texas will be a long time recovering from Bush. It looks like the damage to the US may be even worse.

Unless the loyal opposition stop cowering under their seats and start to oppose this maniac. Republicans won't do it; I am becoming convinced they would make excuses for Adolf Hitler if he ran on their ticket.

And no, I am not saying the Shrub is as bad as Hitler. Very bad, but not as bad as that. Not quite.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Mark


Unless the loyal opposition stop cowering under their seats and start to oppose this maniac. Republicans won't do it; I am becoming convinced they would make excuses for Adolf Hitler if he ran on their ticket.

And no, I am not saying the Shrub is as bad as Hitler. Very bad, but not as bad as that. Not quite.

There's some hope even from his own party.
The Republican controlled Congress voted to roll back some of the Patriot Act, and the Republican controlled Alaska Legislature passed a resolution calling it a threat to freedom and liberty.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Tricky
(And I was here the whole time.) ??? I never said you wasn't

Bush came in to office thanks to slimeball politics His campaign made a big deal of the fact that Ann Richards had been an alcoholic, something she admitted. No mention was made of Bush's DUI. In Richards' term, school scores were up, pollution was down, public services were... well, good for Texas. Bush immediately pushed through a tax cut (and Texas has been broke ever since). He cut school funding and he vetoed a Patients' Bill Of Rights (it was passed over his veto, and he then tried to take credit for it when running for president.) There's lots more. I have a feeling that there is another side to this story.

It looks like the damage to the US may be even worse. BS

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Mark
And no, I am not saying the Shrub is as bad as Hitler. Very bad, but not as bad as that. Not quite. More of that non-partisanship I see. Bush has gotten some high marks for his handling of Homeland Security from various liberals and Democrats. He has done a great job as president. Those who KNOW he is bad can't be convinced otherwise. Just like those who know John Edwards isn't a fake can't be convinced otherwise.

You have accused me of being a partisan yet I spent 8 years arguing with friends and family defending Clinton and his acomplishments. I never cared for nor voted for the guy but I was honest enough to admit that much of the criticism was politicaly motivated.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by subgenius
Or maybe just give him the "Hawaiian Good Luck Sign."
(It seems George may have a drooling problem as well.) I've remarked on this photo before on this forum. I think it takes a supreme a**hole to something like that.

You can disagree or even dislike someone and still have a little common courtesy.

My mother raised me differently. If you really think that is funny sub then your mom raised you differently than mine.

The guy with the finger is the type that will smile to your face and stab you in the back. I can't think of worse kind of prick.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Malachi151
If it were not for the fact that my life would be ruined by it, I would punch Bush in the face if I met him. I despize the man. In reality the best I would do is just roll my eyes at him and not shake his hand. Critical thinking of the masses. Bush is just a human being. I understand disagreement and even disapointment. But the desire to physicaly harm another human being?

You know it's funny. I hear all of this stuff about tolerance from the left, yet the left is quite capable of hate and vitriol. I often wonder if the tolerance isn't just a load of tripe.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Mark
True. He went AWOL for a year. Doesn't alter the fact that he didn't wash out.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by RandFan
He has done a great job as president.
I must respectfully disagree. Let's look at some of the important issues.

Economy - No, it is not all his fault. He inherited a recession. I cannot believe that anything he has done has helped mitigate the recession. Certainly the record budgets and deficits combined with reduced tax income are going to plague this country for a long time.

International - Mostly awful. After 9-11, the whole world was clamoring to be our friends. He has squandered that political capital in some of the most brazenly foolish decisions of all time. Iraq has been talked to death. What is going on in Afghanistan? The Taliban are coming back. The country is controlled by warlords. The infrastructure is still in shambles. I'll give him some points for his "roadmap to peace" in the Israeli/Palestine conflict. I feel he could ease the situation by being tougher on Israel, but admittedly, there is little anyone can do to put out that fire.

Education - Some good, like pushing for higher teacher saleries, but his "leaving no child behind" is a joke. He has advocated cutting lots of social programs that help disadvantaged children.

Campaign finance reform - Totally worthless. He has done absolutely nothing to close the loopholes, nor does he seem to have any inclination to do so. He got here by outspending his opponants, and that's what he intends to do again.

Corporate reform - After the implosion of Enron, MCI/Worldcom et. al., what changes has he proposed to keep companies from doing the same thing? Nada. "Offshore banks" still flourish. No fixes proposed for the kind of accounting tricks Enron/Anderson pulled. Cheney's meeting with Enron execs. are still secret. Bush has never even criticized his friend Ken Lay.

Environment - Unmitigated disaster. The foxes have been set to guard the henhouse. His top EPA officials, who were not particularly great environmentalists to begin with, have resigned right and left. Perhaps they are too embarassed by Bush's shameless pandering to big business.

I cannot point to a single "great" thing he has done. The best you can say is, "he could have been worse".

Originally posted by RandFan
Doesn't alter the fact that he didn't wash out.
What would happen to any other person who went AWOL for a year? Surely you are not so naive as to believe that this is standard practice for the service. The fact is that he was bumped up over a long list of more qualified candidates to get in and he got special treatment while he was in. He is the epitome of a spoiled rich kid.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by RandFan
I've remarked on this photo before on this forum. I think it takes a supreme a**hole to something like that.

You can disagree or even dislike someone and still have a little common courtesy.

My mother raised me differently. If you really think that is funny sub then your mom raised you differently than mine.

The guy with the finger is the type that will smile to your face and stab you in the back. I can't think of worse kind of prick.
He did have courtesy. He did it very discretely. In fact its questionable whether he's doing it at all. Plausible deniability.
In this age of unquestioning (eg. some of the posts here) allegience, and being accused of being unpatriotic for the slightest criticism of policies, its an heroic gesture.
Its a prank. Its political theater.
Over the top criticism of it makes my point about being too thin skinned to accept protest of any kind. Being too defensive indicates weakness in the position.
My mom and dad raised me to believe in human rights, freedom, justice, courage and humor.
My friend Kenny wouldn't stab anyone in the back. He might give you the finger though.
Big deal.
And next time leave my mom out of this.
Isn't that a Forum rule: "No Moms"?
Can't think of a worse kind of prick?
We're discussing his resume. You should do some research on your man's put down humor. He's abusive.

[Ion]

Originally posted by Tricky

...
Economy - No, it is not all his fault. He inherited a recession. I cannot believe that anything he has done has helped mitigate the recession.
...

He wastes $77 billion and counting into the military economy of a non self-sustaining war that racks up funding from taxing the consummer economy.

The consummer economy is drawn deeper into recession by having money being drained.

[Frank Newgent]

Originally posted by subgenius

(It seems George may have a drooling problem as well.)
This just in. That's not drool...



WASHINGTON DC (Reuters) Monica Lewinsky confidante Linda Tripp convinced First Lady Laura Bush not to clean a shirt that might contain a semen stain from former president Bill Clinton, saying "it could be evidence some day," according to documents released yesterday. It is reported that Bush said that she had been ready to clean the blue shirt but that Tripp talked her out of it after learning of the stain.

"And she told me that I should put it in a safe deposit box because it could be evidence one day," Bush added.

"And I said that was ludicrous because I would never -- I would never disclose that George had a relationship with the former president, I would never need it.

"And then when that band came to play and he told me that he was going to wear it, I told him he looked fat in the shirt, he shouldn't wear it. I brought him a white shirt from his closet as to try to persuade him not to wear the blue one," the First Lady testified.

[DavidJames]

Tricky - your well reasoned logic will never trump:

"he's a Republican, so he's right"

[Tricky]

Originally posted by DavidJames
Tricky - your well reasoned logic will never trump:

"he's a Republican, so he's right"
Thanks DJ, but I don't ascribe that motive to RanFan. He admits to being a Clinton supporter, and most of his positions aren't radical. I do not understand why he has taken such a protective stance on GWB, because it is inconsistant with his usual rational (if right-of-center) approach to things, but I'll not say it is a mindless sheep mentality.

Maybe some of the others, though...:p

(And I have voted for Republicans too.)

[Mark]

Originally posted by Tricky

Thanks DJ, but I don't ascribe that motive to RanFan. He admits to being a Clinton supporter, and most of his positions aren't radical. I do not understand why he has taken such a protective stance on GWB, because it is inconsistant with his usual rational (if right-of-center) approach to things, but I'll not say it is a mindless sheep mentality.

Maybe some of the others, though...:p

(And I have voted for Republicans too.)

Interesting point. Frankly, at this point I can't understand why anyone is so defensive of W. Even his father would have been reviled if he had done even half the things W. has done. A half trillion dollar annual deficit? Yikes. And since Republicans control all branches of government, who are they going to blame for this stuff?

Actually, maybe that's the reason people are so defensive right there. Hmmmmm.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Tricky
Economy - No, it is not all his fault. He inherited a recession. I cannot believe that anything he has done has helped mitigate the recession. Certainly the record budgets and deficits combined with reduced tax income are going to plague this country for a long time. Thank you for the admission of the recession.

A recession that had been predicted for some time and was expected to be a lot worse than it has. You ideologicaly disagree with any remedys of republicans so it is to be expected that you would not see any good tht Bush has done. The economy will rebound we will be just fine. There will be future adjustment in the economy and whoever is there will get the credit or benifit.

International - Mostly awful. After 9-11, the whole world was clamoring to be our friends. He has squandered that political capital in some of the most brazenly foolish decisions of all time. I couldn't disagree more. What Bush did was exactly what was needed. The wrong thing to do was to put too much emphasis with the opinions of nations who do not have our best interest at heart.

What is going on in Afghanistan? The Taliban are coming back. The country is controlled by warlords. The infrastructure is still in shambles. Who said it was going to be easy? We are capturing leaders of the Taliban and AlQaeda all of the time. The problems of Afghanistan are cultural and will take time.

Campaign finance reform - Totally worthless. He has done absolutely nothing to close the loopholes, nor does he seem to have any inclination to do so. He got here by outspending his opponants, and that's what he intends to do again. I have never been for campaign finance reform. It should be noted that NOW, ACLU, Unions and many others are against it also. At least they want exemptions.

Corporate reform - After the implosion of Enron, MCI/Worldcom et. al., what changes has he proposed to keep companies from doing the same thing? Nada. "Offshore banks" still flourish. No fixes proposed for the kind of accounting tricks Enron/Anderson pulled. Cheney's meeting with Enron execs. are still secret. Bush has never even criticized his friend Ken Lay. I don't know enough to presume that the president should do anything. What laws are on the books and where does the failure come into play? I'm not so sure that you can lay this on Bush. My understanding is that there are mechanisms to deal with these problems. I will look into it more.

Environment - Unmitigated disaster. The foxes have been set to guard the henhouse. His top EPA officials, who were not particularly great environmentalists to begin with, have resigned right and left. Perhaps they are too embarassed by Bush's shameless pandering to big business. I dont' know why anyone left. I'm not sure what this proves. Give me a link will you?

[quote]I cannot point to a single "great" thing he has done. The best you can say is, "he could have been worse". /quote] He has provided leadership during one of the greatest disasters of our history. He was decisive and responded in a measured and appropriate manner.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by subgenius
He did have courtesy. He did it very discretely. Oh come on, so if I discretely mock you that is being courteous?

You and I have a very different definition of courtoues.

In fact its questionable whether he's doing it at all. Plausible deniability. That is why he is circulating the picture.

...its an heroic gesture. Again, we have different definitions.

Its a prank. Its political theater. Fliping somene off while you smile to their face? I prefer a**holes who have the courage to look me in the eye when the flip me off.

Over the top criticism of it makes my point about being too thin skinned to accept protest of any kind. I have posted critisism of Bush on this forum. I have posted jokes about Bush on this forum. I have posted embarassing things about Bush on this forum. I would never be such a prick and a coward as to smile at someone while I flipped them off.

My mom and dad raised me to believe in human rights, freedom, justice, courage and humor. Didn't say anything about mocking people behind their backs? Mine did.

My friend Kenny wouldn't stab anyone in the back. He might give you the finger though. Oh really? Would he have the courage to give you the finger to your face or would he have to flip you off behind your back?

If any of my friends did the same to Clinton or anyone else I would look them square in the eyes and say "what, you didn't have the balls to give him the finger to his face?"

[Samus]

Originally posted by Mark
I became US President after losing the popular vote by over 500,000 votes with the help of major Enron money and my father's appointments to the Supreme Court. He had a lot of campaign donors. You could also have said "with the help of Joe Smith", but it just doesn't sound as bad, now does it?

Originally posted by Mark
I spent the US surplus and bankrupted the US Treasury. The Treasury was already bankrupt when he took the job. Surpluses were projected, and the ones that existed were not counted as part of the treasury's available funds (i.e. it was Soc Sec money). Granted, he hasn't helped matters anyway, but you make it sound like we weren't running billions of dollars in debt, including a couple billion in intragovernmental holdings, before he took office.

Originally posted by Mark
I am the first president in US history to enter office with a criminal record. Except, of course, for George Washington, who was a traitor to Britain. Give me a break.

Originally posted by Mark
I set the record for most days on vacation in any one year. Is this true? Have you researched the other 42 presidents, or is this just more drivel?

Originally posted by Mark
After taking the entire month of August off, I presided over the worst security failure in US history. (9/11) Caused largely by inaction on the part of his predecessors. Nice try, hero.

Originally posted by Mark
I have dissolved more international treaties than any president in US history. Got a cite for this one?

Originally posted by Mark
I have made my presidency the most secretive and unaccountable of any in US history. yeah, right. His presidency is no more secretive than any other.

Originally posted by Mark
I am the first president of US to have all 50 states simultaneously go bankrupt. Has this happened? I didn't notice.

Originally posted by Mark
I am the first president to have the UN remove the US from the Human Rights Commission. Yeah, because we all know how relevant the U.N. is.

Originally posted by Mark
My political party used the Enron Private jets and their corporate attorneys to assure my success with the Supreme Court during the 2000 election. Blah, blah. His success was far from "assured", and what's wrong with getting the best legal defense you can find?

Originally posted by Mark
I entered office with the strongest economy in US history and have turned every single economic indicator downward in just 2 years. Incorrect. He took the presidency two years after the strongest U.S. economy in history. Economic indicators were already moving downward by early 2001.

Originally posted by Mark
I have at least one conviction for drunk driving in Maine. Which was over 20 years before he got elected. Totally irrelevant to one's qualifications for the job.

Originally posted by Mark
I refuse to take a drug test or answer any questions about drug use. Why should he?

Look, I'm hardly a Bush fan, but this kind of mindless appeal to emotion doesn't do anything for me. Surely, he's made some dumb moves, and I wouldn't call him my best president, but I wouldn't call him the worst, either.

Good job pasting a useless E-mail message into a topic. Crikey...

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Tricky

Thanks DJ, but I don't ascribe that motive to RanFan. He admits to being a Clinton supporter, and most of his positions aren't radical. I do not understand why he has taken such a protective stance on GWB, because it is inconsistant with his usual rational (if right-of-center) approach to things, but I'll not say it is a mindless sheep mentality.

Maybe some of the others, though...:p

(And I have voted for Republicans too.) Thanks Tricky,

Your words mean allot to me.

I have always been passionate and right now I am having one of those weeks. One of my clients has sat on an invoice for nearly a month. I didn't know this and was expecting the money and the virus is giving me fits with several of my clients servers. So my passions are rather sensitive.

I genuinely like Bush. It might have just been rhetoric but I believe in the concept of passionate conservative or something like that. I like his father and I like him. I don't think he is perfect and I accept that he has had a privileged life but then so have many of the elites that are so looked up to by many on the left.

I welcome debate, discussion, criticism and even mockery of the institution and even the person. Just allow me the right to rebut without assuming that I am blind a right wing robot.

Again, thanks Tricky.

[subgenius]

"I welcome debate, discussion, criticism and even mockery of the institution and even the person."

Don't think so. What Kenny did was mockery, and you didn't welcome it. By making this distinction about "to his face" you want to define what is acceptable mockery.

"I have posted critisism of Bush on this forum. I have posted jokes about Bush on this forum. I have posted embarassing things about Bush on this forum. I would never be such a prick and a coward as to smile at someone while I flipped them off."

None of that was to his face. I doubt you would say the same things if you met him. I'll assume you'll say you would, OK?

What Kenny did was innocuous. Most people don't even see the secret sign without pointing it out. Only way he could do it and not be subject to being forcefully ejected and subject to harrassment by certain government agencies, which he probably will be anyway.

Methinks you doth protesteth too much.

But I understand your point.

Edited to add:
P.S. Sympathies with the invoice thing, I got the same situation right now. If it ain't in the mailbox today I'm screwed.

[Mark]

Originally posted by dwb


Good job pasting a useless E-mail message into a topic. Crikey...

Good technique: the points you know are true you blow off as unimportant. The ones you aren't sure about, you want proof. Read the papers, don't just listen to Rush Limbaugh's distortions. I am not going to spend a lot of time trying to convice someone of anything who equates a drunk driving conviction with the struggle for independence. Wow. That's a new low even for a Bush apologist.

Edited to add:
RandFan
I genuinely like Bush. It might have just been rhetoric but I believe in the concept of passionate conservative or something like that

It's compassionate conservatism. You believe in it without even knowing what the term is? If that doesn't show your blind allegiance to anything this man does, I don't know what would. Personally, I'll at least need to know what something is before I'll willingly believe in it.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by RandFan
I have always been passionate and right now I am having one of those weeks. One of my clients has sat on an invoice for nearly a month. I didn't know this and was expecting the money and the virus is giving me fits with several of my clients servers. So my passions are rather sensitive.
Very sorry to hear that. My home PC is diseased and I am going to wipe and reload this weekend. What a pain. Hope your clients are understanding.

Originally posted by RandFan
I genuinely like Bush. It might have just been rhetoric but I believe in the concept of passionate conservative or something like that. I like his father and I like him.
I think Dubya would be a great beer-drinking pal (just don't get him started on religion!), but simply not presidential caliber. The same was not true of his dad. Although I disagreed with a lot of what GHWB did, he was no idiot. He coined the term "voo-doo economics" and gave Reagan a good run for his money. I was disappointed that he sold out to him and even more disappointed when he showed no spine during Iran-Contra, but I think he did a good job during Desert Storm. It was a measured and appropriate reaction to an attack on one of our allies. He also understood foreign policy, having been CIA director, and did pretty well, except for throwing up on the Japanese Prime Minister.

