View Full Version : I have a complaint about George W. Bush
This may or may not demonstrate to some that I do not blindly tow the party line, but regardless, I'd just like to say that I do not like the Bush administration's tendency to shrug off journalists and the public in general.
I appreciate the fact that a certain ability to turn your back to criticism and such is a fundamental part of being a leader. Being firm in your convictions can often be a virtue. However, I do not agree with the degree to which it appears to be taking place. I do not like the fact that some members of the administration feel little or no need to justify themselves to the rest of their country.
Aside from being at odds with the idea of government officials as public servants (they ultimately report to us), it's also not smart, politically. Many times defenses for their various actions have existed, but gone unused in lieu of something shaky or dismissive. They've got bullets in their chambers, but they so rarely use them.
Granted, issues like Richard Clarke's testimony do not encourage them to do so, as even valid retorts are labeled as "ferocious," but I still believe that they do not feel a strong enough responsibility to speak to the people of the country they help run. This is somewhat understandable in light of the terrorist actions they have had to contend with, but I still feel it's something that should be changed.
I still support Bush, however, primarily because I agree with many of his decisions, even if he does not see fit to justify them to me or anyone else.
Just thought I'd throw that out there.
Interesting that you should be getting annoyed about this. The Economist, a staunch supporter of the Bush-admin's policies, is getting equally frustrated.
A matter of trust
Apr 1st 2004 | WASHINGTON, DC
http://www.economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2553350
This article, and one called The Presidency, are particularly critical of the admin's "never apologise, never explain" approach. (altho they also point out the role of the "permanent campaign" mentality in modern US politics, that means "winning each 24-hour news cycle" has become more important than debate.)
As much as this has a negative affect on Democractic processes internally, the application of this basically non-negotiating approach to world issues like Iraq (and economic/climate/legal issues) has degraded international relations too.
And what's worse is that the admin seem to feel their position is so justified they can spin and decieve to their hearts content - The Economist points out this intriguing bit of research by that needle in their sides, Senator Waxman: 237 exagerrated or dubious claims by the admin concerning Iraq:
http://www.house.gov/reform/min/features/iraq_on_the_record/
(the best service this site provides is the way it punctures recent statements like: “We never said there were stockpiles.” [Wolfowitz - Mar 16th] with past ones like this: "They have amassed large clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons including VX and sarin and mustard gas." [Rumsfeld - September 27th 2002])
Basically - yeah - they should at least enter the debate, rather than just using a litany of rhetorical and dirty tricks.
Granted, issues like Richard Clarke's testimony do not encourage them to do so, as even valid retorts are labeled as "ferocious," but I still believe that they do not feel a strong enough responsibility to speak to the people of the country they help run.
The Economist speculates that the Clinton years had convinced the Bush-crew that too much deference to Congress was bad for decisiveness. Therefore they're trying to emphasise their executive powers.
I agree that they can't stay out of the debate just coz valid retorts might get criticised. (indeed it's the way their valid standpoints get swamped by their standard, unhelpful-to-downright-negative, responses that is exacerbating the problem of the political climate)
But as far as Clarke is concerned, the majority of admin responses seemed to have been about character assassination rather than issues. The Economist gives kudos to Rice for contradicting Cheney's claim that Clarke was out of the loop. But they also point out the numerous personel attacks.
Which is all the more aggravating coz there are valid(ish ;)) points out there that the admin could use to facilitate debate and to clarify their position: Aside from the tit-for-tat point that Clarke used personal slights on the admin to begin with, we should also consider....: that the new defence personnel needed to settle etc; that the admin had it's own iraq-centric terrorism-tackling "strategy" already envisioned; and that even instantaneous reaction wouldn't necessarily have averted 9/11 (altho there are signs that they had enough info to have stalled or scuppered it if they'd taken the type of wide-scale inter-departmental communication which Clinton put in place, and which prevented 3 attacks set for the millenium)
However, the fact that the Bush-admin didn't listen to Clarke and others, who were all advocating a more urgent response - the fact that they refused to engage with these people too....
...That's an even more disturbing tendancy. :(
bluebottle
04-06-04, 05:25 PM
I wonder, is even half of this true?
I spent the U.S. surplus and bankrupted the US Treasury.
I shattered the record for the biggest annual deficit in history (not easy!).
I set an economic record for the most personal bankruptcies filed in any 12 month period.
I set all-time record for the biggest drop in the history of the stock market.
In my first year in office I set the all-time record for most days on vacation by any president in US history (tough to beat my dad's, but I did).
After taking the entire month of August off for vacation, I presided over the worst security failure in US history.
