George W. Bush

Tools    





This blows my mind. The leader of the free world (who wasn't even elected in the first place!!!!) is on a month-long vacation, while the situation in Israel is only getting worse, Macedonia is about to have a civil war, and unemployment is increasing in Europe. What dedication he has for his work!

I have problems with George W. Bush. This is a man who wants to drill for oil in wildlife reserves in Alaska, make Russia and China into enemies again, wants to decrease the bill for AIDS research, decrease the funding for alternative energy sources, is against gun control laws, speaks improper English, wants to build more nuclear power plants,etc.

On top of all this, he wasn't even elected by the people.

What are your thoughts on the president?

__________________
**** the Lakers!



Give me a freakin' break. Your head is somewhere where it just shouldn't be. He was elected -- if you don't think he was, go read a little more about how our government works.

I have problems with George W. Bush. This is a man who wants to drill for oil in wildlife reserves in Alaska, make Russia and China into enemies again, wants to decrease the bill for AIDS research, decrease the funding for alternative energy sources, is against gun control laws, speaks improper English, wants to build more nuclear power plants,etc.
Excuse me? First of all, China is responsible for what has happened. I am fortunate enough to have spoken (online, albeit) with a former military pilot, who explained that it's virtually impossible for our plane to run into theirs.

I don't care if his English is a bit off. Most people make mistakes...but then again, most people don't have the entire country watching them. Oh, and by the way: many Democrats want the nuclear power plants as well. If they'd given into that earlier, California wouldn't have those rolling blackouts. Those are a result of a whole buttload of crazy environmentalists.

And let's stop being so dramatic. "Oh no! A wildlife preserve! GASP!!!! You can't do that...you just can't!" They're taking up something like .5% of the land there. Oh, the humanity.

On top of all this, he wasn't even elected by the people.
Neither was JFK -- but he was a damn fine President. I don't really care how he got into office at this point, and neither should anyone else. He IS in office, so we should focus on what he does there, IMO.

I'm against gun control laws, too. Our Founding Fathers were VERY clear about one simple thing: the people need to protect themselves from the government. Governments are a continuous source of evil and corruption. If given complete control over the people (IE: no weapons to fight back with), rest assured that they WILL become oppressive in one way or another.

Oh, and guess what? Reagan was another President who took a significant amount of time off. If you ask me, it could be a good idea. Not only that, but I seriously doubt he is completely isolating himself from his work. I don't know anyone who does that, save for rare exceptions.

And besides: Europe won't accept help. Europe dislikes us...what exactly is Bush supposed to do to help their sagging economy? Offer up more advice which they won't take?



Who financed his campaign? His oil-magnate buddies. How does he repay them? By giving them a priceless wildlife reserve to make themselves richer.

Concerning gun control, I think they should be outlawed completely. Would you rather tens of thousands of human beings, including children, be killed each year? I wouldn't. Imagine your little brother was killed by the kids across the street who found daddy's gun. Accidents happen. There is too great a risk for there to be guns in homes. I recall an ad from a year or so ago, and I remember it perfectly. It read like this:
Number of gun related deaths/year in:
Sweden - 4
United Kingdom - 16
Japan - 12
US - 12,000

I disagree with the Democrats who are for nuclear power plants as well. In 1985, it was predicted there was a 40% chance of a core breach meltdown before 2010. Nuclear power is too great a risk to the enviroment. Here's a quote from the president concerning his enviromental views: "using trees helps prevent the dangerous risk of forest fires". Yeah, ok. By that logic, we should kill people to prevent the flu.

Well for starters, he could at least ADDRESS the economic problem in Europe (which could be leading to a recession), instead of play golf all month.

And where are your explanations for his lack of interest in funding disease research and alternative energy source research? He'd rather satisfy those who installed him as President than actually do something to HELP the people.





Um, I just learned something that puts a hole in several things you said: Bush has not stopped working. He gave an address TODAY. This "vacation" only means that he's working from home, rather than The White House. Sorry if that puts a wrench into your criticisms.