Originally posted by RandFan
I don't think he is perfect and I accept that he has had a privileged life but then so have many of the elites that are so looked up to by many on the left.
I don't care that he is rich, or that many of the left are rich either. But he is like a charicature of a spoiled rich kid. He does his best to help his rich friends while ignoring the poor. He expects his past to be covered up for him. He had his rich friends bail him out every time he had a failed business. He got into College because of his rich connections. He got out of Viet Nam because of his connections. He has no sense of noblesse oblige. If he had taken advantage of all his wealth and connections to become a smart, thoughtful, commanding person, then I would respect him a lot more. Instead, he seems to simply turn over the running of the country to his puppeteers.

As a person, Dubya may be a nice guy. As the leader of the most powerful country in the world, he is almost a total failure.

Originally posted by RandFan
I welcome debate, discussion, criticism and even mockery of the institution and even the person. Just allow me the right to rebut without assuming that I am blind a right wing robot.

I hope that is what we will do. It is easy for me and you and everyone else here to let their emotions enter the arguments, so we sometimes have to back off and cool down. I don't agree with some of the arguing tactics of my ideological comrades (give it a rest, Ion ;)) but we are all only human. Except for Ed.

Originally posted by RandFan
Again, thanks Tricky.
You have done the same for me often.

[Doubt]

I cannot remember the quote exactly, or even who said it. But this ongoing debate about GWB reminds me of this statement:

“Democracy does not guarantee that we will get the government we need. But we often get the government we deserve.”

[Samus]

Originally posted by Mark
Good technique: the points you know are true you blow off as unimportant. The ones you aren't sure about, you want proof. Close, but no cigar. It's more like: Concede that there are some valid points, but point out that there's plenty of fluff in there as well. I have nothing wrong with relevant criticisms on the job Bush is doing as president (if you've read my stuff on the forums, you would see that I myself have criticized him as well). What I dislike are the cheap pot shots, like some of the ones you posted. I don't like them now, and I didn't like them a few years ago when they were cheap shots at Clinton, either.

Originally posted by Mark
Read the papers, don't just listen to Rush Limbaugh's distortions. I do read the papers, and I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh. How 'bout one for you: don't make assumptions on the person you're arguing with.

Originally posted by Mark
I am not going to spend a lot of time trying to convice someone of anything who equates a drunk driving conviction with the struggle for independence. Wow. That's a new low even for a Bush apologist. A drunk driving conviction 20+ years ago is irrelevant today. Obviously the guy learned something from it. You're the one that posted proclaiming Bush as the first president that was a criminal when elected, I'm just the one that pointed out you're wrong.

BTW, good technique on your part as well: accuse me of being something I'm not (a Bush apologist), then write me off as part of an un-convincible group of disciples. My intention was never to justify Bush's actions, but rather, to point out the absurdity of the E-mail.

[Mark]

Originally posted by dwb
Close, but no cigar. It's more like: Concede that there are some valid points, but point out that there's plenty of fluff in there as well. I have nothing wrong with relevant criticisms on the job Bush is doing as president (if you've read my stuff on the forums, you would see that I myself have criticized him as well). What I dislike are the cheap pot shots, like some of the ones you posted. I don't like them now, and I didn't like them a few years ago when they were cheap shots at Clinton, either.

I do read the papers, and I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh. How 'bout one for you: don't make assumptions on the person you're arguing with.

A drunk driving conviction 20+ years ago is irrelevant today. Obviously the guy learned something from it. You're the one that posted proclaiming Bush as the first president that was a criminal when elected, I'm just the one that pointed out you're wrong.

BTW, good technique on your part as well: accuse me of being something I'm not (a Bush apologist), then write me off as part of an un-convincible group of disciples. My intention was never to justify Bush's actions, but rather, to point out the absurdity of the E-mail.

I accept your criticism; I did make assumptions about you, for which I don't have sufficient evidence. I apologize for that.

As for the rest of it, all those points are all matters of public reord. If, as you seem to indicate, you are really only interested in the truth, then I suggest you do a Google search on any of them. I do not have the time in my day to do the research for you...nor should I have to if you are truly interested in the facts.

And yes, when a President sets himself up as some sort of moral compass, as this one has done, then I do think his drunk driving conviction is relevant. As is his alleged history of drug abuse. It was fair game with Clinton; why can't we ask the same of Bush?

[Samus]

Originally posted by Mark
I accept your criticism; I did make assumptions about you, for which I don't have sufficient evidence. I apologize for that. Yes, well, my tone could have been a little more gentle, too. I'm no insurance adjuster, but I'd say we were both at fault. Let's just hug and call it even! :)

Originally posted by Mark
And yes, when a President sets himself up as some sort of moral compass, as this one has done, then I do think his drunk driving conviction is relevant. As is his alleged history of drug abuse. It was fair game with Clinton; why can't we ask the same of Bush? Agreed, somewhat. As for the drunk driving conviction, it's something that happened in the '70s, he admitted to it, and it hasn't happened since. He doesn't even drink any more. Even as a moral compass, he stands the test because he made a mistake, realized it, and eventually took action to assure it would never happen again (i.e. quit drinking). That's A-OK in my book, I hardly expect anyone to be perfect.

As for the recreational drug use as a young'n, I don't think it was relevant when Clinton ran and I don't think it should be for Bush. Kudos to Clinton for trying to be more open about it (does anyone really believe he didn't inhale?), but if happened 20+ years ago and they learned their lesson, I'm okay with that.

Look, people do dumb things when they are young, and if they learn quickly enough, we shouldn't fault them for being young and stupid. One could even argue that he understands how dangerous drugs can be, because he's tried them.

Now, if he was snortin' coke as governor of Texas, I would say that it should be an issue during a presidential campaign. I do see the difference between minor offenses many years ago, and a chronic problem.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by subgenius
"I welcome debate, discussion, criticism and even mockery of the institution and even the person."

Don't think so. What Kenny did was mockery, and you didn't welcome it. By making this distinction about "to his face" you want to define what is acceptable mockery.

"I have posted critisism of Bush on this forum. I have posted jokes about Bush on this forum. I have posted embarassing things about Bush on this forum. I would never be such a prick and a coward as to smile at someone while I flipped them off."

None of that was to his face. I doubt you would say the same things if you met him. I'll assume you'll say you would, OK?

What Kenny did was innocuous. Most people don't even see the secret sign without pointing it out. Only way he could do it and not be subject to being forcefully ejected and subject to harrassment by certain government agencies, which he probably will be anyway.

Methinks you doth protesteth too much. Fair enough, I'll give you the last word.

But I understand your point.

Edited to add:
P.S. Sympathies with the invoice thing, I got the same situation right now. If it ain't in the mailbox today I'm screwed. What kills me is it is not like it's someone trying to balance the books on my efforts which is bad enough but if it is because there is no money then there is no option. But this project couldn't even be started without being funded.

[Mark]

No! I want the last word! But I don't have one. It's been a fun debate, fellas.

Wait, here's one (my own; if anyone else ever said it, I don't want to know):

Voting for the lesser of 2 evils is still voting for evil.

[DavidJames]

"it is a mindless sheep mentality"

RandFan: I'm sorry, I didn't mean to directly accuse you of such an attitude, although it was your post that did prompt me to reply. I specifically didn't name you because, as others have pointed out, I don't believe your views are dogmatic and blindly follow any one political bias.

I also liked the GWB campaign "compassionate conservatism" talk. Sadly, it was just that, talk. He has done little to demonstrate he was serious and actually did give a damn.

I also believe he performed very well the few months following 9/11, at least as it relates to reacting to that tragedy. However, I don't believe his actions were extraordinary and beyond that of what I would expect from any reasonable person.

He actions the past year to year to 18 months, however, as Tricky pointed out, have been abysmal. I completely agree with won't reiterate Tricky's excellent analyses.

I will continue to question peoples apparent blind support of GWB in light of all this. That's what prompted my comments.

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by dwb


Is this true? Have you researched the other 42 presidents, or is this just more drivel?



Thank you for jogging my memory.

According to David McCullough in his recent biography of John Adams, Adams essentially took the last 2 years of his Presidency off.

I don't know if it adds up, but towards the end of Jefferson's term he would spend large times of it away from Washington.

Ike really like to fish a lot.

TR did a lot of hiking and nature trips.

I think we can safely classify the above charge as hyperbole as is most of the e-mail.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Mike B.


Thank you for jogging my memory.

According to David McCullough in his recent biography of John Adams, Adams essentially took the last 2 years of his Presidency off.

I don't know if it adds up, but towards the end of Jefferson's term he would spend large times of it away from Washington.

Ike really like to fish a lot.

TR did a lot of hiking and nature trips.

I think we can safely classify the above charge as hyperbole as is most of the e-mail.

I have no idea what you guys are debating but its hardly fair to compare taking time off during the time of John Adams, Jefferson with anything like what's going on today.

[subgenius]

"As for the recreational drug use as a young'n, I don't think it was relevant when Clinton ran and I don't think it should be for Bush."
The problem is that his putative supporters did make it an issue with until their guy was on the spot.
Kudos to you if it wasn't an issue.
Although, I believe there's a big difference between cannabis or alcohol use, and alcohol, cannabis or cocaine abuse.
No evidence of abuse in one case, evidence of alcohol, cannabis and cocaine abuse in the other.
Not to suggest that a person in recovery is disqualified from anything.
Two further issues:
GWB has adamantly denied participation in any program of recovery.
The hypocrisy.

[Samus]

Originally posted by subgenius
The problem is that his putative supporters did make it an issue with until their guy was on the spot.
Kudos to you if it wasn't an issue. I should make it clear that I in no way condone recreational drug use, or breaking of the law by using controlled substances.

However, if it's something that was done for a very short time many years ago, I consider it a non-issue. If Clinton or Bush made a couple bad choices when they were 22, well, I can hardly fault them as 50-somethings (how old are they, anyway?)

Indeed, the propaganda machine was in full force to exploit Clinton's admission of marijuana use, and that same machine was silent on Bush's cocaine use. Funny that.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by subgenius

Wrong.
Most of them have some achievments, and qualifications, even if you can also find "bad stuff" to put on the resume.

Maybe you'd like to take my challenge to list George's achievments that qualified him to be president?
Warning, no generalities accepted.

Bonus points for Clarence Thomas' "qualifications."

Uhm, you think that that 'resume' was an genuine attempt at listing Bush's achievements? No, it was just a compilation of all the 'bad' things that he has done. Never mind the fact that many of those things are not under his sole control and others are a matter of opinion as to whether or not they are 'bad.' Anyone who has the time can make one for any president. I will not take you up on your offer since I do not care enough about Bush to research any achievements he may have had before becoming president. The phoney resume is obviously not a serious criticism of Bush, it is just a fallacy filled rant by someone who does not like him.

[Ion]

Originally posted by ssibal

Uhm, you think that that 'resume' was an genuine attempt at listing Bush's achievements?
...

The thing is that I cannot think of one achievement by Bush since he took office in January 2001, two and a half years ago.

He starts issues bigger than his abilities and is incapable to address and finish them.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Ion

The thing is that I cannot think of one achievement by Bush since he took office in January 2001, two and a half years ago.

Well, like many things in the fake resume it is all up to opinion. What you see as a 'bad' thing someone else may see as an achievement. I am against his faith based initiative but unfortunately many people see that as an achievement. Now, I see the removal of Saddam and his regime as an achievement while others do not. It all depends on who you ask, the fake resume is not very objective.

[subgenius]

Still waiting to hear about his achievments that qualified him for the office.

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by RandFan
I genuinely like Bush. It might have just been rhetoric but I believe in the concept of passionate conservative or something like that. I like his father and I like him. I don't think he is perfect and I accept that he has had a privileged life but then so have many of the elites that are so looked up to by many on the left. Well, my take is that "lik[ing]" someone is no substitute for respecting them. Bush Sr.'s Iran-Contra involvement, his slimy use of Willy Horton (against Dukakis), and his assertion that atheists are not American citizens are just three things that come to mind which serve to cancel out any so-called likability. Frankly, I think repugnance is a better fit.

As to the son, it is even more to the point. While he no doubt pets doggies and kisses babies, his person-to-person "charm" has all the sincerity of a frat boy or salesman.

You may disagree, and I can respect an opposing opinion. I would, however, ask that anyone interested in analysis of GWB's deeds as opposed to what he says is "in [his] heart" take five minutes the next time they are in a bookstore and just read the introduction to "The Bush Dyslexicon" by Mark Crispin Miller.

[Regnad Kcin]

And BTW, I should add that I find some of the content of the "resume" leading off this thread to be spurious and tenuous. No need to exaggerate when the truth will do quite nicely.

[Samus]

Originally posted by subgenius
Still waiting to hear about his achievments that qualified him for the office. What do you consider adequate qualification for the job? He was a businessman and the governor of a large state. What more is needed? Presidents need to know how to run the executive branch, and they need to be a good "front man".

Whether Bush was a good governor, and how good a front man he was, it was for the voters to decide. He lost the popular vote, which chaps a lot of people, but hey, that's the electoral college for you. Don't like it? Campaign to get it repealed.

I'm curious to know how being vice president necessarily qualifies you to be president more than being a governor does. The office of the VP, depending on the president, can be merely one big dog and pony show. Look how much Truman was left in the dark.

I don't think Bush is a wonderful president, but we could have done a lot worse.

[DavidJames]

"Still waiting to hear about his achievments that qualified him for the office."

We're well in to the era where name recognition or "celebrity" is the primary "achievement" necessary to hold political office. Bush is president because his father was president. I don't believe GWB is stupid, he has been smart enough to know how to take advantage of his family name and what's been given him. I also believe if his father wasn't president, GWB wouldn't be either. I would love to see someone make a compelling case otherwise.

[subgenius]

If he was a governor or businessman and failed that wouldn't be an achievment.
I take it the answer is "I don't know of any."
"Could do worse" is like "Not an imbecile" hardly a qualification for any job.
I don't want to beat him up, I think the point has been made.
I hope we all get through OK.

[Samus]

Originally posted by subgenius
I take it the answer is "I don't know of any." What do you consider adequate qualification for the job? He was a businessman and the governor of a large state. What more is needed?

What is considered sufficient qualifications for me might not be for you, so, what do you consider as possible qualifications to be president?

[subgenius]

Originally posted by dwb
What do you consider adequate qualification for the job? He was a businessman and the governor of a large state. What more is needed?

What is considered sufficient qualifications for me might not be for you, so, what do you consider as possible qualifications to be president?
Please just answer the question. Do you know of any (however you define it)?
Last time, if he failed at the jobs you cite those wouldn't be achievments, right?

Come on this shouldn't be so difficult. He's president.

[Mark]

Originally posted by dwb
I don't think Bush is a wonderful president, but we could have done a lot worse.

With an annual deficit of almost 3/4 of a trillion dollars; Osama, and Mullah Omar still on the loose; 2 countries invaded and nothing accomplished; the 1st and 4th ammendments under serious assault...

How eaxctly could we have done a lot worse?

[Samus]

Look, if y'all want to criticize Bush, at least make the criticisms valid.

What specific policy measures has Bush supported/created that were a failure? I'll start: The Patriot Act. I don't think they can offer evidence that it has decreased the risk of homeland terrorism, yet it has encroached on our privacy rights. My turn again: he has yet to veto a spending bill, contributing to massive budget deficits.

If you say he's not qualified for the job, then say what you think is adequate qualification. Bill Clinton was the governor of a medium-sized state rated almost dead last in education metrics such as standardized test scores. Ronald Reagan was an actor and the governor of a large state. Bush (43) was a businessman and governor of a large state.

Cheap shots are all well and good, but they don't accomplish much. Saying he's a failure without pointing out why, saying he's not qualified, then demanding that other people justify his qualifications, isn't much better. Why isn't he qualified for the job?

Edited to add: Whoops, looks like Mark beat me to the punch by two minutes on pointing out some valid criticisms.

[Samus]

Originally posted by subgenius
Please just answer the question. Do you know of any (however you define it)?
Last time, if he failed at the jobs you cite those wouldn't be achievments, right? You're the one that made the assertion that he is not qualified, last I knew that meant the burden of proof was on your shoulders, not mine. I'm not taking that monkey, it doesn't belong to me. :)

I don't think he was a failure as governor, I guess that's where we differ in opinion.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by dwb
You're the one that made the assertion that he is not qualified, last I knew that meant the burden of proof was on your shoulders, not mine. I'm not taking that monkey, it doesn't belong to me. :)

I don't think he was a failure as governor, I guess that's where we differ in opinion.
I said no one can list a specific achievment that qualified him.
Not "thinking he was a failure" is not only not specific, but still not an acievment. Its getting worse: "could have done worse", "not an imbecile", "not a failure."
I'm not taking the monkey either, I didn't vote for him.

[Samus]

Originally posted by subgenius
I said no one can list a specific achievment that qualified him. I said he was a businessman and governor of a large state. You immediately implied that those don't count, because: "If he was a governor or businessman and failed that wouldn't be an achievment."

So, after taking that to mean the achievements I listed don't count, I asked you what you would consider sufficient qualifications, to which you began stepping around the question. I don't think he failed as governor, so that counts for me.

Either accept my answer (viz. being governor of a large state) and stop saying "no one" can give you an answer, or admit that there is no answer that will satisfy you, since you already believe he was not qualified.

[Ion]

We discussed this 'achievement' from an objective viewpoint in another thread:
Originally posted by ssibal

...
Now, I see the removal of Saddam and his regime as an achievement while others do not.
...

1.) the war in Iraq being done against the process in place in U.N. undermines democracy;

2.) the possibility of a Bush success in the Iraq's war is undermined by guerilla, making Bush not finishing ever "...the removal of Saddam...".

Based on 1.) and 2.), the war in Iraq is not a Bush achievement, it is a Bush failure.

One more big failure in Bush's resume.

[Ion]

Originally posted by Mark

With an annual deficit of almost 3/4 of a trillion dollars; Osama, and Mullah Omar still on the loose; 2 countries invaded and nothing accomplished; the 1st and 4th ammendments under serious assault...

How eaxctly could we have done a lot worse?
It beats me:

Bush must be president of wasted time and resources.

[Mark]

Originally posted by Ion

It beats me:

Bush must be president of wasted time and resources.