I set the record for most campaign fund raising trips by any president in US history.
In my first two years in office over 2 million Americans lost their job.
I cut unemployment benefits for more out-of-work Americans than any other president in US history.
I set the all-time record for most real estate foreclosures in a 12-month period.
I appointed more convicted criminals to administration positions than any president in US history.
I set the record for the fewest press conferences of any president, since the advent of TV.
I signed more laws and executive orders amending the Constitution than any other US president in history.
I presided over the biggest energy crises in US history and refused to intervene when corruption was revealed.
I cut health care benefits for war veterans.
I set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously take to the streets to protest me (15 million people), shattering the record for protest against any person in the history of mankind.
I dissolved more international treaties than any president in US history.
I've made my presidency the most secretive and unaccountable of any in US history.
Members of my cabinet are the richest of any administration in US history. (The poorest multimillionaire, Condoleeza Rice, has a Chevron oil tanker named after her.)
I am the first president in US history to have all 50 states of the Union simultaneously struggle against bankruptcy.
I presided over the biggest corporate stock market fraud in any market in any country in the history of the world.
I am the first president in US history to order a US attack AND military occupation of a sovereign nation, and I did so against the will of the United Nations and the vast majority of the international community.
I have created the largest government department bureaucracy in the history of the United States, called the "Bureau of Homeland Security" (only one letter away from BS).
I set the all-time record for biggest annual budget spending increases, more than any other president in US history (Ronnie was tough to beat, but I did it!!).
I am the first president in US history to compel the United Nations to remove the US from the Human Rights Commission.
I am the first president in US history to have the United Nations remove the US from the Elections Monitoring Board.
I removed more checks and balances, and have the least amount of congressional oversight than any presidential administration in US history.
I rendered the entire United Nations irrelevant.
I withdrew from the World Court of Law.
I refused to allow inspectors access to US prisoners of war and by default no longer abide by the Geneva Conventions.
I am the first president in US history to refuse United Nations election inspectors access during the 2002 US elections.
I am the all-time US (and world) record holder for most corporate campaign donations.
The biggest lifetime contributor to my campaign, who is also one of my best friends, presided over one of the largest corporate bankruptcy frauds in world history (Kenneth Lay, former CEO of, Enron Corporation).
I spent more money on polls and focus groups than any president in US history.
I am the first president to run and hide when the US came under attack (and then lied, saying the enemy had the code to Air Force 1)
I am the first US president to establish a secret shadow government.
I took the world's sympathy for the US after 9/11, and in less than a year made the US the most resented country in the world (possibly the biggest diplomatic failure in US and world history).
I am the first US president in history to have a majority of the people of Europe (71%) view my presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and stability.
I changed US policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded government contracts.
I set the all-time record for the number of administration appointees who violated US law by not selling their huge investments in corporations bidding for gov't contracts.
I have removed more freedoms and civil liberties for Americans than any other president in US history.
I entered office with the strongest economy in US history and in less than two years turned every single economic category heading straight down.
RECORDS AND REFERENCES:
I have at least one conviction for drunk driving in Maine (Texas driving record has been erased and is not available).
I was AWOL from the National Guard and deserted the military during time of war.
I refuse to take a drug test or even answer any questions about drug use.
All records of my tenure as governor of Texas have been spirited away to my fathers library, sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view.
All records of any SEC investigations into my insider trading or bankrupt companies are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view.
All minutes of meetings of any public corporation for which I served on the board are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view.
Any records or minutes from meetings I (or my VP) attended regarding public energy policy are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public review.
GEORGE W. BUSH
The White House, Washington, DC
I wonder, is even half of this true?
"The poorest multimillionaire, Condoleeza Rice, has a Chevron oil tanker named after her"
That's wrong, they changed the name to something else :)
Where'd you get that then? It is very slanted, but there are some valid points in there methinks.
[at least many bits of it relate to the Bush-admin's damaging lack of engagement with debate, mediation, and transparency eh Yods? ;)]
bluebottle
04-06-04, 05:45 PM
Where'd you get that then?
A friend in the States emailed it to me some time ago, and I do admit that I haven't verified all of the statement, although that shouldn't be too difficult.
I wonder, is even half of this true?After a brief skimming, I'd say it's doubtful. They range from ridiculously subjective to flat-out false. I'll take a few of the most blatant ones, mostly off the top of my head:
I shattered the record for the biggest annual deficit in history (not easy!).