Who financed his campaign? His oil-magnate buddies. How does he repay them? By giving them a priceless wildlife reserve to make themselves richer.
Billion dollar companies are not going to be made much richer because of that. Bush is doing it because people are demanding lower gas prices, Steve.

Concerning gun control, I think they should be outlawed completely.
Like in Cuba, right? Let it be known that on this day, August 29th, 2001, Steve has declared himself correct in spite of the fact that virtually all of the Founding Fathers blatantly disagree with him. I'm all for confidence, but that's a bit much.

Would you rather tens of thousands of human beings, including children, be killed each year? I wouldn't. Imagine your little brother was killed by the kids across the street who found daddy's gun. Accidents happen. There is too great a risk for there to be guns in homes. I recall an ad from a year or so ago, and I remember it perfectly. It read like this:
Number of gun related deaths/year in:
Sweden - 4
United Kingdom - 16
Japan - 12
US - 12,000
Yeah, but did it talk about their respective CRIME RATES? Crime rates are almost ALWAYS lower in places where gun use is common. That's a simple fact.

Yeah, accident happens. But guess what? Well over 60 million gun owners in the US use their guns without hurting any innocent people everyday. How about this, Steve: millions of people die from driving cars, because cars, like guns, can be misused. Should we ban cars? It would save lives, right?

I disagree with the Democrats who are for nuclear power plants as well. In 1985, it was predicted there was a 40% chance of a core breach meltdown before 2010. Nuclear power is too great a risk to the enviroment. Here's a quote from the president concerning his enviromental views: "using trees helps prevent the dangerous risk of forest fires". Yeah, ok. By that logic, we should kill people to prevent the flu.
1985? You're telling me nuclear plants are dangerous because someine, SIXTEEN YEARS AGO, predicted that there was a 40% chance? Who said that, anyway? Heck, I don't care if God said it -- there's no way that's anywhere near the same today.

Well for starters, he could at least ADDRESS the economic problem in Europe (which could be leading to a recession), instead of play golf all month.
See above. Bush is still working everyday. Also: what leads you to believe he hasn't "addressed" it? Or are you just sort of saying that on a whim?

And where are your explanations for his lack of interest in funding disease research and alternative energy source research? He'd rather satisfy those who installed him as President than actually do something to HELP the people.
Well, before I get into that, I'd like some evidence to support these claims. From what I understand, Bush has plans in place to explore alternative energy sources, for one.



Hahaha, I knew this would upset TWT! Me, I dont care about your great leader altho I do think he is dim & looks goofy whenever he shows up on the telly. Pigsnie dislikes him like nutsy, he has never said a good word about Bush that Ive heard. And I saw a book on his desk the other day called the Bush Dislexicon, have you seen it, Steve? It has all the dumb stuff Bush has ever said & hes only been 6 months in office, hahaha !!! You guys should really be more careful countin your ballots, tisk tisk tisk.

Ps. TWT, you know, when somebodys president of the US, he shouldnt talk like me, Loll.
__________________
God save Freddie Mercury!



Actually, I think that book has goofy things he's said long before he was elected. Most of the "Bushisms" floating around originated before he took office. And yeah, I'm not surprised that Pigsnie hates Bush...which is a shame. Bush has been slapped with more labels than an old can of tuna.

P.S. We have no more ballot problems than most other places in the world. If another country had such an amazingly close election, similar problems would have likely ensued.