I agree, although I would change it to read, "Imperial President of Wasted Time and Resources."

[subgenius]

Originally posted by dwb
I said he was a businessman and governor of a large state. You immediately implied that those don't count, because: "If he was a governor or businessman and failed that wouldn't be an achievment."

So, after taking that to mean the achievements I listed don't count, I asked you what you would consider sufficient qualifications, to which you began stepping around the question. I don't think he failed as governor, so that counts for me.

Either accept my answer (viz. being governor of a large state) and stop saying "no one" can give you an answer, or admit that there is no answer that will satisfy you, since you already believe he was not qualified.
Would failing at something be sufficient to you?
"Being" something is not the same as an achievment. What specifically did he achieve as governor or businessman?
Otherwise all failures are achievers in your book even if they were atrocious. If "being" is sufficient for you I accept that that is your standard.
I'll take any other of your measures of success other than just "being" something. I have mine but then we'd get off an answer to the question. Any of your own measures of acheiving something will do. Shouldn't be so hard.
Like saying there's no god. I'm not saying there's not, but I haven't seen any evidence of it yet. I didn't say he wasn't qualified. Educate me.
There are answers that would satisfy me. Anything specific. Anything.

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by subgenius

Would failing at something be sufficient to you?
"Being" something is not the same as an achievment. What specifically did he achieve as governor or businessman?
Otherwise all failures are achievers in your book even if they were atrocious. If "being" is sufficient for you I accept that that is your standard.
I'll take any other of your measures of success other than just "being" something. I have mine but then we'd get off an answer to the question. Any of your own measures of acheiving something will do. Shouldn't be so hard.
Like saying there's no god. I'm not saying there's not, but I haven't seen any evidence of it yet. I didn't say he wasn't qualified. Educate me.
There are answers that would satisfy me. Anything specific. Anything.

Businessman - I could imagine that some people think he's a successful businessman because he was richer at the end of it than when he started.

Governor - dwb states very clearly that he doesn't think Bush failed as Texas Governor. That's his opinion, and I would imagine, if he tried, he could point to specific successes that match his cirteria.

Here's the problem, no one is ever going to be able to prove to subgenius that Bush was qualified. His successes are too partisan.

[Samus]

Originally posted by specious_reasons
Governor - dwb states very clearly that he doesn't think Bush failed as Texas Governor. That's his opinion, and I would imagine, if he tried, he could point to specific successes that match his cirteria. Yep.

Originally posted by specious_reasons
Here's the problem, no one is ever going to be able to prove to subgenius that Bush was qualified. His successes are too partisan. Yep.

Besides, like I said, subgenius has already made up his mind that Bush was/is not qualified to be president. How do I know this?

1. He did not vote for Bush.

2. He states that no one can give an example of an achievement that qualifies Bush to be president.

3. He refuses to give criteria that would satisfy him apropos to presidential qualifications.

We could argue all day, but it's a really nice day, and I'd like to go fly a plane right now. Cheers. (BTW, I respect subgenius and his opinion, and I've read a lot of his stuff on these forums. This is just something we're clearly not going to gain consensus on. I don't think Bush is a wonderful president, but I do think he's qualified for the job.)

[subgenius]

All I'm asking for is a specific success. What's so hard about that? I don't have to enumerate what they could be, they're obvious, but here's some: standard of living, improved education, cleaner air, water, lower crime, better health...something, anything.
Does that help? I know you can do it. I've just never see/heard it. I'm sincerely asking for you to educate me/us.

Hope you enjoy your day, its gorgeous here in Michigan. I, too, am going to go out and soak some of it up. Doesn't last long around here.
Vrooom. (Sound of me zooming off on my motorscooter to a birthday party.)
Fly a plane? Wow.

[subgenius]

:roll:

[Malachi151]

The question was what achievements qualify him for office.

The only reply I have seen so far is that he was a businessman and a governor.

Yes, well there are millions of businessmen in America, and hundreds of governors/ex-governors.

Again, whay [i]achievement[i/] has Geroge Bush accomplished that sets him apart as the most quaified man in America to lead our country?

I honestly don't think anyone can seriously anwser that question, except with the anwser that "got the votes" (which will always be in question)

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Tricky
As a person, Dubya may be a nice guy. As the leader of the most powerful country in the world, he is almost a total failure. I have to say I couldn't disagree more. In fact I truly don't understand such rhetoric. "Total failure"? Well you are as entitled to your opinion as I am of mine.

I'm damn glad Bush is president.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by subgenius
"I welcome debate, discussion, criticism and even mockery of the institution and even the person."

Don't think so. What Kenny did was mockery, and you didn't welcome it. By making this distinction about "to his face" you want to define what is acceptable mockery. I know I promised you the last word. I appologize. Let me be clear. I welcom any mockery that anyone would do "to his face" and damn straight I would be willing to engage in any of the actions that I have done in the past to "his face".

None of that was to his face. I doubt you would say the same things if you met him. I'll assume you'll say you would, OK? I never did it while smiling to his face pretending to be something else. Huge difference

What Kenny did was innocuous. To you maybe not to me. Now I will keep my word and let you have the last one.

Again I appologize.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Regnad Kcin
Well, my take is that "lik[ing]" someone is no substitute for respecting them. I like and respect him.

Bush Sr.'s Iran-Contra involvement, his slimy use of Willy Horton (against Dukakis), Much of the politics of Clinton was slimy. I took it in stride. If you are consistent in your judgement of "slimy" politics then I respect your opinion.

...and his assertion that atheists are not American citizens are just three things that come to mind which serve to cancel out any so-called likability. Frankly, I think repugnance is a better fit. I disagree with Bush on this issue. I have never met a politician that I agreed with every issue. If you are looking for reasons to find a politician repugnant then there will be many opportunities.

As to the son, it is even more to the point. While he no doubt pets doggies and kisses babies, his person-to-person "charm" has all the sincerity of a frat boy or salesman. Clinton was know for his charm. He also was known for his political savvy and promising one thing while giving another. I don't give a sh*t for charm. I want a leader who has the courage to make difficult decisions. Bush fits that mold for me.

You may disagree, and I can respect an opposing opinion. I would, however, ask that anyone interested in analysis of GWB's deeds as opposed to what he says is "in [his] heart" take five minutes the next time they are in a bookstore and just read the introduction to "The Bush Dyslexicon" by Mark Crispin Miller. I spent 8 years dealing with the same tripe on Clinton.

Fact: Every Republican leader, past and future, has or will be demonized and hated by many if not most of those on the left. Every Democrat leader, past and future, has or will be demonized and hated by many if not most of those on the right.

Fact: Few, very few individuals from any shade of the political spectrum will view the actions of presidents with a critical eye neither hating nor idolizing them based in part on ideology.

You can identify those with critical thinking towards politics because they do not make blanket statements and are almost as likely to respect or disrespect someone from one ideology as the other.

Those who lack critical thinking as it applies to ideology always have justification why a particular politician deserves that individuals scorn while excusing the fact that such scorn always seems to fall to the opposing party.

I am not free of ideological bias but I am intellectually honest enough to recognize that fact and attempt to overcome it.

[Malachi151]

That's just pathetic. We all know that W is just a puppet for Cheney and Rumsfeld anyway.

I mean get real.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Malachi151
That's just pathetic. We all know that W is just a puppet for Cheney and Rumsfeld anyway.(emphasis mine)

You "know"? Cool I have friends that know that clinton was a puppet for the chinese. Why else did they give them all of that money? Why else did he reduce restrictions that enabled the Chinese to aquire so much technology? Why else did SNL do so many skits about the Clinton administration being in bed with the Chinese?

I suppose one specious argument is as good as the next.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Ion
We discussed this 'achievement' from an objective viewpoint in another thread:

1.) the war in Iraq being done against the process in place in U.N. undermines democracy;

2.) the possibility of a Bush success in the Iraq's war is undermined by guerilla, making Bush not finishing ever "...the removal of Saddam...".

Based on 1.) and 2.), the war in Iraq is not a Bush achievement, it is a Bush failure.

One more big failure in Bush's resume.

Like I said, it is all subjective. What some see as an achievement, others will not.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by RandFan
(emphasis mine)

You "know"? Cool I have friends that know that clinton was a puppet for the chinese. Why else did they give them all of that money? Why else did he reduce restrictions that enabled the Chinese to aquire so much technology? Why else did SNL do so many skits about the Clinton administration being in bed with the Chinese?

I suppose one specious argument is as good as the next.

You have to be totally naive not to see thaqt Bush is a puppet of his cabinet. I mean come on. Rumsfeld dn Cheney have been working together since the 1970's publically and privately. Cheney is one of the most powerful people in the world, he's a hell of a lot more powerful than Bush is.

All the stuff that has happened since Bush has taken office, you think that Bush is laying in bed at night dreaming this stuff up? Please.

This administration has been a whirlwind, pushing through more changes than anything since the New Deal.

This is all stuff that Cheney has been drafting for the past 10 years or longer, he got his butt into power and is pushing it all through while Jr takes vacations and stumbles through prepared speaches.

Let's face it, Bush could have died his first day in office and everything would have happend just the same, Bush is just a pawn, he's the face that was used to get the neo-cons into office. Once in they just keep him up as the PR guy, they tell him to go cheerlead every now and then.

Buhs is completely dispicable, and his cabinet of puppeteers even more so.

Do you honestly think this guy is making policy, leading in the back rooms? Do you think this guy even knows what ethics is? Do you think he could any any deep philosophical question (with a meaningful anwser) AT ALL?

I shudder to think what will happen if this clown and his team of demolition experts are reelected.

[Ion]

These keep on dangling for two pages now:
Originally posted by subgenius

...
Educate me.
There are answers that would satisfy me. Anything specific. Anything.
and
Originally posted by Malachi151
The question was what achievements qualify him for office.

The only reply I have seen so far is that he was a businessman and a governor.

Yes, well there are millions of businessmen in America, and hundreds of governors/ex-governors.

Again, what achievement has Geroge Bush accomplished that sets him apart as the most quaified man in America to lead our country?
...

So, Radio Frequency, etc, any undisputed achievement by Bush?

Any?

Please...

Any?

[Mark]

Originally posted by RandFan
(emphasis mine)

You "know"? Cool I have friends that know that clinton was a puppet for the chinese. Why else did they give them all of that money? Why else did he reduce restrictions that enabled the Chinese to aquire so much technology? Why else did SNL do so many skits about the Clinton administration being in bed with the Chinese?

I

What does that have to do with George W.? He didn't even run against Clinton. Nice try.

I have one thing to say to you: 650 Billion Dollar Annual deficit (which is what it is if you remove the money Bush is stealing from the Social Security Trust Fund). There is nothing you can say that will make that OK, and there is no one else you can blame for it, since the Republicans now control the entire government.

Oh...and if the number of SNL skits is an indicator of a president's quality (you said not, not me) then Dubya is one of the worst ever.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Mark
What does that have to do with George W.? He didn't even run against Clinton. Nice try. There is no objective proof that Bush is anyone's puppet. There is far more evidence that Clinton was a puppet of the Chinese than Bush is of anyone. So don't give me that "nice try" bs.

Look, you have four choices, admit that you can't prove Bush is anyone's puppet, prove that Bush is anyone's puppet, make a specious argument like other woo-woos or shut up.

The choice is yours.

I have one thing to say to you: 650 Billion Dollar Annual deficit How does this prove Bush is anyone's puppet?

(which is what it is if you remove the money Bush is stealing from the Social Security Trust Fund). Right, more inconsistency, Bush is not stealing from the Trust Fund. There is no mechanism for saving any money. Congress (most often Democrats) have always spent 100% of the social security money. Until Gore enacts his "lock box" they always will.

Oh...and if the number of SNL skits is an indicator of a president's quality (you said not, not me)... 1.) I never said ANYTHING about quality Please don't put words in my mouth.

And,

2.) I was quoting someone elses argument. I don't buy that Clinton was a puppet of anyone anymoer than I buy that Bush is a puppet. Please read my posts closer before you respond.

[Mark]

Originally posted by RandFan
There is no objective proof that Bush is anyone's puppet. There is far more evidence that Clinton was a puppet of the Chinese than Bush is of anyone. So don't give me that "nice try" bs.

Look, you have four choices, admit that you can't prove Bush is anyone's puppet, prove that Bush is anyone's puppet, make a specious argument like other woo-woos or shut up.

The choice is yours.

How does this prove Bush is anyone's puppet?

Right, more inconsistency, Bush is not stealing from the Trust Fund. There is no mechanism for saving any money. Congress (most often Democrats) have always spent 100% of the social security money. Until Gore enacts his "lock box" they always will.

1.) I never said ANYTHING about quality Please don't put words in my mouth.

And,

2.) I was quoting someone elses argument. I don't buy that Clinton was a puppet of anyone anymoer than I buy that Bush is a puppet. Please read my posts closer before you respond.

Excuse me for breathing, but I never said George W. was a puppet. I think he is quite capable of ruining things on his own.

Bush is now President and he is stealing from the Social Security Trust Fund. When Clinton was in office, he was responsible and I criticized him for it.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Malachi151
You have to be totally naive not to see thaqt Bush is a puppet of his cabinet. I mean come on. Rumsfeld dn Cheney have been working together since the 1970's publically and privately. Cheney is one of the most powerful people in the world, he's a hell of a lot more powerful than Bush is. Do you know what the word "specious" is?

Are you familiar with critical thinking?

Do you know how to think for yourself and not buy the rhetoric of others?

All the stuff that has happened since Bush has taken office, you think that Bush is laying in bed at night dreaming this stuff up? Please. Fallacious, do you know what logic is?

This administration has been a whirlwind, pushing through more changes than anything since the New Deal. Therefore what?

This is all stuff that Cheney has been drafting for the past 10 years or longer, he got his butt into power and is pushing it all through while Jr takes vacations and stumbles through prepared speaches. This is your proof? Do you have evidence that Bush, a republican, did not share many of the same ideals.

Let's face it, Bush could have died his first day in office and everything would have happend just the same, Bush is just a pawn, he's the face that was used to get the neo-cons into office. Once in they just keep him up as the PR guy, they tell him to go cheerlead every now and then. Speculation, rhetoric.

Buhs is completely dispicable, and his cabinet of puppeteers even more so. And you are an idiot who lacks the ability to think for himself or use critical thinking.

Thank you for making my point so eloquently.

Do you honestly think this guy is making policy, leading in the back rooms? Do you think this guy even knows what ethics is? Do you think he could any any deep philosophical question (with a meaningful anwser) AT ALL? I don't know what "any any" is. I honestly doubt that you are capable of any independent thought. It is clear you are a partisan who is only capable of regurgitating rhetoric without any critical thinking. Do you ever question the crap you read? I question the propaganda coming from the right and the left. I am capable of thinking for myself.

I shudder to think what will happen if this clown and his team of demolition experts are reelected. Ooooohhhh.... you "shudder" to think. Reading your posts I would say that it is far more likely that you struggle to think. Oh well. I see Ion is on the forum. I have him on ignore. I can honestly say that you are not the most intellectually dishonest left wing poster on this thread.

If you keep making specious arguments then I am going to put you there to. Can you make a coherent argument or are you going to persist in seculation and conjecture?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Mark
Excuse me for breathing, but I never said George W. was a puppet. I think he is quite capable of ruining things on his own. Yes, but you are atacking my argument. If you accept my premise (that neither Bush nor Clinton were puppets) then why the argument?

Bush is now President and he is stealing from the Social Security Trust Fund. When Clinton was in office, he was responsible and I criticized him for it. Thank you, consistency is all I ask for. Though I'm not sure how any president can stop spending money that congress takes in. There is no savings account, no "social security" account.

[Malachi151]

Wait, here is what you want me to believe.

That this man, George Bush Jr, who was born a third generation multi-milionair, grandson of a Senator, son of a President/former head of CIA/ international oil tycoon/corporate executive, who is a self admitted alcoholic, born again evangelical Chrisitan he claims, who has a criminal record, and who's family was heavily involved in the Savings and Loan scandal, who's election was in fact corrupt (the voter list washing has been proven) and its highly likely that it was intentionally done with the help of his brother who has also been involved in underhanded business deals, who both in fact have horrible education records in their states (Jeb is now moving to make 12th grade optional in Florida to save money), who had his entire staff, who we know for a fact had drawn up plans to invade Iraq in the 1990s, picked out before he was elected, you want me to believe that this guy is lying in bed at night trying to figure out how he can help improve the lives of all Americans!

Don't make me laught too hard! :p Yeah, right, some alcoholic, born again Christian flunky, who has made millions of dollars from manipulating our system and taking advantage of federal loans and programs and protections who is buddy buddy with Ken Lay and the guys from just about every bankrupsy filing corporation out there is working hard right now to ensure that the country has a bright and future where everyone has oppurtunity to fulfill their potential; yes I'm sure that is what he is worrying about right now!

He, and his whole family, are all corrupt lying scum bags.

He has his old business records sealed, they have Cheney's old records sealed. In 1975 Cheney and Rumsfeld helped to cover up the old CIA LSD experiments when there was a threat of charges being filed in a wrongful death lawsuit, which they helped to keep concealed while they were heads of the Joint Cheif's of Staff. Which of course you will say is BS, but whatever, these guys are all scum.

They are all pressing for a secretive, no, let me restate, they have created a more secretive government, they have losted up all their own old records so that no one can learn anything about them and their previous business deals and how they have gotten their money, they lied to the American public to get the country into a war, and now they are rigging the business deals after the war in favor of their own personal inerests. Damn, how much more messed up do things have to get?

I mean damn, for several months Cheney was "hidden in a bunker as part of the shadow government", while Bush paraded around doing photo ops. Umm yes, Cheny was busy making policy is what he was doing.

I am shocked every day by the audacity of this administration and the things they do. I'm shocked that more people aren't shocked.

Removing environmental protections left and right in an unprecidented way.

Privatizing many federal systems, such as the federal parks service.

Pushing for oil drilling, logging, and mining in once protected areas.

Weakening anti-pollution laws.

Underfunding education.

Setting a set of public schools goals that are impossible to meet with a clause calling for action to be taken agaisnt public schools if they are not met.

Intentionally misrepresenting facts about his tax cuts and environmental policies.

Lying (you call it misstating facts, or accidently being mislead) to the world about the situation in Iraq to press for war.

Undermining international agreements.