This isn't true, unless you ignore inflation. When inflation is taken into account, the budget that this was originally referring to (last year's budget) was only the largest in nominal terms. Even if you decide to ignore inflation (which makes no sense at all), the size of the deficit would still be better measured as a percentage of GDP, under which 2003's deficit was the 17th-largest over the last 60 years. It was also over $70 billion less than the Office of Management and Budget has originally projected, which should cast some doubt as to whether or not 2004's projected budget will really break the record. Though even if it does, even if inflation is taken into account, it would still be a simplistic way to measure the relative size of the deficit.
I set an economic record for the most personal bankruptcies filed in any 12 month period.
This claim -- and other similar claims, such as the one about real estate foreclosures or the overall wealth of his cabinet -- even if true, doesn't necessarily mean much. Our population is as large as it's ever been, and as such it's inevitable that we'll have a larger number of things like personal bankruptcy filings than we ever have before. Unless these statistics are displayed in a ratio relative to the number of U.S. citizens, they don't really tell us anything about Bush's job performance.
I cut unemployment benefits for more out-of-work Americans than any other president in US history.
I don't have any proof offhand, but I distinctly recall reading that Bush had increased unemployment benefits.
I cut health care benefits for war veterans.
I've heard this claim made many times. So, last year, I looked into the matter by contacting the Department of Veterans Affairs. Turns out Bush has increased their funding dramatically since taking office. Details (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showpost.php?p=91574&postcount=82).
I presided over the biggest corporate stock market fraud in any market in any country in the history of the world.
If this refers to Enron, it's wrong. Bush presided over the exposure of the fraud. The fraud itself (the financial misstatements) took place during the previous administration.
I have created the largest government department bureaucracy in the history of the United States, called the "Bureau of Homeland Security" (only one letter away from BS).
I'm not sure how "largest" is measured here, but I don't believe the Department of Homeland Security (which is what I presume this person means by "Bureau of Homeland Security" -- I suppose the change was made to allow for the painfully unfunny "one letter away from BS" joke) is anywhere near the largest in terms of funding. If it cost the most to create, I'd guess they're ignoring inflation again.
I rendered the entire United Nations irrelevant.
No offense if the author happens to be reading, but this is just flat-out dumb. Clinton defied the United Nations in regards to military action as well. If acting in opposition to the UN's wishes renders it irrelevant, it was irrelevant before Bush even took office.
I am the first president to run and hide when the US came under attack (and then lied, saying the enemy had the code to Air Force 1)
I've never heard anything about this "code to Air Force 1" claim, but I do know it's "One" and not "1." I also don't know anything about the President running and/or hiding, except insofar as any President is compelled to by the Secret Service when they believe he may be the target of an attack.
I am the first US president to establish a secret shadow government.
This "secret shadow government" is really just a group of government officials who will be ready to take over in the event that the current administration is, well, killed. As such, I highly doubt it's the first, but even if it is, there's nothing seedy about it.
I entered office with the strongest economy in US history and in less than two years turned every single economic category heading straight down.
Most definitely not true. Calling the late 90s economy the strongest economy in US history is a stretch, but even if it's true, the economy had already begun trending downwards before Bush took office. And it was certainly falling by the time he actually began enacting his policies.
No one with any genuine interest in the truth could possibly blame Dubya for the recession, and seeing as how it was one of the smallest recessions in U.S. history, I don't think anyone can reasonably blame him for not doing enough in response, either.
I refuse to take a drug test or even answer any questions about drug use.
I don't think this is unusual. When's the last time you remember a President taking a drug test?
All records of my tenure as governor of Texas have been spirited away to my fathers library, sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view.
I can't exactly refute this, but it sounds ridiculous. I've heard numerous claims about his tenure as the Governor of Texas. The data's clearly out there. Odds are there's some minor roadblock (not available over the Internet, for example), and that the writer has decided to term this "sealed in secrety and unavailable for public view." Given the other liberties take in this list, it wouldn't surprise me.
In short: lots of silly, misleading, or outright false claims. My guess is some are true, but most are either untrue, or else a half-truth, or a distortion of some sort.
This isn't anything new. Remember those weird conspiracy theories about Clinton having political enemies murdered? Neither party reacts well to losing. The Democrats of today are displaying the same irrational, pathological hatred of Bush that some Republicans displayed towards Clinton. It'd be funny if it weren't so spiteful.
I would question any statement that talks about a certain numerical figure, having to do with the populace, being the largest in history. Today there are more US citizens than at any other time in history, and tomorrow there will be more. So comparing a popular statistic of today to something from say, 1906, will in most cases be a ridiculous comparison. Some of the statements ring true, to be sure, but most of this thing is so much drivel.