BrodieMan's Avatar
Rock God
personally, i think bush is a moron. i have differing views than you two (steve and commish) but as far as drilling goes, i think the statistics speak for themselves. judging by scientific estimation, what bush would be doing by drilling in alaska is increasing the amount of incoming crude oil by just enough to last us another couple months. it's a fact. what we would be getting is not enough to deprive native americans of their homelands. as it is, there are native american tribes that currently dwell on the land that bush plans on digging up. what we would be doing would be no less damaging that the horrible injustices of yesteryear. also, the environment HAS to be a priority. i'm not a left-wing nutjob over hear, but personally, i don't think i want to live in a world where you can't breathe. how conservative politicians can totally downplay what we're doing to our mother earth is beyond me. and nuclear power? there's no way bush should be able to sell this to the american people. if he does, our grandchildren will regret it. so, as for the energy policy, bush is a moron. however, i do agree with commish on the gun control thing. if at any time, any politician can take away our constitutional rights, it should be stopped. correct me if i'm wrong guys, but i'm thinking back to the censorship thread and steve was against censorship on the basis that it's a basic human and constitutional right to say what you want. commish was for it, i think. now steve is taking the typical liberal view that guns should be taken away and commish is saying we should preserve our rights (and taking a conservative approach to this issue) this is why i don't understand partisan politics. how can you agree that people should be free to do one thing and not another? how should you be able to own a gun, but not watch a certain movie? how should you be able to say whatever you want artistically, but not go shooting for sport? i still don't get it. it's like the whole republican perspective on the death penalty: you can kill murderer, but a woman can't have an abortion at her own free will. well, open your eyes, if you're going to say that abortion is murder, you could also argue that the death penalty is murder, too. so, in response to the original poster's question: i don't like bush, but i would have been damned if i voted for gore. recently, i took an online poll that asks you questions, and assuming you answer totally honestly, it would tell you which party you would best be associated with. my results came up: conservative leaning libertarian. i did some research on the libertarian party and found them to agree on me with almost all major issues, including the legalization of marijuana in order to alleviate a lot of financial problems associated with the war on drugs. not to mention the right to bear arms, and other issues like that. now i'm not some anarchist saying that people should have no government, but libertarians are for keeping our nation safe and healthy, and at the same time providing us with the same freedom our forefaters saw fit for us to have. the whole-two party system is grossly flawed. the only reason it's a two-horse race is because they are the only parties with enough resources and cash to run. the media is fuled by money, so people like nader can't really get the coverage and build the support they need to run effeciantley. it's a faulty system that feeds on itself. i think the crappy election we just had ought to be wake-up call that NEITHER bush nor gore is really fit to run this country, and there needs to be more open mindedness and alternative solutions need to be found.



I started to read your post, but you NEED to break it into paragraphs. It's impossible to read otherwise. From what I have read, though, I'll say this: they're drilling on a VERY small portion of land (so how would we be displacing native americans? There's no way they're using all that land), and yes, it's a small fix to buy us all some time to figure out what to do. I see nothign wrong with that.

well, open your eyes, if you're going to say that abortion is murder, you could also argue that the death penalty is murder, too.
No...an unborn child hasn't even had a chance of life. A convicted murder has not only had a chance, but has done something horrible: denied someone else their right to life. As such, theirs is forfeit. They really don't deserve to live with us anymore for doing something so horrible.



BrodieMan's Avatar
Rock God
maybe you don't know this, but the extreme right is against any and all abortions, even in the case of emergencies, rape, and incest. personally, i am morally opposed to using abortion as a birth control, but there are extreme cases where you need to look at it from someone else's perspective, commish. again, i find myself unable to disagree with both extremes.
please don't comment on what i've said until you've read all of it. i'll use better grammar in the future.



In Soviet America, you sue MPAA!
I'm agreeing with Steve on this one, mostly. I do think Bush is a moron. He doesn't seem all that smart to me. Maybe it's the pressure of having to run a country that makes him look like a fool, but I doubt it.

As for the oil drilling in Alaska. I'm against it. Instead of allowing companies to drill there, they should give government grants to companies willing to research new methods of providing energy.

Same goes for Nuclear Power plants. Instead of spending money to build more of those long term death traps, money should be invested into making them safer, more effecient, or finding another way all together.

As for guns. I'm almost neutral on this. I don't like guns(we'll I do like guns, I find them interesting), but I don't like the idea of people being free, will almost free, to purchase and use guns. Banning guns will never, ever, ever happen in the US. It's too deep in them already. Sure it's a constitutional right, but that was really intended for back in the day. That ammendment was original created because it applied to the times. Guns were needed to survive. They were needed to hunt, they were needed for protection. They don't have much purpose at all in a modern society today. Guns are only trouble. They may solve problems temporairly, but guns will never fix anything. But neither will peace treaties(for the most part). Steve where did you see that ad? I saw something like that once and now I can't think of it, but it was very similar. It's driving me crazy.