He intentinoally didn't follow up on the Al-Queda info that the Clinton administration provided him when he took office.

Has restricted the investigation into 9/11 and now allowed full discloser of into related to the findings of that investigation.

He intentionaly threw out all the negotiations with North Korea that had been done by the Clinton administration.

Budget deficint as far as the eye can see.

Taking money from the SS trust fund.

Repeal of the estate tax, and removal of the dividend tax (a nice let inherited wealth live forever combo).

Bringing Church and State closer than any time in the history of the country with the faith based initiative.

The guy and his whole team is freaking con artist, lying, soleless, hucksters who are grabbing as many millions as they possibly can.

In fact I bet that you can pick just about any significant policy issue of the administration and I can show you an instance of deception relating to it.

This loser is a global threat and a national threat of the highest order.

And no, you certianly won't ever convince me otherwise. I wrote a 200 page paper in a matter of a month on the man and his administration and started a web site to host it I felt so strongly about the issue. I've done my research, I've stated my opinion planly for anyone to see and backed up my positions with facts, which you are certianly free to take issue with, but where I stand on the matter is quite plain and obvious.

He and his crew are the number one threat to this country and the world right now.

[Ion]

These 'pearls' come from Radio Frequency (aka RF):
Originally posted by RandFan

...
Are you familiar with critical thinking?
...
And you are an idiot who lacks the ability to think for himself or use critical thinking.
...

who can not answer Malachi151 last post, and before that.

I wonder, how many Taliban-like rednecks (like RF here) cover life in the U.S.?

Because it sure looks like RF here deserves the disastrous Bush government he got.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Malachi151


And no, you certianly won't ever convince me otherwise. I wrote a 200 page paper in a matter of a month on the man and his administration and started a web site to host it I felt so strongly about the issue. I've done my research, I've stated my opinion planly for anyone to see and backed up my positions with facts, which you are certianly free to take issue with, but where I stand on the matter is quite plain and obvious.


Sooo..... you are an obsessive kook. At least now your are honest about it.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Malachi151
That this man, George Bush Jr, who was born a third generation multi-milionair, grandson of a Senator, son of a President/former head of CIA/ international oil tycoon/corporate executive.. Is there something nefarious about this? Much can be said of JFK, Robert Kennedy, etc. Big deal.

...who is a self admitted alcoholic... It's becoming obvious you don't care about the truth but let me correct the record. George Bush admited to having a drinking problem. Without any medical help he quit. Kitty Dukakis and other Liberals have had drinking problems. What is your point? Are alcoholics evil? Are they bad? I thought liberals were tolerant? I guess not when it doesn't suit you.

...born again evangelical Chrisitan he claims Therefore what All "born again evangelical Christians are bad?

Martin Luther King Jr. was born again, was he bad?

There are many evangelical Christians who are liberal, can we dismiss them and assume that they are bad?

...who has a criminal record.. As does Marion Barry and many liberals and Democratic leaders. Clinton was found to have been in contempt of the court. Are they bad because they have a made such mistakes?

...and who's family was heavily involved in the Savings and Loan scandal... I believe the final tally had more Democrats than republicans involved including Alan Cranston and even Bill and Hillary played a part.

Fact: Money was illegal transferred from a failed savings and loan into Bill Clinton's White Water project and then into his re-election campaign (governor).

...who's election was in fact corrupt (the voter list washing has been proven)... And it was proven that Democrats were behind this debacle and more Black Republicans were disenfranchised than Democrats.

You really should get your facts straight.

Don't make me laught too hard! I'm trying to get you to pull your head out of your a** and think. If you are laughing it's because you buy into all of the lies.

Yeah, right, some alcoholic, born again Christian flunky, who has made millions of dollars from manipulating our system and taking advantage of federal loans and programs and protections who is buddy buddy with Ken Lay and the guys from just about every bankrupsy filing corporation out there is working hard right now to ensure that the country has a bright and future where everyone has oppurtunity to fulfill their potential; yes I'm sure that is what he is worrying about right now! Woo-woo BS. You can find the same level of specious argument all over the Internet about JFK being a mobster, Johnson killing JFK, the Jews taking over the world.

Woo-woo. That is what you are Malachi. How about some PROOF?

He, and his whole family, are all corrupt lying scum bags. No, you are a blind partisan.

He has his old business records sealed, they have Cheney's old records sealed. A tactic made famous by the Clintons.

I am shocked every day by the audacity of this administration and the things they do. I'm shocked that more people aren't shocked. Of course you are shocked. You are a conspiracy nut. Woo-woo bull sh*t.

And no, you certianly won't ever convince me otherwise. Of course not. "A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest". --Paul Simon.

You are a woo-woo. Woo-woos can never ever be convinced otherwise. Look at all of the times that the same woo-woos convinced of their powers sincerely try and win Randi's challenge. You are no different.

And no, you certianly won't ever convince me otherwise. "There are none so blind as those who will not see"

Your statement is proof of your irrational beliefs. No amount of evidence would ever change your mind.

Such pathetic thought patterns like your are the reasons Sylvia Brown, Uri Geller and all of the other woo-woos are so rich. I have heard many "christians" say "you certainly won't ever convince me otherwise". Facts don't mater, evidence doesn't mater. You are blind to your own ideology, convinced that you are the only arbiter of truth. You lack objectivity and cling to specious arguments.

I wrote a 200 page paper in a matter of a month on the man and his administration and started a web site to host it I felt so strongly about the issue. Typical. Most woo-woos right long papers and start web sites to reinforce their own warped ideas. There are web sites of every woo-woo and conspiracy nut there is.

Oooohhhh... you wrote a paper. So did Uri Geller, Sylvia Brown, Psi Baba, Perpetual motion machine makers, etc., etc., etc.

I've done my research... So has Storm Front (www.stormfront.org) and all of the other woo-woos out there

I've stated my opinion planly for anyone to see... Again, so have the anti-Semites who peddle the Protocols of Zion and all of the other hate mongers. Why should you be any different?

...and backed up my positions with facts... You will find plenty of facts at all of the woo-woo sites.

Facts are the most important part of propaganda. The best propaganda is stock full of facts. It is how you state those facts and string them together to paint YOUR picture.

...which you are certianly free to take issue with, but where I stand on the matter is quite plain and obvious. Which is identical to the statements made by Uri Geller, Sylvia Brown, John Edward, etc., etc., etc.

You are no different. You are like all of the anti-Clinton sites. They past facts plain and simple also. You can find such facts to attack any leader or any ideology.

Why should you be any different?

He and his crew are the number one threat to this country and the world right now. NO! Hateful little people with hateful little minds like you are the biggest threat.

You are no different from evangelical Christians, fanatical and fundamentalist Muslims or any woo-woo. Your bias and lack of objectivity are as plain as the nose on your face.

I especially like how you prove my contention that being a liberal does not make one tolerant. Liberals are just as willing to engage in the politics of personal destruction as anyone. You demonize Bush because he had a drinking problem even though he has accepted responsibility for his actions and quit. I know many Republicans like myself who found what happened to Clinton sleezy. I find what you are doing to be just as sleezy. They (the republicans) believed they were justified as I am sure you do to. Hatemongers have a way of doing that.

You have provided a great object lesson. I can always save this thread to prove my point to others.

Thanks again,

RandFan

P.S., your post is woefuly devoid of any PROOF. Just speculation and innuendo.

It's a fact that money was illegaly transfered to Bill Clinton from a failed savings and load. Ony a few people could have known and Bill was one of those people.

That FACT does not PROVE Clinton knew about the funds anymore than you can prove any of the alegations made plausable by the facts in your screed.

Facts alone don't prove a theory. The facts must support the theory in such a way as to exclude all other possibilites.

Otherwise it is just as likely that Bill Clinton killed Vince Foster as any of your conjecture.

[RandFan]

Malachi,

It is painfully obvious you lack critical thinking skills. I have little use for engaging people who are incapable of objectivity.

I don't intend to waste my time with you. There are many intelligent and intellectually honest liberals, democrats, and others who though while firm in their convictions don't have an irrational world view as such that would prevent them from considering a different point of view.

Unlike you, Psychics, Church Leaders, etc., I don't know the truth absolutely. My mind could be changed. I am firm in my convictions but my commitment to honesty is greater than my ego.

I will read your response and perhaps give a small rejoinder but I would rather argue with a 5 year old who has an open mind than a hateful bigot who assures me that he will never change his.

[KelvinG]

I gotta say, it's nice to see Bush's approval rating continually drop. If this keeps up, it's unlikely he'll be elected to another term.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by RandFan
I know I promised you the last word. I appologize. Let me be clear. I welcom any mockery that anyone would do "to his face" and damn straight I would be willing to engage in any of the actions that I have done in the past to "his face".

I never did it while smiling to his face pretending to be something else. Huge difference

To you maybe not to me. Now I will keep my word and let you have the last one.

Again I appologize.

Does that mean I have to say something?
Its easy to live up to "principles" hypothetically.
No way would you do anything to his face.
Kenny wasn't smiling at him he was smiling to us.
A tiny gesture of rebellion done discretely. Very tiny.
More respectful than giving him the finger to his face.
Have to be thin-skinned and very defensive to be outraged by it.
Last word: hypertrophy. (Just picked one out of the air.)

Now back to that long list of achievements and qualifications to be president. Remember these are pre-White House. No fair getting on-the-job training.

[clk]

Originally posted by Malachi151


The only reply I have seen so far is that he was a businessman and a governor.



In Texas, the Governor is actually only the 3rd most powerful person in the state. The Lieutenant Governor and Speaker of the House are actually more powerful than the Governor. Why? Because Texas has the most f*cked up government in the country. When he ran for governor, he did not have qualifications to be a governor, but the idiot public elected him anyway. When he ran for President, people voted for him again. I still don't understand why. We had one of the best economies in history, everyone had jobs, the country had a surplus....after 8 years of peace and prosperity, why would you want to change a formula that worked??
And now, in California, it seems that Arnold might get elected Governor. What the hell?? He has no experience whatsoever. Sure, he has a good team behind him, but he will be the one calling the shots, and I don't think someone who doesn't have qualifications should be elected. Would something like this happen in any other country in the world?

[Mark]

Originally posted by KelvinG
I gotta say, it's nice to see Bush's approval rating continually drop. If this keeps up, it's unlikely he'll be elected to another term.

I doubt he really cares. The damage he has done to this country will take decades to repair as it is. I am sure he is quite proud of himself already.

[subgenius]

Time to start the Bush Resume Clock.
Come on I know you can find one measurable thing that he did before being selected president.
This is agonizing.

[subgenius]

I guess his "achievement" of getting selected president is somewhat in doubt:

The majority of American voters would not like to see President Bush re-elected to another term according to a poll by Newsweek magazine.

http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=AA40140D-FF3F-4B8D-AEB579CA3DBB57E7

[RandFan]

Originally posted by subgenius
Time to start the Bush Resume Clock.
Come on I know you can find one measurable thing that he did before being selected president.
This is agonizing. Why is it agonizing? It is only important to you. Assuming Bush actually has done nothing it proves nothing. On the other hand it's a fact, *scientifically, statistically, 50% of those who voted in the last presidential election wanted Bush. They are entitled to choose Bush for whatever reason they wanted to. Thankfully the founding fathers didn't rely on advice from you and allowed the people to choose who they wanted to vote for and why.

On the other hand I was not really impressed with the credentials of Carter or Clinton. Clinton was the governor of one of the worst states of the nation by any measure and it only got worse under his direction. He had a venture in a failed land deal and was only voted out of office when he wouldn't kiss the ass of Tyson. It was only after he learned his lesson and agreed to kiss Tyson's ass that he got back into the governors office. It was then that he became the puppet of Tyson foods. And what did Carter do? He grew peanuts. Wow.

So by all means start a resume clock. No one but you and other partisans gives a sh*t. For the record sub no one has agreed to list Bush's achievements so you are now just arguing ad-nauseam. The clock will be good at documenting that fact.

*Taking into account the electoral college and that the votes in Florida no matter how they are counted do not exceed the "margin of error" inherent in counting that many votes.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by subgenius
I guess his "achievement" of getting selected president is somewhat in doubt: Perhaps, but no doubt you will persist in ad-nauseam argument.

The majority of American voters would not like to see President Bush re-elected to another term according to a poll by Newsweek magazine. An appropriate measure of Bush's presidency. I support our system of government and if the people want to get rid of Bush after only one term like they did his father I will accept that. And I won't hate is predecssor simply because he or she does not share my ideology. I can't promise the same for my peers but then again I can't promise the same from the opposition either.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Mark
I doubt he really cares. The damage he has done to this country will take decades to repair as it is. I am sure he is quite proud of himself already. Rhetoric.

It's funny how the facts are tossed aside to suit ones world view. I admire people like Steven Brill who look at the facts objectively. He doesn't share your view. And there are other Democrats who are endowed with critical thinking and don't simply dismiss Bush and make such silly and unsupported claims.

I am proud of Bush for the very reasons Brill outlines in his book After : Rebuilding and Defending America in the September 12 Era (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0743237102/qid=1061754187/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-7212224-4482517?v=glance&s=books).

If you precious world view is as important to you as I think it is then I wouldn't read the book. Facts can be a dangerous thing.

[subgenius]

Gee we're a little touchy.
Its OK to support someone for whom you can't list an achievement. I believe in the right to vote for anyone you choose.
Hell I thought someone would have come up with old Tom Edison's statement, "I haven't failed, I just found thousands of ways it won't work." Success is not the norm, we all fail much more often than succeed. At least he (Bush) tried. More than can be said of those who just criticize (me?).

Sorry I upset your stomach, just curious about why people voted for him. Just ignore me, I'm sure someone will come up with something soon. And then we can put it on his resume. I know no one agreed to list his achievements, and I don't understand why not in light of the vigorous defense. Hell I'm going to the White House cite, they must have something there......tell you what I'll find an achievement and post it, how's that?

Clinton? I thought this thread was about Bush. Wanna start one about Clinton's achievements before he became pres or just keep up the old "its OK cause Billy did it too"?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by subgenius
Clinton? I thought this thread was about Bush. Wanna start one about Clinton's achievements before he became pres or just keep up the old "its OK cause Billy did it too"? Who loves ya baby.

Nothing that Clinton did can excuse or exhonerate anything that Bush has done. I just want people to be consistent.

Thanks,

RandFan

[subgenius]

Now that wasn't even hard, I found somethings in a very humourous piece by a conservative writer, I commend the whole of it for its overall gentle jocularity:

"...
More importantly, we think that seeing Al Gore running the country is like seeing Bill Buckner at first base, but only slightly less effective.

But I digress. Lately, all the various pundits and political reporters have had nothing else to talk about but the supposed stupidity of “Dumbya” Bush. Even given the bias of reporters, there must be some other force at play, namely, the ignorance of these people (I know, I know...ignorant liberals, how redundant) about the true record of George W. Bush. Much has been made of the record of Gore, like his original discovery of the Internet and the Ten Commandments.

If only that was only the damage he has done...

George W. Bush, on the other hand, has an impressive record. For one thing, he is the governor of Texas, an important, productive state in the Union, unlike some other southern states which have supplied White House inhabitants. The state has been in a reform period as of late. Despite strident protests from lawyers (always a good sign), significant reform was signed into law, cutting down on frivolous lawsuits, reducing the costs of business and speeding up the process of justice. Tax cuts were passed for both individuals and corporations, putting more money in the hands of individuals (please tell me how this is bad) and small-business owners, creating jobs.

However, it is in educational reform that “W” truly shines. Smashing the power of teachers’ unions (never can have too much union-bashing), the Bush governorship developed a comprehensive plan to improve classroom performance. Achievements tests were used to scope out problem school districts; they were told to improve or else lose funding and suffer the indignity of losing control to state reforming boards; rewards were offered to those districts which could and did improve performance.

No-nonsense measures brought results; reading and math scores have improved significantly since Bush first took office. Nor is that all. Ending affirmative action on college campuses and guaranteeing spots in the Texas state schools’ educational program to the top 10 percent of graduates removed political correctness from the university (more good) and brought a higher caliber of students to higher education.
...."
http://transcript.owu.edu/032900/articles/right.html

I just couldn't understand why the defenders didn't just do a little googling instead of reacting.


I'll post more specifics to show what a flipping reasonable guy I am, but in exchange someone's gotta solve my CD burning problem.

[subgenius]

Aw shucks, the White House site was less helpful:

President Bush was born on July 6, 1946, in New Haven, Connecticut, and he grew up in Midland and Houston, Texas. He received a bachelor's degree from Yale University in 1968, then served as an F-102 fighter pilot in the Texas Air National Guard. President Bush received a Master of Business Administration from Harvard Business School in 1975. After graduating, he moved back to Midland and began a career in the energy business. After working on his father's successful 1988 presidential campaign, he assembled the group of partners that purchased the Texas Rangers baseball franchise in 1989.

He served as managing general partner of the Texas Rangers until he was elected Governor on November 8, 1994, with 53.5 percent of the vote. He became the first Governor in Texas history to be elected to consecutive four-year terms when he was re-elected on November 3, 1998, with 68.6 percent of the vote.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/president/gwbbio.html

[subgenius]

Ooops:

"He brags endlessly about his educational reforms in Texas, citing a recent Rand Corporation study that hailed gains in the state’s test scores. Three problems with Bush’s braggadocio: First, the reforms he’s citing were not his. Ross Perot, with the backing of former Texas governors Mark White and Ann Richards, was the initiator of the changes that George now claims as his own. Second, the Rand study covers achievements from 1990-1996; Bush didn’t even get to the governorship until 1995.

Third, Bush and his fellow Republicans actually oppose the governmental policies that led to the improved educational performance in Texas public schools! The Rand study noted that the three major reasons that students did better were: (1) having fewer students in each class in the early grades so each student got more attention; (2) making sure that children had access to preschool classes; and, (3) providing better working conditions and classroom tools for teachers. Since all three of these steps require an influx of new government funding, George and the GOP are against them. Indeed, as Governor, Bush opposed extending kindergarten classes to all Texas children, because he wanted to use that money to give tax breaks to his wealthy campaign contributors. "

http://www.texasobserver.org/showArticle.asp?ArticleID=725

Well at least he didn't kill the programs entirely.
I'm still looking.....