The "Captain is responsible for everything" philosophy is quite outdated and actually a bit ignorant. The President is not a King; too many people give more credit than is deserved, whether it be praise or damnation. Alot of the things mentioned on this list are the responsiblity of many of our elected officials, which in turn means "WE" are responsible. Being a manager in the past I for one know the burden one carries when placed in a leadership position. Granted the difference of the level I was on compared to the presidency is enormous, the concept is the same however. Even blaming ONLY the current administration is wrong. Some blame is warranted, and in some areas it is easy to point fingers, other times you need to point all your fingers in different directions and even then not even scratch the surface.
A president does not take office with a clean economical state nor do they leave it that way. Things that every past president have done in office still show effects on this country today, but they are not the be all and end all of the responsibility.
I really have no input into this.....the reason why I am never involved in forums/posts of political debates, costs and spirituality is simply because of the fact that I believe that discussing religion, money or politics could cause too many arguments.
I really have no input into this.....the reason why I am never in forums/posts of political debates, costs and spirituality is because of the fact that, ya' should really shouldn't ever religion, money or politics or it could too many arguments.What?
blibblobblib
04-06-04, 09:31 PM
What?
Indeed.
Jrs's post actually made no sense at all. I think he's trying to say something about religion etc causing arguments... *shrugs*
Here are a few i thought sounded possible, and pertinent/damaging...
I dissolved more international treaties than any president in US history.
I am the first president in US history to compel the United Nations to remove the US from the Human Rights Commission.
I am the first president in US history to have the United Nations remove the US from the Elections Monitoring Board.
I removed more checks and balances, and have the least amount of congressional oversight than any presidential administration in US history.
I withdrew from the World Court of Law. [the ICC]
I refused to allow inspectors access to US prisoners of war [well, they were "non-combatents" in the "war on terror", but you get the picture ;)]I set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously take to the streets to protest me (15 million people), shattering the record for protest against any person in the history of mankind.
And as for his record...well, let's hope born-again rich-kids can still make good :rolleyes: ;)
Some of the other stuff might be true, but overall, a sloppy list, yeah.
In short: lots of silly, misleading, or outright false claims. My guess is some are true, but most are either untrue, or else a half-truth, or a distortion of some sort.
This post aside then, the problem still remains. How to make Bush-n-co act a bit more accountable and be a bit more amenable to dialogue?
This post aside then, the problem still remains. How to make Bush-n-co act a bit more accountable and be a bit more amenable to dialogue?I think Richard Clarke's testimony helped towards that end a great deal. You speak of character assassination, but I feel that's a gross exaggeration. The closest they came to besmirching his character was suggesting that he might be disgruntled over being quasi-demoted. That's not exactly a smear.
Most of their response has involved simply releasing documents in which Clarke appeared to contradict what he is now saying. If you ask me, that's a stunningly straightforward, valid retort compared to the dismissiveness they've exhibited in the past. You could argue that dismissiveness was all Paul O'Neill deserved, but Clarke was undeniably deserving of a real response, and I think the White House really gave us one on that. It was refreshing.
So, maybe the upcoming election will force them into really getting out there and putting forth some solid reasoning for their actions. Being straightforward and direct is one of the things that got Bush elected, and it's the kind of thing he'll need to win re-election, as well. My money was on a second term shortly after Bush took office, and still is.
Caitlyn
04-06-04, 10:50 PM
I would have to agree that Bush and his administration do need to be more straightforward with the American people… we are, after all, the ones who pay their salary…
But as far as that list goes… as I was reading it, I couldn’t help but wonder if “he-who-shall-not-be-named” was the original author… however, there is one statement on the list I would like to comment on…
I refused to allow inspectors access to US prisoners of war and by default no longer abide by the Geneva Conventions.
While I don’t personally approve of the actions the US has taken with the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, which is what I assume the above is referring to… I can’t help but wonder why no one seemed to care that the Iraqi government completely ignored the Geneva Convention in their treatment of American POW’s during the Gulf War… they were beaten on a daily basis with sticks and metal pipes… shocked with electric prods… starved continually (one of them even reported he resorted to eating the scabs off his own body to survive) ... the male POW’s were tied down on tables, cut with knives and threatened with castration continually and the female POW’s were raped repeatedly… and all of them were subjected to “games” of Russian Roulette… none of which is acceptable treatment of POW”S per Geneva Convention… and yet the world, for the most part, was silent…
I would have to agree that Bush and his administration do need to be more straightforward with the American people… we are, after all, the ones who pay their salary…
But as far as that list goes… as I was reading it, I couldn’t help but wonder if “he-who-shall-not-be-named” was the original author… however, there is one statement on the list I would like to comment on…
While I don’t personally approve of the actions the US has taken with the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, which is what I assume the above is referring to… I can’t help but wonder why no one seemed to care that the Iraqi government completely ignored the Geneva Convention in their treatment of American POW’s during the Gulf War… they were beaten on a daily basis with sticks and metal pipes… shocked with electric prods… starved continually (one of them even reported he resorted to eating the scabs off his own body to survive) ... the male POW’s were tied down on tables, cut with knives and threatened with castration continually and the female POW’s were raped repeatedly… and all of them were subjected to “games” of Russian Roulette… none of which is acceptable treatment of POW”S per Geneva Convention… and yet the world, for the most part, was silent…
I brought this subject up with some friends, the answer was: "Well thats expected from a country like Iraq, but for us to do anything of that nature is appauling. "
IMO If it were a comparison between traffic tickets I would say we were jaywalking while Iraq was DUI and killed someone. Both guilty, but to a really differing degree.