I think the environment should be a top priorty right now. It's getting torn to pieces and it really is a sad thing. It simply amazes me too see acres and acres of forrest around my house being demolished for hundrends and hundreds of houses. Not to mention the hundreds of whales dying ever year due to poachers. Things like this need to be preserved. I am thankful because I live in a time where I can see such things, but in the future these will only be a distant memory if nothing is done. That's a sad thought.

But yes, I don't like Bush. The man is a fool.
__________________
Horror's Not Dead
Latest Movie Review(s): Too lazy to keep this up to date. New reviews every week.



maybe you don't know this, but the extreme right is against any and all abortions, even in the case of emergencies, rape, and incest. personally, i am morally opposed to using abortion as a birth control, but there are extreme cases where you need to look at it from someone else's perspective, commish. again, i find myself unable to disagree with both extremes.
please don't comment on what i've said until you've read all of it. i'll use better grammar in the future.
I do know that -- but I just assumed that we were only referring to the most common reasons...the ones that make up 99% of all abortions. I'm not sure what to do in emergency situations, but I'm not really talking about those. I'm talking about the fact that well over 1 million children are killed each year due to simple carelessness.

I'll be glad to comment on what you've said if you break it up into paragraphs...it's just too hard to read otherwise. I can live without punctuation, but I mess up constantly when reading one giant paragraph. Sorry.

I do think Bush is a moron. He doesn't seem all that smart to me. Maybe it's the pressure of having to run a country that makes him look like a fool, but I doubt it.
I don't find it all that likely that a moron is the leader of the free world. Forrest Gump is just a movie -- stupid people have almost no chance of getting that far in life without having something real behind it.

As for the oil drilling in Alaska. I'm against it. Instead of allowing companies to drill there, they should give government grants to companies willing to research new methods of providing energy.
It's not really "instead of" -- they're doing both. The drilling is a band-aid to hold things over while they decide how to perform the surgery.

Same goes for Nuclear Power plants. Instead of spending money to build more of those long term death traps, money should be invested into making them safer, more effecient, or finding another way all together.
Long term death traps? I think there's some exaggeration there. Anyway, money is being invested in find alternative energy sources (both for fuel, and power).

Sure it's a constitutional right, but that was really intended for back in the day. That ammendment was original created because it applied to the times. Guns were needed to survive. They were needed to hunt, they were needed for protection. They don't have much purpose at all in a modern society today.
Actually, that's not true. The Founding Fathers made it fairly clear that citizens should be allowed to possess guns to protect themselves if need be -- partially from the government. I think we can all agree that the government is a source of corruption. Cuba is a horrible place to live, and -- guess what? -- the citizens are not allowed to carry guns. The government has the guns.

They have plenty of purpose today: they give us power. They assure us some sort of freedom.

Guns are only trouble. They may solve problems temporairly, but guns will never fix anything. But neither will peace treaties(for the most part).
I disagree. Guns solved one big problem awhile back: British opression. The Revolutionary War -- perhaps you've heard of it? Guns allow us to stop the government from opressing us...which is something that WILL happen if we ban guns.

I think the environment should be a top priorty right now. It's getting torn to pieces and it really is a sad thing. It simply amazes me too see acres and acres of forrest around my house being demolished for hundrends and hundreds of houses. Not to mention the hundreds of whales dying ever year due to poachers. Things like this need to be preserved. I am thankful because I live in a time where I can see such things, but in the future these will only be a distant memory if nothing is done. That's a sad thought.
Yes, it is a sad thought -- but I don't think it's all that accurate. Here's an interesting fact: one of the co-founders of Greenpeace says that we have more rainforests now than we did 16,000 years ago. Not only that, but it has also been revealed (recently, I believe) that some of the methods used to test global warming out in the oceans are severely flawed.

In short: the earth is not in trouble. Despite what you hear, the sky is NOT falling. I don't think we could destory this planet if we wanted to. It's a lot stronger than we know, IMO. It doesn't help that we have idiots like Ted Danson saying things like "We only have 10 years to save this planet." That quote would be offensive if it weren't so funny. Wanna know what's funny about it? He said it in 1992 (roughly).