[subgenius]

"In Bush’s web site and speeches, he constantly cites his career as the Texas’ Governor as a great success. Yet, Texas ranks abominably low in so many categories among the 50 states that one must question what Bush has actually done during his 6 years in office. Texas ranks 46th in high school completion rate, they have the 2nd highest number of children living in poverty, the highest percentage of children without health care, and among the bottom 5 in spending for parks, libraries, the arts, and the environment. Texas has the dubious distinction of ranking 1st in pollution by manufacturing plants, industrial plants violating the Clean Air Act, and greenhouse gas emissions. Furthermore, while teen drug use and smoking have declined nationally, in Texas they have gone up and stayed exactly the same, respectively."

http://www.geocities.com/Colosseum/Arena/5576/Journalism/Monty/bush.html

Honestly, I'm trying to find the good stuff, but trying to be "fair and balanced."


I'll find it I just know I will......Googling on.....

[subgenius]

Here you go Colin Powell liked him, and I do applaud his bringing minorities into the government, I assume he did the same in Texas. I understand Texas had, under him, a better relationship with Mexico and migrant workers than California.

""In pursuing educational reform, as well as in all other parts of his agenda for Texas, Governor Bush has reached out to all Texans – white, black, Latino, Asian, native American,'' Colin Powell, the only black to serve as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in a prime-time convention address.

"He has been successful in bringing more and more minorities inside the tent by responding to their deepest needs,'' Powell said in remarks prepared for delivery to the convention Monday night, the Associated Press reported. "Some call it compassionate conservatism. It's just about caring for people.''

"He will bring to the White House that same passion for inclusion. I know he can help bridge our racial divides.''

http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/7/31/185613

[subgenius]

"Texas is the second largest state in the union, ranked in terms of either population or size. And Bush's achievements in education are real. Unlike Arkansas in 1992, Texas also ranks very impressively in most indices of GNP, per capita income and economic growth."
http://www.evote.com/index.asp?Page=/news_section/2000-08/08012000Bush4.asp

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by Regnad Kcin
Well, my take is that "lik" someone is no substitute for respecting them.[i]Originally posted by RandFan
I like and respect him.Fair enough. Perplexing, but your standards are apparently different from mine.Bush Sr.'s Iran-Contra involvement, his slimy use of Willie Horton (against Dukakis)...Much of the politics of Clinton was slimy. I took it in stride. If you are consistent in your judgement of "slimy" politics then I respect your opinion.Never mind that I disagree with your "much" assertion, is there some irresistable force that prompts people to play the Clinton card time after time when discussing other people in office? You see, in not one of my comments on Mr. Bush do I bring up Clinton, Nixon, or William Howard Taft. Why? We're not talking about them!...and his assertion that atheists are not American citizens are just three things that come to mind which serve to cancel out any so-called likability. Frankly, I think repugnance is a better fit.I disagree with Bush on this issue.You disagree with Bush (Sr.) on this issue (though you dodge the other two I listed)? And yet you like him? Don't tell me you also respect him in the same way you do his son.I have never met a politician that I agreed with every issue. If you are looking for reasons to find a politician repugnant then there will be many opportunities.How 'bout we leave the "politician" label out of it and just call them people. However, if you wish to allow that people as politicians have to take stands that appeal to a constituency so as to gain or maintain power, I believe that that is even worse. I call it pandering. I call it cowardice. And insofar as it relates to me, my fellow citizens, and the Constitution of the US, I call it disrespectful.As to the son, it is even more to the point. While he no doubt pets doggies and kisses babies, his person-to-person "charm" has all the sincerity of a frat boy or salesman.Clinton was know for his charm. He also was known for his political savvy and promising one thing while giving another. I don't give a sh*t for charm.Again with the Clinton card? Still, I'm glad that you don't give a p**p for charm. So, then, you "like" GWB ... why?I want a leader who has the courage to make difficult decisions. Bush fits that mold for me.Please name three of his difficult yet courageous decisions.You may disagree, and I can respect an opposing opinion. I would, however, ask that anyone interested in analysis of GWB's deeds as opposed to what he says is "in [his] heart" take five minutes the next time they are in a bookstore and just read the introduction to "The Bush Dyslexicon" by Mark Crispin Miller.I spent 8 years dealing with the same tripe on Clinton.I'm confused. Are you asserting that Professor (of Media Studies at NYU) Miller's book is "tripe?" If so, have you read it?

And BTW, I know from reading many of this forum's threads that you are fond of bringing up your long-held intellectual openess with regard to the issues surrounding Mr. Clinton. That is to your credit. But it is only minimally germane to the point at hand, if that. Again, we're discussing the present occupant of the White House.Fact: Every Republican leader, past and future, has or will be demonized and hated by many if not most of those on the left. Every Democrat leader, past and future, has or will be demonized and hated by many if not most of those on the right.The above sounds all neat and tidy. It even has the appearance of logic. But even if were true (arguable), it is an attempt to circumvent honest analysis with a preemptive strike of claimed perceptual bias. In other words, fallacious reasoning.Fact: Few, very few individuals from any shade of the political spectrum will view the actions of presidents with a critical eye neither hating nor idolizing them based in part on ideology.I agree, though not as strongly as you.You can identify those with critical thinking towards politics because they do not make blanket statements and are almost as likely to respect or disrespect someone from one ideology as the other.

Those who lack critical thinking as it applies to ideology always have justification why a particular politician deserves that individuals scorn while excusing the fact that such scorn always seems to fall to the opposing party.

I am not free of ideological bias but I am intellectually honest enough to recognize that fact and attempt to overcome it.Bravo. I trust you don't consider me different.

[subgenius]

Sorry, that's all I could find.
I got google-eyes(d).

[RandFan]

Regnad Kcin,

Thank you for your response and reasoned tone.

Fair enough. Perplexing, but your standards are apparently different from mine. It need not be perplexing at all. I don't view Bush through an ideological filter. If I were a Democrat and devoid of objectivity I suppose I wouldn't like him. I don't like everything he does but I don't condemn him for any mistakes he has made so far.

Which president do you like or respect?

Never mind that I disagree with your "much" assertion, is there some irresistable force that prompts people to play the Clinton card time after time when discussing other people in office? You see, in not one of my comments on Mr. Bush do I bring up Clinton, Nixon, or William Howard Taft. Why? We're not talking about them! The day I find a simple way to point out the hypocrisy and inconsistency of many of those who attack Bush is the day I'll leave the ghost of Clinton's presidency in the grave. If you can provide for me a better way I will use it.

The politics of Bush et all is no more slimier than Clinton and friends. As I said, if you were as critical of Clinton as you are of Bush then I respect your opinion.

You disagree with Bush (Sr.) on this issue (though you dodge the other two I listed)? And yet you like him? Don't tell me you also respect him in the same way you do his son. I will answer with my original quote.

RandFan
I have never met a politician that I agreed with on every issue. If you are looking for reasons to find a politician repugnant then there will be many opportunities. Hence my going back to the Clintons. What reason would anyone have to like or respect any president? They have all held beliefs and done things that are contemptible. It is sadly the nature of politics and particularly presidential politics. I judge Clinton, Bush, Bush Sr., Reagan in the context of a president.

I find most people only consider context when there is shared ideology.

How 'bout we leave the "politician" label out of it and just call them people. However, if you wish to allow that people as politicians have to take stands that appeal to a constituency so as to gain or maintain power, I believe that that is even worse. I call it pandering. I call it cowardice. And insofar as it relates to me, my fellow citizens, and the Constitution of the US, I call it disrespectful. I'm glad you brought this up. And sorry but I am going to go back to Bill Clinton. According to Dick Morris Clinton never made a single decision that he didn't first check the polls over. Bill Clinton was famous for pandering. After the Republican takeover of 1984 Bill Clinton moved sharply to the right. George Stephanopoulos talks about this in his book All Too Human (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-form/102-7212224-4482517). He regret that Clinton followed Morriss' advice but Bill credits this move for giving him a landslide victory in the next election.

This raises the question, do you think Bill Clinton was a coward and do you think that he was disrespectful to you and the constitution?

Please name three of his difficult yet courageous decisions. To send troops into harms way in Afghanistan.

To stand up to those who did not have our best interests at heart (French, Germans, etc.) and fight for a referendum against Iraq.

To send troops into harms way in Iraq.

I'm confused. Are you asserting that Professor (of Media Studies at NYU) Miller's book is "tripe?" If so, have you read it? There are a plethora of books about Bill Clinton (bear with me) written by prominent individuals. I have not read all of them. I did read Stephanopolus' book and Barbara Olson's book The Final Days (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0895261251/qid=1061768983/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/102-7212224-4482517) and others.

I have not read Miller's book. Have you read Olson's book?

When I said tripe I was referring to the anti-(whoever is president) propaganda that is written about every president. I have read enough conspiracy theories and attack pieces to know that people can make Charley Manson look like Mother Theresa and vice versa. I haven't read the book but I don't need to read every book that comes along any more than you need to read every book that comes out against those in your ideological camp.

But it is only minimally germane to the point at hand, if that. Again, we're discussing the present occupant of the White House. I find so much hypocrisy and inconsistency in threads like this. It is the only way I know of to puncture the pompousness of those who get on and make a laundry list of reasons they dislike or even hate Bush.

I dealt with it for 8 years when Clinton was president and I often turned the tables on my friends and family when the attacked Clinton.

I hate hypocracy.

The above sounds all neat and tidy. It even has the appearance of logic. But even if were true (arguable), it is an attempt to circumvent honest analysis with a preemptive strike of claimed perceptual bias. In other words, fallacious reasoning. Are you saying that the attacks made against Bush in this thread have all been "honest analysis"?

While there have been a number of serious and objective posts most have not. If they had I wouldn't have even bothered posting. I have no problem with "honest analysis". I am no Bush sycophant. I have said on a number of occasions that I am concerned with his judicial appointments and I have also made known my concerns with the patriot act and other issues. I have admitted that his statements about religion and atheists were wrong.

It is the blanket statements and indictments of others on this thread that I take issue with. One poster says that he wants to physically harm Bush. Is this what you call "honest analysis"?

I have no problem with "honest analysis" and the purpose of my "argument" was an attack on those individuals who would condemn Bush for the very actions they would excuse Clinton for.

Bravo. I trust you don't consider me different. I appreciate your willingness to engage me they way you are. It seems quite obvious that you are willing to consider my point of view. It is all that I want. I can honestly say that some of the posters that I respect the most I disagree with. Tricky and Subgenius, Wayne Grabert, Roadtoad and others. Of course there are areas of agreement and that helps.

To answer your question, I think you are objective as are many others on this forum. I am hardly unique I just feel the need to toot my own self righteous horn more than anyone else.

I'll have to see a therapist about that someday.

Thanks,

RandFan.

[DeathToSophists]

Originally posted by RandFan
??? People make mistakes. Could you explain the importance of this? I never thought Clintons personal problems made him a bad or average leader.

The Clintons' personal problems resulted in embarrassing media glut that dominated the headlines for years. I see no problem with the occasional potshot or criticism directed at Bush.

DTS

[Samus]

Originally posted by subgenius
Fly a plane? Wow. Yep, fly a plane. Now that we have a cloudy day again, I'm back here :)

No, I'm back because I'm at work again. I see you've already posted some links to various web sites that support and refute the notion that Bush was a good governor. I can go out and find more, but I think you've made your point. Often times, what we consider to be "the right thing" is largely based on our own opinions.

I still think that Bush did a good job as governor, and you can Google to your heart's content to find web sites that support that notion, specifically on his education policy. And I think in terms of management of an executive branch of government, Bush came to us more qualified than his predecessor.

What Clinton did a lot better was the politicking. He could tell you to go to hell in such a way that you looked forward to the journey. Couldn't say much for his integrity, but he was able to get things done with Congress largely due to his prowess as a politician.

Bush's idea of politicking is basically signing every spending bill that crosses his desk. It's rather apparent that in order to get all the wonderful things he's gotten from his '00 platform (education policies, tax cut, etc.), and the money for the WoT, he's basically signed away his soul and let Congress spend on whatever they want to, which is part of the reason for the inflated budget deficits.

This is the danger of Democrats and Republicans working together. At least when they're engaging in partisan bickering, they're not scratching each others' backs and pissing away money that doesn't exist. Ah well, I don't want to get on my political party rant again, so I'll leave it at that.

Bush was qualified for the job. He's been around national politics for a long time (yes, because of his father), he was a good governor of a difficult state to govern, and he's a reasonably good politician. That's all it takes these days.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by dwb
I still think that Bush did a good job as governor, and you can Google to your heart's content to find web sites that support that notion, specifically on his education policy.
Bush's pearl, the education system in Texas, was mostly put in place by his predecessor. (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/11/01/elpaso/print.html) To his credit, he did not weaken the programs. He did, however, put a lot more emphasis on testing, which is a double-edged sword. It is questionable whether "teaching the test" is the best way to improve education, even if it does improve test scores.

Recently, there have been scandals with school administrators, under pressure to keep their schools funding in place, hiding and even changing test scores.

But it is true that Bush did a reasonably good job on education in Texas, with the exception being Charter schools. Sadly, he has not put any of the reforms he made in Texas into his US policy, as this article (http://www.conservativenews.org/Politics/archive/200301/POL20030109c.html) on a conservative website suggests.
"As soon as he signed the No Child Left Behind Act, President Bush walked away from his job of improving our schools," charged Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa, echoing the sentiments of his colleagues and of liberal interest groups like the National Education Association, the American Federation of Teachers and the National School Boards Association.

"His budget for this fiscal year had the smallest increase for education since 1996," said Harkin. "It eliminated funding for rural schools, school counselors and dropout prevention ... cut funding for the No Child Left Behind Act by $90 million; and you can bet his budget for next fiscal year won't do any better."

[Mark]

Originally posted by RandFan
Rhetoric.

It's funny how the facts are tossed aside to suit ones world view. I admire people like Steven Brill who look at the facts objectively. He doesn't share your view. And there are other Democrats who are endowed with critical thinking and don't simply dismiss Bush and make such silly and unsupported claims.

I am proud of Bush for the very reasons Brill outlines in his book After : Rebuilding and Defending America in the September 12 Era (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0743237102/qid=1061754187/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-7212224-4482517?v=glance&s=books).

If you precious world view is as important to you as I think it is then I wouldn't read the book. Facts can be a dangerous thing.

It's odd how you can be proud of a president who has generated a 650 Billion Dollar Annual Deficit, has cost of the good will and trust of nearly every nation in the world, has galvanised even further the Muslim hatred of the US (while accomplishing nothing), has relaxed environmental standards to the point where his own people keep resigning, has been one of the least communicative presidents in all US history.

You obviously have different standards from mine.

And I'll mention again, since you don't seem to pay attention to it: I am NOT a Democrat. I don't make excuses for them, either.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Mark
It's odd how you can be proud of a president who has generated a 650 Billion Dollar Annual Deficit... The deficit is a valid concern. I have stated on numerous occasions my disagreement with the Republicans for not reigning in spending. No claims were made that the tax cuts would solve the problems in short order. Having excoriated Gray Davis for his supreme bungling of California's budget it would be inconsistent to simply say the deficit is no big deal. There are significant differences though. And unlike Davis Bush has proven to be a very good leader. Making important and tough decisions in difficult time. YES! I do very much like and respect him. As I have said in the past. No leader can please everyone and those who are pleased by your performance are unlikely to be pleased with everything that you do.

...has cost of the good will and trust of nearly every nation in the world 1.) Arguable.

2.) I don't want any good will of those who don't have our best interests at heart. I'm sick of the arrogant and pompous attitude of others who tell us we must do things their way or else.

...has galvanised even further the Muslim hatred of the US (while accomplishing nothing) Oh christ, people are getting into planes and blowing us up. The notion that we have to tread lightly with Muslims for fear of making them mad at us is stupid. The religious leaders have been spewing their hatred towards us for decades. Appeasement and weakness is poor diplomacy with Muslims. We absolutely did the right thing.

...has relaxed environmental standards to the point where his own people keep resigning... Don't know enough to comment. I believe in balancing environmental needs with human ones. And no they are not always the same. I have asked before of others, a link would be helpful.

...has been one of the least communicative presidents in all US history. I want a president to get a job done not blow smoke up my a**

You obviously have different standards from mine. Quite

And I'll mention again, since you don't seem to pay attention to it: I am NOT a Democrat. I don't make excuses for them, either. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

One need not be a democrat to be aligned against the right. I have not seen anything from you that would suggest anything but a strong left of center ideology. I of course could be wrong, it wouldn't be the first time on this forum. It is just that I figured that by now you would have outlined any right of center thinking rather than disassociate yourself from democrats. Look, make this easy, elucidate for me any right of center ideology that you identify with?

Can you name any current Republican or Conservative leaders that you admire?

Which specific right of center policies do you endorse and what right of center laws would you like to see passed by the Republican congress?

Thanks,

RandFan

[Mark]

RandFan:
Oh christ, people are getting into planes and blowing us up. The notion that we have to tread lightly with Muslims for fear of making them mad at us is stupid. The religious leaders have been spewing their hatred towards us for decades. Appeasement and weakness is poor diplomacy with Muslims. We absolutely did the right thing.

Who said anything about appeasment? But making the same mistakes that we did in the past is NOT the mark of a good leader, and we don't have one. The Taliban is once again taking hold in Afghanistan. Osama is still on the loose.

Invading a country that had very little to do with terrorism against the US didn't accomplish anything except make us look stupid. Yeah, great "leader" we've got. He could knock over a liquor store and you'd be telling us how brave he was to make such a bold move.

I want a president to get a job done not blow smoke up my a**

I honestly can't believe you even said this. Bush's lies are costing the lives of our soldiers and bankrupting our nation. But I guess lying about sex is worse to you? Yikes. We DO have different standards.


B]Can you name any current Republican or Conservative leaders that you admire?[/B]

OK, but I wonder if you will name any Democrats you admire, since you claim to be objective (I have seen little evidence of that).

William F. Buckley
Gerald Ford
John Mcaine
Sherwood Boehlert
Mike Castle
Christopher Shays
Jim Leach
Nancy Johnson
Wayne Gilchrest
Chris Smith
Sue Kelly
Chrsitine Todd Whitman

OK, Rand Fan, your turn...

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Mark
Who said anything about appeasment? I did. Aside from what Bush did there are few other options.