I think Richard Clarke's testimony helped towards that end a great deal. You speak of character assassination, but I feel that's a gross exaggeration. The closest they came to besmirching his character was suggesting that he might be disgruntled over being quasi-demoted. That's not exactly a smear.
Well, there's also the Cheney lie that Clarke was "out of the loop". And, outside the cabinet, a certain Senator Frist coming close to accusing Clarke of perjury, and of saying he was in no position to "apologise" for the failures of 9/11.
But i guess i did get a bit carried away by the Economists assessment tho. I have just realised that most of the defences i was saying they should vocalise they have actually put forward.
However, i think the evidence of previous political-support for the admin etc is not as "refreshingly" "clear-cut" as you say. I'd say it's specious and doesn't discredit Clarke's current points. If anything, it's another sign of the suppression of debate within the Bush admin (as O'Neill and Dilulio have also claimed, for example).
Clarke seems to claim he was surrounded by a group with a pre-formed, agenda that differed from his intelligence-based agenda. Therefore, having tried, and failed, to get them to agree that his worries warranted addressing, he had to do what he could to stay within the system and keep pushing. Announcing to a press-core that he disagreed with the admin's strategy would only get him fired, and remove all possiblity of him influencing policy. (bring up the other examples of "concordance" with admin approach if you like, and i'll tell you why they don't invalidate Clarke's current criticisms too :))
I guess i was trying to say two main things with the Clarke thing:
1) His evidence gives us examples of a lack of debate internally within the admin (as well as externally).
2) He also shows us that the admin's obsession with iraq, coupled with their dislike of listening to those who disagree with them, may have caused them to neglect other avenues of action that tackle the same objectives they hope to achieve with Iraq. The first and foremost being "national security".
To be honest, i'm all the more in favour of Bush falling from power having seen Clarke's testimony.
IMO If it were a comparison between traffic tickets I would say we were jaywalking while Iraq was DUI and killed someone. Both guilty, but to a really differing degree.
Sure.
I brought this subject up with some friends, the answer was: "Well thats expected from a country like Iraq, but for us to do anything of that nature is appauling. "
The problem seems to stem from the contradiction of repeating some of the crimes which were used as justification for an invasion.
The biggest downside of this is that the US is losing it's right to criticise regimes for torturing (not that that they are, in cases like Uzbekistan. The Bush-admin has been heavily funding it)
Equally, they've severed their ties with (yet more) international laws with Guantanamo. In this way they have degraded some of the international frameworks designed to protect human rights in multiple forms.
The Silver Bullet
04-07-04, 07:34 AM
I can't put a coherent setence together to save myself.
Damn straight.
sunfrog
04-11-04, 04:24 PM
Oh well, Yoda almost came to his senses.
Bushlite is the worst president in the history of the universe!! Eventho I don't know the names of the presidents on other planets he's still the worst!! Bushlite kills babies!!
Bye, I just came to see if Yoda was ok. See ya! Whheeeee~
Hehehehee. HAPPY EASTER!!
P.s. This whole approval rating thing is weird. Before I said 49% of the public was stupid and the approval rating proves it, but now, in the face of overwhelming evidence that Bush sucks, 40% still approve. What the heck does this mean? The 40% that approved before and still approve today must be.. ?? Beyond stupid? Not interested in politics and don't even watch tv? Texans? Haliburton employees? Who are the people who participated in the poll? I want to know.
Bushlite kills babies!!
Wow no other president has sent troops to war before? I guess Bush is bad. Not praising nor condeming anything here, except to say that Bush doesnt quite, IMO, make the top of the list for worst presidents. Have you done research of all past presidents? Maybe you mean he is the worst in your lifetime?