But yes, I don't like Bush. The man is a fool.
Compared to who? He probably knows more about economics and international trade than you and Steve will ever know -- and no, that's not a put-down towards you or Steve. I can only hope that comparison is one towards other politicans, because he knows a lot more about his job than you or I.



In Soviet America, you sue MPAA!
I don't find it all that likely that a moron is the leader of the free world. Forrest Gump is just a movie -- stupid people have almost no chance of getting that far in life without having something real behind it.
Sure he's got something behind it. But it's not much. Not much at all. The mans IQ is around 126. That's not saying much for the leader of the freeworld.

It's not really "instead of" -- they're doing both. The drilling is a band-aid to hold things over while they decide how to perform the surgery.
A band-aid isn't going to do much for something that requires surgery! Drilling for oil in Alaska is mainly so that the American Public can pay lower prices for gas. Sure that is temporairly a good thing, but in the long term its a very bad thing. Giving in now and letting them take that .5% of the reserve will weaken the strength of the government to hold its ground on such issues in the future. It starts off at .5%, next time it will be 1%, then 5%, then 10%. You get the idea.
Long term death traps? I think there's some exaggeration there. Anyway, money is being invested in find alternative energy sources (both for fuel, and power).
Ok that was an exaggeration, but my point remains valid. Much more powerful sources for eneregy do exist, but are only in experiemental stages. The reseaon they are still in these stages is because they have no funding. Nuclear Power is a good alternative, temporairly, but springing these things up all over the place is not a good idea. To the public this may seem like a safe alternative, but it is not. My dad works for a company called Sverdrup Civil Engineering. He designs proposals to do all sorts of stuff. The main proposals he gets now adays are for how to clean up the miles and miles of radiated soil all over the US. You'd be surprised to hear how many cities and airports have dangerous levels of radiation surrounding them, due to carlessness towards nuclear energy.
I disagree. Guns solved one big problem awhile back: British opression. The Revolutionary War -- perhaps you've heard of it? Guns allow us to stop the government from opressing us...which is something that WILL happen if we ban guns.
I don't know about you, but I've never been in such a situation where I have found it necessary to fight off the evil ways of the American Government with a shotgun! I've never been opressed by the government. The government has never phyiscally manifested itself, rang my doorbell and punched me in the face. If the Government makes a law that does opress me, what do I do? Shoot the American flag?? Let's propose that today, every gun in the US dissapeared(excluding arms used in the Army, Navy, or Air Force). The government would not begin to opress the American Public. The American public would not need guns to fight off those government opressors, because there wouldn't be any. Everything would continue as normal, except there would be much less gun related deaths in the US. I agree that in todays world, guns are necessary to maintain peace on a global basis, but I see no reason for guns in houses. Take England for an example. Guns are illeagle there, are they not? Their crime rate is much lower than the US'. Hundreds less die per year due to gun related deaths. As far as I can tell the Queen isn't opressing the English public(Am I wrong P's?)

Yes, it is a sad thought -- but I don't think it's all that accurate. Here's an interesting fact: one of the co-founders of Greenpeace says that we have more rainforests now than we did 16,000 years ago. Not only that, but it has also been revealed (recently, I believe) that some of the methods used to test global warming out in the oceans are severely flawed.
That comment by the Greenpease co-founder doesn't surprise me at all! Rainforests take a VERY long time to flurish and grow. It's not like they pop up over night. Those plants take a very long time to grow to their size. The rainforest is an amazing thing. Everything works in unison. If one aspect of the rainforest fails the whole system comes crumbling down. The rainforest is a very detailed, very advanced ecosystem. The reason there are more now that 16,000 years ago is because it takes time to perfect the reciepe for a rainforest. They don't appear out of no where. Who says more is a bad thing anyway? We have more people now than 16,000 years ago, doesn't justify genoicide.