But making the same mistakes that we did in the past is NOT the mark of a good leader, and we don't have one. We are not making the same mistakes.

The Taliban is once again taking hold in Afghanistan. Osama is still on the loose. Again, arguable. According to Steven Brill (a democrat who did not vote for Bush and is respected for his objectivity) we have made great strides.

Invading a country that had very little to do with terrorism against the US didn't accomplish anything except make us look stupid. That is your opinion. For 12 years Saddam mocked the international community and flaunted his contempt. That mockery and contempt are over. He was ordered to disarm and we have ensured that he has. We also ended his reign of terror on the innocent people of Iraq. "didn't accomplish anything"? It is claims like this that really make me question your objectivity.

Yeah, great "leader" we've got. He could knock over a liquor store and you'd be telling us how brave he was to make such a bold move. Yes he is a great leader and putting words in mouth does not advance your argument. Saddam was a tyrant who invaded his neighbor, gassed his own people and launched scuds at Israel. He refused to comply and disarm and we disarmed him.

I honestly can't believe you even said this. Bush's lies are costing the lives of our soldiers and bankrupting our nation. What lies? Bush is not bankrupting our nation. You are entitled to your opinion but this is not true.

But I guess lying about sex is worse to you? You obviously haven't been following close attention have you. I was against the impeachment and do not think lying about sex is important. Bombing a milk factory and dropping ton's of bombs during the investigation is another thing entirely.

OK, but I wonder if you will name any Democrats you admire, since you claim to be objective (I have seen little evidence of that). You failed to name any policies or laws.

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to opine about those from the left I admire.

First I would have to say Pat Cadell. Intellectually brilliant, independent in that he never follows the pack (he says he is a liberal democrat) and the most intellectually honest pundit bar none. It would be a huge honor for me to some day meet him.

When I think of liberals that I like I always think of Mario Cuomo. He has been out of the lime light for awhile but I hope you will indulge me none-the-less. Again, smart, eloquent and firm in his convictions. I never once got the impression that Mario was a Liberal for any other reason than sincere belief in core principles. His ability to debate and his fearlessness towards critics was, to use a tired cliche, an inspiration.

For purely political reasons I have to say Bill Clinton. After the 1984 take over by Republicans Bill went on the offensive and kicked Republican ass like there were no tomorrow. He defeated Newt Gengrich soundly. He took the fight to the front lines and to the people and without fear set his agenda and won every battle time and time again. I don't know what legacy Clinton will enjoy but his ability as a politician will absolutely go down in history as one of the deftest of all time. And I say that with all sincerity.

Would you let me go back in time just a bit. Sorry. Ed Koch. I think Ed could have done more for New York the way Guiliani did. But as a politician and as a human being Ed is truly one of the great ones. Zero sleaze factor IMO. Ed balanced politics and the needs of people in a way that put the needs of people first.

Ed proved that one can be a politician without being a politican He is in my estimation a rare individual.

William Bratton, Democrat. It was Bratton who was behind much of the crime reduction in New York. Bratton is fiercely pro-law and pro-civil liberties. He believes that the two are not mutually exclusive. Bratton has contempt for those who feel that there should be different standards for law enforcement and everyone else. Bratton also believes in personal responsibility and that the punishment should fit the crime. We need a lot more William Brattons.

I admire Loretta Sanchez from California. She defeated the pompous B-1 Bob and did so with style. She has been a great asset for her constituents and has risen through the ranks in spite of her lack of experience.

Morris Dees. I would hope his accomplishments go with out saying but Morris has worked tirelessly for civil rights and has scored a number of very significant victories over the hate groups here in America. Please see Southern Poverty Law Center (http://www.splcenter.org/splc.html) for additional information.

I am out of time but would be happy to supply more if you require.

Again, are there any policies that identify with or laws from the right that you would like to see passed?

[Mark]

Originally posted by RandFan
I did. Aside from what Bush did there are few other options.

We are not making the same mistakes.

Again, arguable. According to Steven Brill (a democrat who did not vote for Bush and is respected for his objectivity) we have made great strides.

That is your opinion. For 12 years Saddam mocked the international community and flaunted his contempt. That mockery and contempt are over. He was ordered to disarm and we have ensured that he has. We also ended his reign of terror on the innocent people of Iraq. "didn't accomplish anything"? It is claims like this that really make me question your objectivity.

Yes he is a great leader and putting words in mouth does not advance your argument. Saddam was a tyrant who invaded his neighbor, gassed his own people and launched scuds at Israel. He refused to comply and disarm and we disarmed him.

What lies? Bush is not bankrupting our nation. You are entitled to your opinion but this is not true.

You obviously haven't been following close attention have you. I was against the impeachment and do not think lying about sex is important. Bombing a milk factory and dropping ton's of bombs during the investigation is another thing entirely.

You failed to name any policies or laws.

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to opine about those from the left I admire.

First I would have to say Pat Cadell. Intellectually brilliant, independent in that he never follows the pack (he says he is a liberal democrat) and the most intellectually honest pundit bar none. It would be a huge honor for me to some day meet him.

When I think of liberals that I like I always think of Mario Cuomo. He has been out of the lime light for awhile but I hope you will indulge me none-the-less. Again, smart, eloquent and firm in his convictions. I never once got the impression that Mario was a Liberal for any other reason than sincere belief in core principles. His ability to debate and his fearlessness towards critics was, to use a tired cliche, an inspiration.

For purely political reasons I have to say Bill Clinton. After the 1984 take over by Republicans Bill went on the offensive and kicked Republican ass like there were no tomorrow. He defeated Newt Gengrich soundly. He took the fight to the front lines and to the people and without fear set his agenda and won every battle time and time again. I don't know what legacy Clinton will enjoy but his ability as a politician will absolutely go down in history as one of the deftest of all time. And I say that with all sincerity.

Would you let me go back in time just a bit. Sorry. Ed Koch. I think Ed could have done more for New York the way Guiliani did. But as a politician and as a human being Ed is truly one of the great ones. Zero sleaze factor IMO. Ed balanced politics and the needs of people in a way that put the needs of people first.

Ed proved that one can be a politician without being a politican He is in my estimation a rare individual.

William Bratton, Democrat. It was Bratton who was behind much of the crime reduction in New York. Bratton is fiercely pro-law and pro-civil liberties. He believes that the two are not mutually exclusive. Bratton has contempt for those who feel that there should be different standards for law enforcement and everyone else. Bratton also believes in personal responsibility and that the punishment should fit the crime. We need a lot more William Brattons.

I admire Loretta Sanchez from California. She defeated the pompous B-1 Bob and did so with style. She has been a great asset for her constituents and has risen through the ranks in spite of her lack of experience.

Morris Dees. I would hope his accomplishments go with out saying but Morris has worked tirelessly for civil rights and has scored a number of very significant victories over the hate groups here in America. Please see Southern Poverty Law Center (http://www.splcenter.org/splc.html) for additional information.

I am out of time but would be happy to supply more if you require.

Again, are there any policies that identify with or laws from the right that you would like to see passed?

Since we are starting go in circles, I will close by saying I genuinely admire your willingness to list lefties you admire, as much as your continuing defense of Bush genuinely mystifies me. Oh, well;let's just agree to disagree about Bush, OK?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Mark
Since we are starting go in circles, I will close by saying I genuinely admire your willingness to list lefties you admire, as much as your continuing defense of Bush genuinely mystifies me. Oh, well;let's just agree to disagree about Bush, OK? That is cool,

Thanks Mark

RandFan

[subgenius]

dwb:
"I can go out and find more"

I Googled til my eyes rolled back.

You can't find any more. Its easy to say there's more. There ain't.
I did the heavy lifting that no one else would bother to do.
I'm talking measurable objective standards not opinion as to whether he did a "good job."
Even the ones I found have another side to them.
You are invited to Google to your hearts content.
Glad to see you had a soft landing.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by subgenius
dwb:
"I can go out and find more"

I Googled til my eyes rolled back.

You can't find any more. Its easy to say there's more. There ain't.
I did the heavy lifting that no one else would bother to do.
I'm talking measurable objective standards not opinion as to whether he did a "good job."
Even the ones I found have another side to them.
You are invited to Google to your hearts content.
Glad to see you had a soft landing. So, is there a point? Is there an "acomplishment index" that we can compare Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr., Bush Jr. and Clinton with?

[DavidJames]

"For 12 years Saddam mocked the international community and flaunted his contempt."

I think this goes a long way in understanding Bush's passion and apparent unwavering desire to get rid of Saddam. I think a more accurate phrase might be "For 12 years Saddam mocked George Bush Sr and flaunted his contempt. I think Bush Jr was avenging Bush Sr.

"Bombing a milk factory and dropping ton's of bombs during the investigation is another thing entirely."

Are you suggesting Clinton knew it was a milk factory and bombed it anyway?

Interesting how much this parallels current detractors of the Iraq war claims that Bush knew that no evidence of WMD's existed, no chemicals, no bombs, etc. and yet bombed anyway.

[subgenius]

Barry Goldwater
Everett Dirksen
Nelson Rockefeller
Bob Dole
John McCain
William Milliken
Dwight Eisenhower
William F. Buckley
Arlen Spector
John Warner
Howard Baker

A short list of Republicans I respect.....in case you were wondering...

[RandFan]

Originally posted by DavidJames
"For 12 years Saddam mocked the international community and flaunted his contempt."

I think this goes a long way in understanding Bush's passion and apparent unwavering desire to get rid of Saddam. I think a more accurate phrase might be "For 12 years Saddam mocked George Bush Sr and flaunted his contempt. I think Bush Jr was avenging Bush Sr.

"Bombing a milk factory and dropping ton's of bombs during the investigation is another thing entirely."

Are you suggesting Clinton knew it was a milk factory and bombed it anyway?

Interesting how much this parallels current detractors of the Iraq war claims that Bush knew that no evidence of WMD's existed, no chemicals, no bombs, etc. and yet bombed anyway. Thank you,

Exactly my point. I DON'T know Clinton's motivations, *intelligence, thoughts, advice, etc., etc. I don't claim to know them. But many on this forum, skeptics and fanatics alike seem to KNOW Bush's motivations his knowledge of the exact capabilities of Iraq. My only purpose in bringing up Clinton is to highlight the glaring inconsistency of applying judgment differently based solely on ideology.

It should be noted however that there were claims made by Bush and his administration about WMD and where they were being kept. You can be assured that that fact will be brought up.

Bush did not know where or if there were WMD. It seems very likely that he used an assurance of WMD to secure public support for the war.

He did NOT know that there was no WMD and there was good reason to beleive that there were.

My thanks again,

RandFan.

(*Secret information, especially about an actual or potential enemy.)

[subgenius]

Originally posted by RandFan
So, is there a point? Is there an "acomplishment index" that we can compare Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr., Bush Jr. and Clinton with?
You're like so into comparing and bringing up other names....I'm talking about his qualifications to be pres.............take any measurable thing.......take that number before Bush took the job, say governor, and see how he improved on it.....seems to be a lot of quibbling rather than googling....
....."accomplishment index": improvement in something in any measurable way.......not clear? ....something, anything......

[RandFan]

Originally posted by subgenius

You're like so into comparing and bringing up other names....I'm talking about his qualifications to be pres.............take any measurable thing.......take that number before Bush took the job, say governor, and see how he improved on it.....seems to be a lot of quibbling rather than googling....
....."accomplishment index": improvement in something in any measurable way.......not clear? ....something, anything...... Sub, to be honest I really do not know where you are going? I don't know why I need to google anything? What is your point?

[Ion]

Come on, stupid U.S. redneck:
Originally posted by RandFan
Sub, to be honest I really do not know where you are going?
...

Do you know of any undisputable Bush achievement that makes Bush deserving to become the U.S. President?

[subgenius]

Originally posted by RandFan
Sub, to be honest I really do not know where you are going? I don't know why I need to google anything? What is your point?
This thread is about his resume. Some said it wasn't fair and we're giving people a chance to put good things in there, much as you or I would put on our resumes.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by subgenius

This thread is about his resume. Some said it wasn't fair and we're giving people a chance to put good things in there, much as you or I would put on our resumes.
Well, there was the Patient's Bill of Rights (http://www.iltla.com/march2001vested.htm)

Also, you may have heard President Bush has announced he could not support a patient's bill of rights that allowed patients to sue HMOs. President Bush indicated he could only support a patient's bill of rights that would allow people only a limited remedy with caps on damages and only in federal court after external reviews. This is in sharp contrast to President Bush's position as a candidate. While running for the presidency, he claimed credit for a patient's bill of rights in Texas he vetoed but ultimately allowed to become law without his signature because the legislature was poised to override a second veto. It is clear the President only wants to protect HMOs and other managed care insurers rather than patients, who, all to often, are killed or injured because insurers delay or deny the care they need.

[RandFan]

Also, you may have heard President Bush has announced he could not support a patient's bill of rights that allowed patients to sue HMOs. President Bush indicated he could only support a patient's bill of rights that would allow people only a limited remedy with caps on damages and only in federal court after external reviews. This is in sharp contrast to President Bush's position as a candidate. While running for the presidency, he claimed credit for a patient's bill of rights in Texas he vetoed but ultimately allowed to become law without his signature because the legislature was poised to override a second veto. It is clear the President only wants to protect HMOs and other managed care insurers rather than patients, who, all to often, are killed or injured because insurers delay or deny the care they need. I am no fan of HMOs that is why I have a PPO.

There are legitimate reasons to cap damages. Run away workers comp costs in California are an excellent example of what happens when health care providers can charge anything they want, as much as they want, whenever they want.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by subgenius
This thread is about his resume. Some said it wasn't fair and we're giving people a chance to put good things in there, much as you or I would put on our resumes. Oh, right, sure, whatever.

Having witnessed first hand 7 presidencies I can honestly say that I see little purpose to the exercise. Nixon had an enormous amount of experience and qualifications as did Ford. Nixon left in disgrace and Ford was voted out of office. Carter had little to no experience that would qualify him for office but was a very decent man. He had some significant success at peace between Egypt and Israel but did little else and nothing for the economy and was soundly voted out of office after one term. Reagan was a governor prior to being president. Depending on whom you talk to he was a hugely successful president or the scourge of America. He did enjoy broad support from a wide range of citizens. Bush Sr. was imminently qualified having served his country for half a century in various areas of government. He prosecuted a successful war but did nothing for the economy and was booted out of office. Clinton was the governor of a state that by any measure ranks as one of the lowest of any in the union. Under his direction the state got worse. Like Reagan he enjoyed broad approval and also like Reagan won a landslide re-election.

What I don't understand is what the "resume" has anything to do with anything? I have been asking for sometime now and it is becoming painfully clear that there is no answer to be had.

Please enjoy yourself. I have other things to do.

I will see you in some other threads.

[Tricky]

The office of President has changed a lot. Reagan and Bush II have shown that the US President need not be saddled with a lot of baggage about policy and decisions and stuff like that. Bush II has shown that he need not even be partcularly articulate. But Dubya has excelled in the resumé point that has recently been shown to be the most important for presidential candidates. Fundraising. Bush has excelled at this at every level, from the trivial posting of bail to the funding of businesses (and the bailing out of same), to gigantic taxpayer-supported sports complexes. He has the remarkable ability to extract dollars from businessmen in heretofore unheard of amounts.

There is little doubt that this skill is absolutely crucial to the hopeful candidate these days. Some, like Clinton, were clumsy about it and took meager amounts of money for silly things like a night in the Lincoln Bedroom. Bush has refined that to the much more subtle and profitable skill of selling off cabinet posts, chairmanships and secret meetings with the policy makers.

How has Bush managed to perfect the art of fundraising? The answer is simple. Delivery. Once you leave your overstuffed briefcase with GWB, you can be assured of favorable policies, whether you be a polluter, an HMO, an energy trader, a defense contractor, or an oilfield service provider. George W. Bush is a man you can trust. Once he is bought, he stays bought.

[bluestraveler]

Mark, You might also add the "Skull and Bones Society" and the Bilderbrand Group. By the way,to all you Bush "disciples",I worked in the Miami-Dade Elections Dept and have seen first hand the offical numbers. George W.Bush DID NOT steal the 2000 Presidential election. Governor Jeb Bush did!

[DavidJames]

"My only purpose in bringing up Clinton is to highlight the glaring inconsistency of applying judgment differently based solely on ideology."

No, what you are doing is obfuscating the issue by constantly bring up Clinton. The issue is Bush. Clinton, you may have heard is no longer president. Any possible hypocrisy in views is irrelevant, other than of course to allow you to deflect focus and avoid the addressing the questions or issues. If you like, please open another thread about the hypocrisy and name names, i.e. who is applying judgment differently and how where and how.

For someone you like and admire, I would think Bush would deserve a better defense than to compare his failings with Clintons'.

[subgenius]

And maybe some facts.

[Mark]

Originally posted by bluestraveler
Mark, You might also add the "Skull and Bones Society" and the Bilderbrand Group. By the way,to all you Bush "disciples",I worked in the Miami-Dade Elections Dept and have seen first hand the offical numbers. George W.Bush DID NOT steal the 2000 Presidential election. Governor Jeb Bush did!

If I went into the "Skull and Bones Society" and their homo-erotic, male bonding rituals, no one here would believe me. You do it. :D

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Mark


If I went into the "Skull and Bones Society" and their homo-erotic, male bonding rituals, no one here would believe me. You do it. :D
That's the least of it......

[bluestraveler]

Thanks for the effort Marcus. "Some people you just can't reach."
The book "American Secret Society" by Anthony C. Sutton is available at RIE publishing,check it out.;)

[RandFan]

Originally posted by DavidJames
No, what you are doing is obfuscating the issue by constantly bring up Clinton. Not at all. I have not avoided any questions or tried to cloud anything. I am making a simple argument. See if you can follow along.

Proposition: The attacks made on Bush are done for ideological purposes.

Premise: The attacks on bush consist primarily of rhetoric.

Premise: Those who attack Bush are inconsistent in that they have excused similar behavior from past presidents that shared the ideology of those making the attacks.

The issue is Bush. Agreed.

Clinton, you may have heard is no longer president. Yes I have heard, so what? It is not germane to MY argument.

Any possible hypocrisy in views is irrelevant I am charging that the claims made against George Bush are largely spurious. Two wrongs do not make a right. (Spare me teh wright brothers joke) I have made that abundantly clear. The actions of George Bush must be judged solely on their own. But if the critics of George Bush are inconsistent in their judgments then of what value is their criticism?