Wow no other president has sent troops to war before? I guess Bush is bad. Not praising nor condeming anything here, except to say that Bush doesnt quite, IMO, make the top of the list for worst presidents. Have you done research of all past presidents? Maybe you mean he is the worst in your lifetime?
You have to excuse the hopping-mad one. He's been out in the sun too long. Constantly ;)
I really have no input into this.....the reason why I am never in forums/posts of political debates, costs and spirituality is because of the fact that, ya' should really shouldn't ever religion, money or politics or it could cause too many arguments
What?
Indeed.
Jrs's post actually made no sense at all. I think he's trying to say something about religion etc causing arguments... *shrugs*
My post doesn't make sense?? Oh please, I'm sure a 7 year old would understand what I wrote. Besides, what is written is a known fact.
My post doesn't make sense?? Oh please, I'm sure a 7 year old would understand what I wrote. Besides, what is written is a known fact.You're misunderstanding. You ommitted several crucial words, and without them the post made no sense. Observe:
I really have no input into this.....the reason why I am never in forums/posts of political debates, costs and spirituality is because of the fact that, ya' should really shouldn't ever religion, money or politics or it could cause too many argumentsI really have no input into this.....the reason why I am never involved in forums/posts on political debates, costs and spirituality is because of the fact that, ya' shouldn't really (removal of "shouldn't")ever talk about religion, money or politics or it could cause too many argumentsI mean, c'mon, we could all sorta kinda guess what you meant, but do you really think "ya' should really shouldn't ever religion, money or politics" doesn't qualify as incoherent?
but do you really think "ya' should really shouldn't ever religion, money or politics" doesn't qualify as incoherent?
Ooops! :( You're right. I was probably in a rush when I wrote it. At least you know what I meant :D .
Ooops! :( You're right. I was probably in a rush when I wrote it. At least you know what I meant :D .
I don't know about Yoda, but I have no idea what you meant. When you have the time, change your post so it can be more understandable. Word may be helpful.
sunfrog
04-12-04, 11:30 PM
He does kill babies. Do you deny that babies have been killed because of Bushlite's actions? Therefor Bushlite kills babies. It's spin baby.
He is the worst president in the history of mankind! Er.. wait. I meant whatever dude, site examples all you want he still sucks no matter who else sucked too. That's like saying killing babies isn't bad if you kill less babies than someone else. Killing babies is bad, bad.
Anyway, who do they poll when they poll people? Do they poll other reporters? Do they just make up the poll stuff because no one will ask who they polled? I want to know who could be so out of it and still be able to take a poll.
Hi Golgot!
You'll be happy to know that I have a small garden growing in my bedroom and all the plants are heirlooms. :) That means they are old varieties which are almost extinct. We must repel the GM invaders! More deversity in the plant kingdom!!
He does kill babies. Do you deny that babies have been killed because of Bushlite's actions? Therefor Bushlite kills babies. It's spin baby.
He is the worst president in the history of mankind! Er.. wait. I meant whatever dude, site examples all you want he still sucks no matter who else sucked too. That's like saying killing babies isn't bad if you kill less babies than someone else. Killing babies is bad, bad.
Anyway, who do they poll when they poll people? Do they poll other reporters? Do they just make up the poll stuff because no one will ask who they polled? I want to know who could be so out of it and still be able to take a poll.
Hi Golgot!
You'll be happy to know that I have a small garden growing in my bedroom and all the plants are heirlooms. :) That means they are old varieties which are almost extinct. We must repel the GM invaders! More deversity in the plant kingdom!!
Poppycock
sunfrog
04-13-04, 01:45 PM
I shattered the record for the biggest annual deficit in history (not easy!).
This isn't true, unless you ignore inflation.
Yes it is, unless you weasle and squirm and make a million excuses why it can't possibly be true. It's true, face it. Embrace reality.
I set an economic record for the most personal bankruptcies filed in any 12 month period.
This claim -- and other similar claims, such as the one about real estate foreclosures or the overall wealth of his cabinet -- even if true, doesn't necessarily mean much.
Yes, it does, you just don't want it to mean what deep in your heart you know it means. Replace the word I in that sentence with the name of your most hated Democratic president and see if it means anything to you.
I cut unemployment benefits for more out-of-work Americans than any other president in US history.
I don't have any proof offhand, but I distinctly recall reading that Bush had increased unemployment benefits.
Me neither.
Skip down to this one because I think it's funny. Lol
I have created the largest government department bureaucracy in the history of the United States, called the "Bureau of Homeland Security" (only one letter away from BS).
is anywhere near the largest in terms of funding.
In terms of, in terms of. You know what he means. P.S. I HATE homeland security. Don't even get me started.