...other than of course to allow you to deflect focus and avoid the addressing the questions or issues. The statements made against bush are largely rhetorical and subjective. As I said earlier there is little objective analysis. My problem I have with the thread is the mean spirited, pompous and hypocritical nature of many of the posts. I would hope that I have a right to be critical of the thread and those who are posting.

If you like, please open another thread about the hypocrisy and name names, i.e. who is applying judgment differently and how where and how. If you like please report me to a moderator. Otherwise don’t tell me what to do. ‘K?

For someone you like and admire, I would think Bush would deserve a better defense than to compare his failings with Clintons'. Boy, you missed that one by a large margin. My purpose isn’t to defend Bush so much as it is to point out the hypocrisy of those posting in the thread.

Please read my posts a little more carefully.

[jj]

Originally posted by RandFan
Not at all. I have not avoided any questions or tried to cloud anything. I am making a simple argument. See if you can follow along.

Proposition: The attacks made on Bush are done for ideological purposes.

Premise: The attacks on bush consist primarily of rhetoric.

Premise: Those who attack Bush are inconsistent in that they have excused similar behavior from past presidents that shared the ideology of those making the attacks.


Fact: Bush lied, it matters not by omission or commission, about the state of the Iraqi weapons program. This is fact, it is not rhetoric.

Fact: I haven't excused the fact that Clinton lied.

Statement: They are both fraught with ethical problems. It is, however, true, that Clinton got nobody killed, and Bush got thousands, at least, killed, as well as turned the USA into a right-wing rogue state.

Conclusion: They're both idiots.

Corrolary: Bush is worse.

[RandFan]

By the way,to all you Bush "disciples",I worked in the Miami-Dade Elections Dept and have seen first hand the offical numbers. George W.Bush DID NOT steal the 2000 Presidential election. Governor Jeb Bush did! ???? Yeah, ok, we will all just take your word for it.

Could you be more obscure? How about specific alegations? Can I verify them by calling your supervisor?

And who are these Bush "disciples"?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by jj
Fact: Bush lied, it matters not by omission or commission, about the state of the Iraqi weapons program. This is fact, it is not rhetoric. Arguable but let's assume that it is true. So, you are making dichotomy? Either Bush lies and people die or Bush tells the truth and people don't die?

Truth is the first casualty of War, this of course in no way excuses the behavior of any of our leaders. But war and presidencies are complex things. By your logic all leaders during any war were idiots. I can accept that you feel that way. I have no problem with that. I don't agree but I respect that.

Fact: I haven't excused the fact that Clinton lied. Thank you, I respect your consistency. I hope you can respect mine.

Statement: They are both fraught with ethical problems. It is, however, true, that Clinton got nobody killed I'm afraid you need to brush up on your history. It is arguable and quite possible that Clinton killed innocent civilians for his own self-serving purposes.

...and Bush got thousands, at least, killed, Agreed, and he saved many thousands more.

...as well as turned the USA into a right-wing rogue state. This IS rhetoric. I'm willing to respect your opinion but I don't agree.

Conclusion: They're both idiots. I accept that you have come to that conclusion using consistent judgment. I have no desire to rebut your alegation.

Corrolary: Bush is worse. Subjectively based on a very small and selective subset of data.

That being said your post is by far one of the most intelligent posts made in this thread!

Thank you,

RandFan

[bluestraveler]

Originally posted by RandFan
???? Yeah, ok, we will all just take your word for it.

Could you be more obscure? How about specific alegations? Can I verify them by calling your supervisor?

And who are these Bush "disciples"?

It's actually public information moron!

[RandFan]

Originally posted by bluestraveler
It's actually public information moron! What is public information?

Why am I a moron?

Good nic BTW.

[bluestraveler]

Originally posted by RandFan
What is public information?

Why am I a moron?

Good nic BTW.

You're right. I should not have called you a moron . I'll reserve judgement. And I think you should know that public records of election numbers are there for you. I don't have time to explain to you about politics in Florida and how the Republican Party manipulated 2000. Do your homework if you have the will to be honest! Thanks for responding, I enjoy educating children.

[dsm]

Originally posted by RandFan

Truth is the first casualty of War, this of course in no way excuses the behavior of any of our leaders. But war and presidencies are complex things. By your logic all leaders during any war were idiots. I can accept that you feel that way. I have no problem with that. I don't agree but I respect that.


When do you believe this war started? Then ask yourself whether jj meant that Bush began lieing before or after the war started. It's one thing to tell a "white lie" to protect national security when you're in a war -- it's another thing entirely to lie to justify starting the war!


I'm afraid you need to brush up on your history. It is arguable and quite possible that Clinton killed innocent civilians for his own self-serving purposes.


Specify what you mean here. Also specify exactly how it was self-serving.


Agreed, and he saved many thousands more.


Arguable in the extreme.


This IS rhetoric. I'm willing to respect your opinion but I don't agree.


International polls (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2994924.stm) seem to agree with this rhetoric.


Subjectively based on a very small and selective subset of data.


How selective and small is your subset of data?

[RandFan]

bluestraveler
By the way,to all you Bush "disciples",I worked in the Miami-Dade Elections Dept and have seen first hand the offical numbers. George W.Bush DID NOT steal the 2000 Presidential election. Governor Jeb Bush did!

RandFan
???? Yeah, ok, we will all just take your word for it.

Could you be more obscure? How about specific allegations? Can I verify them by calling your supervisor?

And who are these Bush "disciples"?

bluestraveler
It's actually public information moron! I'm going to assume by public information you mean "the official numbers".

Hmmmm.... then why the headline? Why give us your credentials? How do the numbers prove that Jeb Bush "stole" the election?

Bluestraveler, when you make claims you have to be willing to back them up and not just assume that since the numbers are "public information" that you can get away without providing evidence.

So, let me make this formal. I dispute that any numbers prove Jeb Bush stole the election.

Now, it is on you to provide the numbers and provide a coherent argument that shows demonstrably that Jeb Bush stole the election. Do you think you can do that or would you rather just call me names and expect us all to take your word for it?

Thanks,

RandFan

[RandFan]

Originally posted by bluestraveler
You're right. I should not have called you a moron . I'll resreve judgement. And I think you should know that public records of election numbers are there for you. I don't have time to explain to you about politics in Florida and how the Republican Party manipulated 2000. Do your homework if you have the will to be honest! Thanks for responding, I enjoy educating children. bluestraveler, plese see the post above.

This is a skeptics forum and it is expected that if you make claims you can back them up. It is not encumbent upon me to prove your claims and I have every right to call into question any claim (that is why we call it a skeptics forum).

You have three choices.

1.) Withdraw the claim.

2.) Back-up the claim.

3.) Ignore my request but then have no credibility.

I can't think of any other option.

[bluestraveler]

Originally posted by RandFan
I'm going to assume by public information you mean "the official numbers".

Hmmmm.... then why the headline? Why give us your credentials? How do the numbers prove that Jeb Bush "stole" the election?

Bluestraveler, when you make claims you have to be willing to back them up and not just assume that since the numbers are "public information" that you can get away without providing evidence.

So, let me make this formal. I dispute that any numbers prove Jeb Bush stole the election.

Now, it is on you to provide the numbers and provide a coherent argument that shows demonstrably that Jeb Bush stole the election. Do you think you can do that or would you rather just call me names and expect us all to take your word for it?

Thanks,

RandFan


RandFan,
I think I know what type of forum I'm in. If you have questions about 2000 do some research. I suggest you focus on Katherine Harris, State Attorney General at the time. Good luck!

[RandFan]

Hi dsm,

Thank you for the questions. Reason is so refreshing.

Originally posted by dsm
When do you believe this war started? Then ask yourself whether jj meant that Bush began lieing before or after the war started. It's one thing to tell a "white lie" to protect national security when you're in a war -- it's another thing entirely to lie to justify starting the war! Good question. Sadly the first causality is suffered before the start of hostilities. A case can be made that Roosevelt lied. The flying tigers were a lie. The Kuwaiti propaganda prior to the very first gulf war was full of lies. I can't excuse the lies but I think lying before is arguably as important as lying after the start of the war.

Assuming Bush lied, was the lie justified? That is difficult to answer. I don't know. I don't stay up late at night worrying about it. I am quite confident the war was appropriate. My own bias probably causes me to minimize any negative impact of such deception assuming there truly was deception. It is a valid point.

Specify what you mean here. Also specify exactly how it was self-serving. Shortly after Bill Clinton got into trouble he started dropping bombs all over the place. Many civilians were killed. A number of targets and the timing of those targets have been called into question. A good argument can be made that the bombing campaigns kept the American public's mind off of the scandals and on the war. Many pundits including a number of prominent ones questioned to what extent Clinton's bombing was "wagging the dog".

Arguable in the extreme. How? At the end of the war the prisons were opened and the first priority of many fathers and mothers was to go searching for their missing loved ones. It seemed that thousands would disappear regularly from Baghdad. Are you not familiar with Saddam's atrocities? He routinely had thousands killed. I don't know how you can make that statement.

From the US Senate (foreign.senate.gov/Democratic/press/statements/031398r1.pdf )
Perhaps the best documented case of Saddam's genocidal policies is the infamous Anfal campaign... According to Human Rights Watch between 50,000 and 100,000 were killed during Anfal. So no I don't really think it is arguable at all.

International polls (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2994924.stm) seem to agree with this rhetoric. Two problems.

1.) The argument is ad-populum (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#populum) .

2.) At best the polls prove the sentiment of others.

I am against making any policy based solely on the perceptions of others.

How selective and small is your subset of data? For which claim?

[subgenius]

Off topic alert.

Hey Randfan my friend,
Re: the resume issue, don't feel these requests for data are directed at you, you don't have to be the Defender of the Faith.....don't want to provide data, others can pick up the slack....and if the reason to support him is "I like his style," or "his kids love him" or any damn reason you want, that's OK. We were just looking for specifics that one might put on a resume.....

(P.S. Did you ever get that invoice paid?)

[RandFan]

Originally posted by bluestraveler
RandFan,
I think I know what type of forum I'm in. Really? You could have surprised me.

It's not my claim and not my responsibility to back it up.

You have three choices.

1.) Withdraw the claim.

2.) Back-up the claim.

3.) Ignore my request but then have no credibility. I have refuted your contention and I can't prove a negative.

I take it that you are going to refuse to prove your claim that Jeb Bush stole the election. Fine, I will mostly ignore you but I reserve the right to remind you of your refusal from time to time.

Thanks again,

RandFan.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by subgenius
Off topic alert.

Hey Randfan my friend,
Re: the resume issue, don't feel these requests for data are directed at you, you don't have to be the Defender of the Faith.....don't want to provide data, others can pick up the slack....and if the reason to support him is "I like his style," or "his kids love him" or any damn reason you want, that's OK. We were just looking for specifics that one might put on a resume..... I have been trying to leave..."but they keep pulling me back in"

:) That's cool. You know I like your style. I'm even going to get over my dissapointment for your friend. Any friend of yours is a decent guy I'm sure. I will not object if you post the picture in the future. I reserve the right to roll my eyes though :rolleyes: .

(P.S. Did you ever get that invoice paid?) I'm working on it. The organization is one of our finer learning establishments. I won't tell you the name but the intials are UCLA and they have a bear for a mascot. It really isn't the fault of the school but an individual with one of the departments I consult for.

It's ok, I went to my Mother-in-law for a float. :mad: It's really my own fault. I have to learn to live with in my means better. Since I raided my savings and retirement to buy our home I haven't done any saving.

[dsm]

Originally posted by RandFan

Good question. Sadly the first causality is suffered before the start of hostilities. A case can be made that Roosevelt lied. The flying tigers were a lie. The Kuwaiti propaganda prior to the very first gulf war was full of lies. I can't excuse the lies but I think lying before is arguably as important as lying after the start of the war.


Neither case, though, created the war. WWII did not truly begin for the US until Pearl Harbor (regardless of backdoor goings on between Churchill and Roosevelt). The first Gulf War happened due to an actual action by Saddam (ie. invasion of Kuwait) rather than any propaganda. On the other hand, the second Gulf War began due to an INaction (ie. Saddam's "failure to comply") and the propaganda put forth by the Bush administration to justify it.


Assuming Bush lied, was the lie justified? That is difficult to answer. I don't know. I don't stay up late at night worrying about it. I am quite confident the war was appropriate. My own bias probably causes me to minimize any negative impact of such deception assuming there truly was deception. It is a valid point.


Nobody (sane) ever said that removing Saddam wasn't ultimately a good thing -- just that Bush's approach to doing it could've been handled far better.


Shortly after Bill Clinton got into trouble he started dropping bombs all over the place. Many civilians were killed. A number of targets and the timing of those targets have been called into question. A good argument can be made that the bombing campaigns kept the American public's mind off of the scandals and on the war. Many pundits including a number of prominent ones questioned to what extent Clinton's bombing was "wagging the dog".


I'm still confused -- which bombings do you mean and in what time frame?


How? At the end of the war the prisons were opened and the first priority of many fathers and mothers was to go searching for their missing loved ones. It seemed that thousands would disappear regularly from Baghdad. Are you not familiar with Saddam's atrocities? He routinely had thousands killed. I don't know how you can make that statement.


Misinterpretted your statement. I assumed you were attempting to justify things on the basis that it might have saved American lives from future terrorist attacks.


1.) The argument is ad-populum (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#populum).

2.) At best the polls prove the sentiment of others.


What's your point? Presidential politics is one of popularity. Ultimately, the president must either follow the popular opinion or be able to change the popular opinion or he is voted out of office. Therefore, showing that the US has fallen in popular opinion is a valid way of showing that the President ("the buck stops here") and his policies have caused world opinion to swing toward the "US is a rogue state" camp.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by dsm
Neither case, though, created the war. WWII did not truly begin for the US until Pearl Harbor (regardless of backdoor goings on between Churchill and Roosevelt). The first Gulf War happened due to an actual action by Saddam (ie. invasion of Kuwait) rather than any propaganda. On the other hand, the second Gulf War began due to an INaction (ie. Saddam's "failure to comply") and the propaganda put forth by the Bush administration to justify it. The war IMO was started because of a number of possible reasons. I appreciate that you are willing to concede that Saddam's inaction was a large part of it. I think geo-politics, oil, money and even revenge played a part. Perhaps better examples would have been the sinking of the Maine or the Lusitania, assuming of course that they were lies. I understand your point.

I will simply say that I believe the war was justified. I can't excuse lies or obfuscation but I understand it.

Nobody (sane) ever said that removing Saddam wasn't ultimately a good thing -- just that Bush's approach to doing it could've been handled far better. Understood, I think you are perhaps right but I ultimately believe the war was appropriate.

I'm still confused -- which bombings do you mean and in what time frame? Clinton's actions eerily similar to 'Wag The Dog' movie. (http://www.naplesnews.com/special/attack/111attae.htm)

WASHINGTON - President Clinton's double-barreled strike at terrorists in Afghanistan and Sudan on Thursday triggered instant comparisons to the movie "Wag the Dog," in which a president caught having sex with a young girl deflects public attention by pretending to attack a small foreign country. [/b] This was in August 1998. Following that Clinton began a joint bombing campaign with NATO in Kosovo that lasted well into 1999. IIRC

Clinton's Wag The Dog (http://www.bannerofliberty.com/OS10-98MQC/10-8-1998.1.html)
So, an impeachment inquiry is assured and, guess what? President Clinton has decided to have his own little war - without the approval of Congress, or of NATO, or the United Nations. (sound familiar) It's just a cozy little war between friends - Bill Clinton and Tony Blair not AGAINST Albania, as was the case in Wag the Dog, but FOR Albania, over Kosovo. [/b]

What's your point? Presidential politics is one of popularity. The argument was that the United States is a rouge state.

I disagree. Further I state that there is no evidence to support such a contention. I believe that a claim that the US is just rhetoric.

You say that allot of other people agree. The argument is fallacious for the reasons stated argument ad-populem. Whether the president is elected because for presidential politics is beside the point.

Ultimately, the president must either follow the popular opinion or be able to change the popular opinion or he is voted out of office. Therefore, showing that the US has fallen in popular opinion is a valid way of showing that the President ("the buck stops here") and his policies have caused world opinion to swing toward the "US is a rogue state" camp. If the people of America choose to vote the president out of office due to fallacious reasoning then that is their prerogative. It won't change the fact that it is still fallacious. We are NOT a rouge state.

If you are not trying to prove that we are a rouge state then that is fine and your point is noted.

It does not however overcome my contention that a leader should not act to please others who do not have our best interest at heart.

[dsm]

Originally posted by RandFan

The argument was that the United States is a rouge state.


No, the argument is that the United States (rightly or wrongly) is more and more being perceived as a "rogue" state. Various polls back up that contention and, in this case, polls represent data for the argument and cannot be dismissed as an appeal to popularity.

That "perception", in turn, greatly effects how effective the United States can be in carrying out its role in the world. If countries begin treating us differently because they perceive us to be a rogue nation capable of (say) invading them on false pretenses, then they may choose to do less business with us (political and economic) in order to not run the risk of giving us information that we may use against them later. More than that, they may choose to secretly go "nuclear" (or chemical or biological or computational) in order to have something with which to protect themselves from the perceived threat.

This "perception" of the United States is, in large part, controlled and caused by presidential policies. Past bad policies raised this "perception" of the US to some degree, but the invasion of Iraq by the US without (thus far) a viable and immediate threat to the US raises this "perception" of the US to levels not seen before. This could have detrimental effects on the US and the stability of the world for years to come.

This is the legacy of George W. Bush. :rolleyes:

[Diamond]

Originally posted by Crossbow
Just to add a bit of polish to the resume`, I suggest that he work in how he did his bit to keep the NVA out of Texas during the Vietnam War.

:p

I'll always remember John McCain's rejoinder that it made him feel better as a POW in the "Hanoi Hilton" knowing that W was defending Texas from invasion....

[RandFan]

Originally posted by dsm
No, the argument is that the United States (rightly or wrongly) is more and more being perceived as a "rogue" state. No, you are wrong.

This issue started when jj said:

Statement: They are both fraught with ethical problems. It is, however, true, that Clinton got nobody killed, and Bush got thousands, at least, killed, as well as turned the USA into a right-wing rogue state. There is no mention of perception in his statement.