I rendered the entire United Nations irrelevant.
No offense if the author happens to be reading, but this is just flat-out dumb.
He did. The U.N. is close to worthless now. Remember how we went to war the day before the U.N. made it's decision because it was going to tell us it needed more time to find some WMD? Again it doesn't matter what other presidents did, we're not comparing, we're saying flat out Bush sucks.
I am the first president to run and hide when the US came under attack (and then lied, saying the enemy had the code to Air Force 1)
I've never heard anything about this "code to Air Force 1"
Did you watch Air Force One with Harrison Ford last night? Is this true?
I am the first US president to establish a secret shadow government.
This "secret shadow government" is really just a group of government officials who will be ready to take over in the event that the current administration is, well, killed. As such, I highly doubt it's the first, but even if it is, there's nothing seedy about it.
Do the words "secret shadow government" give you a clue? Lol. J/k. Is this true? What's to prevent the secret shadow government from killing the president? Who's in the secret shadow government? Is there a link I can click on?
I entered office with the strongest economy in US history and in less than two years turned every single economic category heading straight down.
Most definitely not true.
True as true can be. I already showed you the graphs and such. There's a mountain of evidence. A mountain.
I refuse to take a drug test or even answer any questions about drug use.
I don't think this is unusual.
What? He said that? That can only mean one thing, he's doing drugs. Maybe not cocaine but maybe something that makes him stupid, or makes him smart. Who knows. He's on some drug he doesn't want the public to know about.
All records of my tenure as governor of Texas have been spirited away to my fathers library, sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view.
I can't exactly refute this, <snip> Remember those weird conspiracy theories about Clinton having political enemies murdered?
How do you know Clinton didn't kill his enemies? Anything's possible. There's more conspiracies in government than anywhere else. It's hard to believe Bushlite was a good governor. I'd like to see some records as well.
Yes it is, unless you weasle and squirm and make a million excuses why it can't possibly be true. It's true, face it. Embrace reality.No, it's not. The 2003 budget was not record-breaking if you take inflation into account. This is a fact. I've shown you proof. I've even linked you to the CPI inflation calculator so you could see for yourself.
Yes, it does, you just don't want it to mean what deep in your heart you know it means. Replace the word I in that sentence with the name of your most hated Democratic president and see if it means anything to you.Even with your test, it means nothing to me. But even if it did, it would only demonstrate that I have partisan leanings; it wouldn't invalidate my point, which stands. Unless such statistics are put into ratios, they tell us nothing more than that which we already know: the U.S. population is growing.
In terms of, in terms of. You know what he means. P.S. I HATE homeland security. Don't even get me started.What?
He did. The U.N. is close to worthless now. Remember how we went to war the day before the U.N. made it's decision because it was going to tell us it needed more time to find some WMD? Again it doesn't matter what other presidents did, we're not comparing, we're saying flat out Bush sucks.I didn't compare the two; I'm pointing out that if defying the U.N. renders it "worthless," then it was worthless before Bush even took office.
Did you watch Air Force One with Harrison Ford last night? Is this true?I saw a few minutes of it.
Do the words "secret shadow government" give you a clue? Lol. J/k. Is this true? What's to prevent the secret shadow government from killing the president? Who's in the secret shadow government? Is there a link I can click on?What's to stop the Vice President from shooting the President? I don't see your point here. There's nothing wrong with having a backup government in place during a time in which terrorist threats are high. It ensures that, if disaster strikes, and our leaders are killed, that the government will continue to operate with minimal delay.
True as true can be. I already showed you the graphs and such. There's a mountain of evidence. A mountain.And yet you can't even show me a pebble.
The indicators were mostly pointing down when he took office, and are now pointing up. I know you don't want this to be true, but it is, and insisting otherwise won't change that. I'm loathe to demonstrate this again, though, as I know you'll completely ignore it.
What? He said that? That can only mean one thing, he's doing drugs. Maybe not cocaine but maybe something that makes him stupid, or makes him smart. Who knows. He's on some drug he doesn't want the public to know about.No, he's just smart enough to know that talking about what drugs he did do decades ago can only hurt him, politically.
How do you know Clinton didn't kill his enemies? Anything's possible. There's more conspiracies in government than anywhere else. It's hard to believe Bushlite was a good governor. I'd like to see some records as well.I don't know that Clinton didn't kill his enemies, I just don't think he did. I'm sure there are some conspiracies out there, but I'm also sure that there are far less than some people would have you believe. Big accusations require big proof, and the craziests conspiracy theories often hang from the tiniest of threads of evidence.
blibblobblib
04-13-04, 04:33 PM
My post doesn't make sense?? Oh please, I'm sure a 7 year old would understand what I wrote.
You must know incredibly smart seven year olds then.
I must meet them, they can tutor me on my English :yup:
sunfrog
04-16-04, 02:25 PM
The 2003 budget was not record-breaking if you take inflation into account. This is a fact. I've shown you proof. I've even linked you to the CPI inflation calculator so you could see for yourself.
I found the quote button!!
As I remember it that was in 1942 dollars or something, which was silly, and Bushy had to break the 400 billion mark to set the record. At that time he was only at 350 billion or something. He's over that now. If you do that calculation today he will have beaten the record.
Today the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released its Update of the Budget and Economic Outlook, which shows that the budget has deteriorated substantially since its last forecast, in March. CBO projects that the 2003 deficit will be the largest in American history, $401 billion, and that the 2004 deficit will set another record, $480 billion.
Unless such statistics are put into ratios, they tell us nothing more than that which we already know: the U.S. population is growing.
Isn't it you that said the working poulation never grows because people die or retire as fast as new people enter the workforce? That's when you said no new jobs were being created because new jobs don't get created. People just move from one job to another to fill vacancies left by others.
What?
I hate homeland security. Don't make me say it.
I'm pointing out that if defying the U.N. renders it "worthless," then it was worthless before Bush even took office.
It's even more worthless now. :D
There's nothing wrong with having a backup government in place during a time in which terrorist threats are high. It ensures that, if disaster strikes, and our leaders are killed, that the government will continue to operate with minimal delay.
We already have that, it's called the Vice President. Mostly I want to know if we have a secret shadow government and how long it will take to become corrupt. You know how kings always have an evil stepson waiting in the wings to murder them and take over the throne? That's why there aren't anymore kings left.
And yet you can't even show me a pebble.
It's common knowledge. Bush=sucker, Clinton=suckee
No, he's just smart enough to know that talking about what drugs he did do decades ago can only hurt him, politically.
He's not smart tho. lol.
I found the quote button!!
As I remember it that was in 1942 dollars or something, which was silly, and Bushy had to break the 400 billion mark to set the record. At that time he was only at 350 billion or something. He's over that now. If you do that calculation today he will have beaten the record.
Today the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released its Update of the Budget and Economic Outlook, which shows that the budget has deteriorated substantially since its last forecast, in March. CBO projects that the 2003 deficit will be the largest in American history, $401 billion, and that the 2004 deficit will set another record, $480 billion.There was nothing "silly" about taking inflation into account. It's the only way to make an accurate comparison. If we're going to ignore inflation, I could say that Richard Nixon was a better President than Bill Clinton because things didn't cost as much while he was President.
Anyway, you claimed the 2003 budget was record-breaking, and after inflation is factored in, it turns out it wasn't. Now you're claiming that the 2004 budget is record-breaking. But that's not true, either: when adjusted for inflation, the largest deficit in U.S. History was $499 billion, under FDR in 1943.
Moreover, this is assuming that the 2004 deficit actually ends up being $480 billion; it's not an actual number yet, it's a projection. This is noteworthy because the CBO's estimate for 2003 ($455 billion) was over $80 billion higher than the actual deficit ended up being ($372 billion, I think).
Isn't it you that said the working poulation never grows because people die or retire as fast as new people enter the workforce? That's when you said no new jobs were being created because new jobs don't get created. People just move from one job to another to fill vacancies left by others.I don't think I said that, no. The U.S. population has been growing steadily for a very long time, so I don't see how that could be the case.
I hate homeland security. Don't make me say it.To each their own. Personally I like security.
It's even more worthless now. :DThen I guess we don't need to worry about it, eh?
Look, let's get to the heart of the matter: such organizations have been historically inefficient. The UN is not as impotent as the League of Nations was, but it clearly favors inaction. Even a vague overview of the UN's history should sqaush the idea that their approval is a prerequisite for military action. Desirable, yes. Necessary, no.
We already have that, it's called the Vice President. Mostly I want to know if we have a secret shadow government and how long it will take to become corrupt. You know how kings always have an evil stepson waiting in the wings to murder them and take over the throne? That's why there aren't anymore kings left.Sure, the secret/backup government could become corrupt. So could the current government. As far as I can tell, your only real objection here comes from the "secret shadow" title.
It's common knowledge. Bush=sucker, Clinton=suckeeYou lost me.
He's not smart tho. lol.He's smarter than you'll ever admit. His accomplishments speak to this, but if you sleep better at night believing he's the luckiest moron alive, more power to you.
vBulletin® v3.8.0, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.