Various polls back up that contention and, in this case, polls represent data for the argument and cannot be dismissed as an appeal to popularity. Since I am disputing jj's real claim as opposed to perception then it would be an appeal to authority.

That "perception", in turn, greatly effects how effective the United States can be in carrying out its role in the world. If countries begin treating us differently because they perceive us to be a rogue nation capable of (say) invading them on false pretenses, then they may choose to do less business with us (political and economic) in order to not run the risk of giving us information that we may use against them later. More than that, they may choose to secretly go "nuclear" (or chemical or biological or computational) in order to have something with which to protect themselves from the perceived threat. [/b] I will not dismiss the value of diplomacy. How other countries perceive us is important. The problem is that we cannot always make decisions solely on the basis of how others perceive us.

This "perception" of the United States is, in large part, controlled and caused by presidential policies. Past bad policies raised this "perception" of the US to some degree, but the invasion of Iraq by the US without (thus far) a viable [b]and immediate threat to the US raises this "perception" of the US to levels not seen before. This could have detrimental effects on the US and the stability of the world for years to come.[/b I very much disagree. America is important because it provides a sense of stability throughout the world. If we are perceived as week as the UN is then the world will be a far more dangerous place to live in. Our efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq have proven our capability and our resolve.

When the Iranians captured the hostages in the 70s they believed that the American people would support them. The Vietnam war had truly weakened our image throughout the world as a nation that was unwilling to fight for a cause.

When Saddam invaded Kuwait it was in part due to his belief that America was unwilling to go to war. His invasion was a direct failure for us to project our willingness to defend our allies.

The Gulf War helped that image but then we screwed up and allowed the Iraqis to slaughter its own people. In Somalia when our troops were dragged through the streets we quickly got the hell out of there. This was a major blunder. It sent a clear, but wrong message that the United States lacked the courage to defend any cause.

This is the legacy of George W. Bush. It is important to note that Saddam had many opportunities to comply before we invaded. Since the invasion of Iraq was 12 years in the making there is a clear picture that we are willing to exhaust diplomacy first. There is now a clear message to the world that America is prepared to defend itself against all threats. If diplomacy fails then we are prepared to resolve issues militarily even if the rest of the world lacks the stomach for it.

Iraq was a great object lesson in the worthlessness of diplomacy with out a military threat. Bush has shown the world that the United States is both capable and willing to use force.

That is the legacy of George W. Bush.

[Ion]

The idiot has spoken again:
Originally posted by RandFan

...
It is important to note that Saddam had many opportunities to comply before we invaded. Since the invasion of Iraq was 12 years in the making there is a clear picture that we are willing to exhaust diplomacy first. There is now a clear message to the world that America is prepared to defend itself against all threats. If diplomacy fails then we are prepared to resolve issues militarily even if the rest of the world lacks the stomach for it.

Iraq was a great object lesson in the worthlessness of diplomacy with out a military threat. Bush has shown the world that the United States is both capable and willing to use force.

That is the legacy of George W. Bush.
.) Bush didn't comply with U.N. by attacking Hussein;

so, blaming Hussein of non-compliance, it's idiotic;

.) Bush is crawling in the newspaper for weeks now, begging U.N. to join the rebuilding of Iraq;

this is Bush who declared in May that "...U.N. would have to beg..." him to join;

.) 276 U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq, 8,000 Iraqi civilians killed in Iraq, thousands of Iraqi army killed and maimed, breaking up with U.N. and war, 80 billions of dollars drained from the consumer economy into the war just because some U.S. oil companies have interest in Iraq, that is the idiotic "...legacy of George W. Bush.".

The resident idiot in this board, doesn't see?

[bluestraveler]

Originally posted by Ion
The idiot has spoken again:

.) Bush didn't comply with U.N. by attacking Hussein;

so, blaming Hussein of non-compliance, it's idiotic;

.) Bush is crawling in the newspaper for weeks now, begging U.N. to join the rebuilding of Iraq;

this is Bush who declared in May that "...U.N. would have to beg..." him to join;

.) 276 U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq, 8,000 Iraqi civilians killed in Iraq, thousands of Iraqi army killed and maimed, breaking up with U.N. and war, 80 billions of dollars drained from the consumer economy into the war just because some U.S. oil companies have interest in Iraq, that is the idiotic "...legacy of George W. Bush.".

The resident idiot in this board, doesn't see?

Thanks. Throw a frog into boiling water and it's reflex is to immediately jump out. However, if you put that same frog into cold water and gradually turn up the heat, it will boil to death. Denial is a dangerous thing!
-

[Mark]

Originally posted by bluestraveler


. Denial is a dangerous thing!
-

I'll say. There are crocodiles in it...

Thank you. I'll be here all week. :D

[subgenius]

I'll be the Mean Old Man:
Let's get back on topic (maybe the thread is dead 'cause all of his achievements have been listed), and
let's stop the name calling, it doesn't help anyone's cause.

Oh, one more thing, "Hey you kids, get out of my yard!!!!"
;)

[bluestraveler]

Originally posted by Mark


I'll say. There are crocodiles in it...

Thank you. I'll be here all week. :D

Thanks Mark. Hope you can get some info on the Bilderbrand Group.

[bluestraveler]

Originally posted by Mark


I'll say. There are crocodiles in it...

Thank you. I'll be here all week. :D

Thanks Mark. Hope you can get some info on the Bilderbrand Group. ;)

[Mark]

Originally posted by bluestraveler


Thanks Mark. Hope you can get some info on the Bilderbrand Group.

Actually, I meant to ask about that. While I am very familiar with the psycho/sexual/larcenous/necrophiliac aspects of the "Skull and Bones" crowd, I am afraid I am not at all familiar with the Bilderbrand Group.

Dare I hope they were a 60s San Francisco band?

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Mark


.........the psycho/sexual/larcenous/necrophiliac aspects of the "Skull and Bones" crowd............
You say it like its a bad thing.....
and you left out "conspiratorial."

:eek:

[bluestraveler]

Originally posted by subgenius
I'll be the Mean Old Man:
Let's get back on topic (maybe the thread is dead 'cause all of his achievements have been listed), and
let's stop the name calling, it doesn't help anyone's cause.

Oh, one more thing, "Hey you kids, get out of my yard!!!!"
;)

Yes Sir.:(

[nightwind]

Well everyone makes mistakes, but I think that it does indeed say something about a persons character, when as an adult they commit crimes such as shoplifting, smoking crack, theft or whatever it may be.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by bluestraveler
Thanks. Throw a frog into boiling water and it's reflex is to immediately jump out. However, if you put that same frog into cold water and gradually turn up the heat, it will boil to death. Denial is a dangerous thing!
- Yes it is and it should be noted that Ion has refused to answer direct questions possed to him/her. Ion is the last person to call anyone an idiot.

Ion has zero credibility.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by nightwind
Well everyone makes mistakes, but I think that it does indeed say something about a persons character, when as an adult they commit crimes such as shoplifting, smoking crack, theft or whatever it may be. Cheating on ones wife? Lying? I was firmly against impeachment and I don't think it should have been investigated but it certainly says something about a persons charachter.

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by RandFan
Regnad Kcin,

Thank you for your response and reasoned tone.My pleasure. The same to you.It need not be perplexing at all. I don't view Bush through an ideological filter. If I were a Democrat and devoid of objectivity I suppose I wouldn't like him. I don't like everything he does but I don't condemn him for any mistakes he has made so far.I don't want to parse every one of your statements, either those in response to me, or others in this thread. But I also hesitate to let things go by without comment.

That being said, it's possible to not like the man and his policies regardless of one's political affiliation. Yes, you would be right to suspect that a particular Ford salesman doesn't like the Chevy huckster from across the street because they're competitors. But it's possible that Mr. Chevrolet is of questionable virtue irrespective of who's doing the scrutinizing.Which president do you like or respect?A fine question, though you'll forgive me for smelling a trap. Nevertheless, I'll answer. Among modern presidents, I'm more fond of Harry Truman than not. Jimmy Carter comes in second. (I wonder if this is because of the casual nature of their first names.)The day I find a simple way to point out the hypocrisy and inconsistency of many of those who attack Bush is the day I'll leave the ghost of Clinton's presidency in the grave. If you can provide for me a better way I will use it.I agree, to a point. It is certainly frustrating to deal with anyone who is not able to manage the basic tools of debate, let alone those which are more sophistcated. However, we should try. An argument should stand on its own strength or fall because of its weakness.The politics of Bush et all is no more slimier than Clinton and friends.This is just the kind of statement you should guard against, if you don't mind my saying. For one thing, it's impossible to measure such things. Furthermore, it all depends on who's making the call.

That being said, in my opinion the far right (both politicians and punditry) has much to answer for due to their behavior over the last decade or so.As I said, if you were as critical of Clinton as you are of Bush then I respect your opinion.Again, forgive the parsing, but I would hope you respect my opinion based on the strength of my arguments; being equally critical of another is irrelevant.

You discover that there is a newly-taken photo of your girlfriend kissing another guy floating around. Does it matter if a criminal took the shot? (Goodness, I hope that's clear.)Hence my going back to the Clintons. What reason would anyone have to like or respect any president? They have all held beliefs and done things that are contemptible. It is sadly the nature of politics and particularly presidential politics. I judge Clinton, Bush, Bush Sr., Reagan in the context of a president.I agree, it isn't easy. And the citizenry asks entirely too much more of the executive than he can possibly give. Plus, our popular culture has created a mythic sensibility surrounding the office that serves to elevate its holder regardless of whether or not he has earned the honor. So we judge him on that. And of course he'll come up short.

Then there's the nature of adversarial politics. I tend to chuckle when people moan and groan about how Congress or some deliberative body is "not gettin' anything done" or how they're "always bickering." Folks, that's the way it's supposed to be! The system promotes gradual change through compromise as the best method for reaching goals that benifit the most while hurting the least. But I digress.I find most people only consider context when there is shared ideology.A safe bet, but not a sure one.I'm glad you brought this up. And sorry but I am going to go back to Bill Clinton. According to Dick Morris Clinton never made a single decision that he didn't first check the polls over. Bill Clinton was famous for pandering. After the Republican takeover of 1984 Bill Clinton moved sharply to the right. George Stephanopoulos talks about this in his book All Too Human (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-form/102-7212224-4482517). He regret that Clinton followed Morriss' advice but Bill credits this move for giving him a landslide victory in the next election.

This raises the question, do you think Bill Clinton was a coward and do you think that he was disrespectful to you and the constitution?Y'know I haven't done my Ronald Reagan imitation in a while. Let's give it a try...

There you go again.

Hey, that was pretty good, if I do say so myself! The point being, I'm not participating in this thread to discuss Bill Clinton. If Bill Clinton jumped off a bridge (or jumped on an intern) would you do it too?Originally posted by Regnad Kcin
Please name three difficult and courageous decisions that George W. Bush has made.Originally posted by RandFan
To send troops into harms way in Afghanistan.

To stand up to those who did not have our best interests at heart (French, Germans, etc.) and fight for a referendum against Iraq.

To send troops into harms way in Iraq.Thank you. However, I believe your list is highly debatable.

Regarding the first item: I must say that the decision was a no-brainer. Following the attacks of 9/11 people far and wide were champing at the bit to go after Osama bin Laden and his goons. Frankly, if the US had spent a fraction of current $1 billion per week expenditure in Iraq on thoroughly rooting out al-Qaeda, few would argue, and the world would be a much nicer place.

Item number two: George W. Bush did not stand up to anyone. He and his team had a particular game plan in mind and ignored those governments and peoples who begged to differ. International diplomacy is extravagently complex. But is what Mr. Bush did courageous? I prefer short-sighted, but I'll allow for a maybe, so I'll reluctantly give you this, though with the caveat that it's open to interpretation.

Your third item is related to your second. And since I've adressed it, let me take issue with the meaning behind your choice of phrase. Troops are, by nature, supposed to go in harm's way. That's what they're for. I hope that we try to avoid any situations that would require the decision to use them. A circus manager is not courageous for instructing his wild animal trainer to enter the lion's cage each performance. Even with the very real possibility that the whip snapper may not come out alive.There are a plethora of books about Bill Clinton (bear with me) written by prominent individuals. I have not read all of them. I did read Stephanopolus' book and Barbara Olson's book The Final Days (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0895261251/qid=1061768983/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/102-7212224-4482517) and others.

I have not read Miller's book. Have you read Olson's book?I have not. (I hasten to add my regrets that she lost her life on 9/11.) That being said, an analysis of the Clinton administration at this point can only serve a scholarly purpose; it is history. Discussing the present president and the possibility of his gaining a second term is quite a bit more relevant.When I said tripe I was referring to the anti-(whoever is president) propaganda that is written about every president. I have read enough conspiracy theories and attack pieces to know that people can make Charley Manson look like Mother Theresa and vice versa. I haven't read the book but I don't need to read every book that comes along any more than you need to read every book that comes out against those in your ideological camp.I think your point is valid, though there is a difference between propaganda and scholarship. While Professor Miller's book is quite scathing in its judgement, it is less a personal attack than an indictment directed towards our largely content-free modern system of selecting and promoting candidates for office. (He is, as I mentioned, a teacher of media studies.) In addition, Miller has little patience for a citizenry that is so cavalier in its disregard for what are today perhaps the most important issues of civilization.

BTW, if you feel Ms. Olsen's book is worth my time, I'll look for it.I find so much hypocrisy and inconsistency in threads like this. It is the only way I know of to puncture the pompousness of those who get on and make a laundry list of reasons they dislike or even hate Bush. I dealt with it for 8 years when Clinton was president and I often turned the tables on my friends and family when the attacked Clinton.

I hate hypocracy.Agreed.Are you saying that the attacks made against Bush in this thread have all been "honest analysis"?Not at all. If I presented that impression, I apologize.While there have been a number of serious and objective posts most have not. If they had I wouldn't have even bothered posting. I have no problem with "honest analysis". I am no Bush sycophant. I have said on a number of occasions that I am concerned with his judicial appointments and I have also made known my concerns with the patriot act and other issues. I have admitted that his statements about religion and atheists were wrong.

It is the blanket statements and indictments of others on this thread that I take issue with. One poster says that he wants to physically harm Bush. Is this what you call "honest analysis"?You keep placing the words honest analysis in quotes. I can't find where I used the phrase, but no matter.

As I stated earlier, many of the items in the "resume" at the top of this thread do not stand up to scrutiny. Quite a bit of the discussion that has followed has been, as with any forum, out of line and warrants only my disregard.I have no problem with "honest analysis" and the purpose of my "argument" was an attack on those individuals who would condemn Bush for the very actions they would excuse Clinton for.It seems to me you're making a generalization, in part born of your frustration at those who do not share your sense of fair play.I appreciate your willingness to engage me they way you are. It seems quite obvious that you are willing to consider my point of view. It is all that I want. I can honestly say that some of the posters that I respect the most I disagree with. Tricky and Subgenius, Wayne Grabert, Roadtoad and others. Of course there are areas of agreement and that helps ... I think you are objective as are many others on this forum. I am hardly unique I just feel the need to toot my own self righteous horn more than anyone else.

I'll have to see a therapist about that someday.Thank you once again for your compliments. Consideration for others is a skill that should be practiced often.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Regnad Kcin
My pleasure. The same to you.I don't want to parse every one of your statements, either those in response to me, or others in this thread. But I also hesitate to let things go by without comment. Regnad,

While I disagree with a few of points I think your post is one that I'm quite happy to let stand without debate.

Great job,

RandFan

P.S. I'll reign in the Clinton references but I reserve the right to trot out his past again from time to time. Of course you have the right to rap me across the knuckles, so to speak.

[Ion]

Originally posted by RandFan
Yes it is and it should be noted that Ion has refused to answer direct questions possed to him/her.
...

You are a liar, RF:

you cower about addressing what I criticized in a direct form in my previous post regarding your position short in intelligence.
Originally posted by RandFan

...
Ion is the last person to call anyone an idiot.

Ion has zero credibility.
Says RF.

Not much of a reference to hold to, demonstrating RF's shortage in intelligence:

supporting Bush's killings, RF?

[RandFan]

For the record. In the thread The Official George W. Bush WMD Clock (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23100&highlight=radio), 1st page, Ion made a number of fallacious arguments. Including Straw men, begging the question, ad hominem etc.

When I asked him to address these he simply ignored them as if they didn't happen.

Ion, this is a skeptics forum. It is expected that you will debate in a logical fashion. When you make fallacious arguments it is expected that you will address those arguments. Refusal to do so makes you a troll. Nothing more.

For all of his problems JK was at least willing to respond to accusations of fallacious argument. Though he did so poorly. I can honestly say that you are worse than JK in some respects.

So call me a liar all you want but the facts are demonstrable. You are a troll and that can't denied.

Good bye.

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by RandFan
Regnad,

While I disagree with a few of points I think your post is one that I'm quite happy to let stand without debate.

Great job.Nuts! Just as it was getting good! ;)P.S. I'll reign in the Clinton references but I reserve the right to trot out his past again from time to time. Of course you have the right to rap me across the knuckles, so to speak. I'd prefer to buy you a beer.

[Ion]

Originally posted by RandFan
For the record. In the thread The Official George W. Bush WMD Clock (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23100&highlight=radio), 1st page, Ion made a number of fallacious arguments. Including Straw men, begging the question, ad hominem etc.

When I asked him to address these he simply ignored them as if they didn't happen.

Ion, this is a skeptics forum. It is expected that you will debate in a logical fashion. When you make fallacious arguments it is expected that you will address those arguments. Refusal to do so makes you a troll. Nothing more.

For all of his problems JK was at least willing to respond to accusations of fallacious argument. Though he did so poorly. I can honestly say that you are worse than JK in some respects.

So call me a liar all you want but the facts are demonstrable. You are a troll and that can't denied.

Good bye.
For the record, RF, when reading that thread, you are the troll.

For example, you tell me to know about my native Romania (and I demonstrate to you that you know nothing about Romania) so that you will attempt to divert the line of discussion into patronizing, and for example not a single argument that you made in that thread stood up after I debunked it:

what a gooffy troll you are, RF....

Here, wanting to stand up for Bush, but being incapable of defending any achivement by Bush -like people beg you to do- and not justifying his killings:

what a gooffy troll you are again, RF...