Compared to who? He probably knows more about economics and international trade than you and Steve will ever know -- and no, that's not a put-down towards you or Steve. I can only hope that comparison is one towards other politicans, because he knows a lot more about his job than you or I.
I'm sure he does know more than I do about his job, but that doesn't mean he should be doing what he's doing. Hitler knew more about killing people in numbers than I do, doesn't mean it was ok for him to do so. Ok, comparing Bush to Hitler is a big exagerattion, but my point still stands. He isn't a smart fellow. You asked for a comparison. I compare him to Clinton. Clinton was a fine president. Exclude that, lets compare them as individuals. Clinton used proper grammar. Clinton was a good icon to represent America when being seen by other nations. Bush is not, in my opinion. Not only does Bush not appear to be a smart individual, as Clinton did, he truly isn't. I bring back the point of his IQ, 126. Clinton's was 186. That is 60 points higher than Bush's. He just isn't all too bright.



Thats true TWT. Clinton is very popular in Europe. A mag did a poll about him & 2/3 thought Clinton would be a better PM than Tony Blair. BTW, I didnt know about their IQs. I thought 100 was average so if Bushy is 126, isnt that still higher than average? And if Clinton is 186, then Clinton is genius!

Ps. Yeah, we dont have any guns either. Anyone killed by a gun is big news. PERSON MURDERED IN SHOCKING WAY! HE WAS SHOT WITH A GUN! Teehee. And then some paper suggests that the gun user should be hung & then chopped up in little bits & put on display in the Tower.



A few things:

1. One cannot use stats from other countries in regards to gun-related deaths to try and say that America would be just like these other countries in murder rates if we just outlawed guns. The U.S. has a significantly higher non-gun murder rate than any other industrialized nation, too. We're more violent than the British with or without guns. While I support reasonable restrictions on firearms, I do realize that even outlawing guns will not make the U.S. anywhere near as "safe" as a place even like England.

2. That IQ thing is based on SAT scores and is not only flawed way to determine IQ, but it's also not even accurate. If we're going to debate facts, I suggest we use actual facts.

3. I've always found it interesting that the French were so pro-Nuclear Power. The U.S. hasn't built a new nuclear power plant since the '70s, but France has been churning them out so fast that now 75% of France's power is supplied by Nuclear Power Plants. There have been great advances in the safety of these power plants since the '70s, and these power plants can churn out more energy with less environmental damage than traditional power plants. Nuclear Power is a far different beast than it was even 15 years ago and should not be dismissed out of hand.

4. But I agree that alternative fuel sources should be nurtured, and they are in many ways. Deregulation included incentives for alternative energy and there are great strides being made in both solar energy and wind energy. My state's deregulation program includes incentives for co-location of energy and Natural Gas (which is far cleaner than both regluar gasoline and oil as well as heating oil) is a big player down here (and only growing bigger as more incentives come on-line). So these things are happening, and the best places for these things to happen is often at the state and local level because a solution that works in West Texas (where we have abundant wind, the world's biggest supply of natural gas, and no rivers or streams for hydroelectric power, etc.) isn't neccesarily going to be the best solution for Connecticut or California.

And that said, I'm not going to talk about this any more. I'm no big fan of GWB myself, but I wanted to say my piece and then bail-out like I often do on controversial topics.



Sure he's got something behind it. But it's not much. Not much at all. The mans IQ is around 126. That's not saying much for the leader of the freeworld.
I hadn't heard that, but 126 is what is considered "gifted," I believe. Far from a moron. He also scored something like 1200 on his SATs -- which is very good compared to most.

A band-aid isn't going to do much for something that requires surgery! Drilling for oil in Alaska is mainly so that the American Public can pay lower prices for gas. Sure that is temporairly a good thing, but in the long term its a very bad thing. Giving in now and letting them take that .5% of the reserve will weaken the strength of the government to hold its ground on such issues in the future. It starts off at .5%, next time it will be 1%, then 5%, then 10%. You get the idea.
That's very debatable. It may increase, or it may not. I don't think it will, because I think the "surgery" will do a good job of fixing things. If it does, then I don't think that the problem will compound. I think that Bush needs to weigh long-term .VS. short-term...which is exactly what he's doing. A small sacrifice (very small. Very, very small, IMO) to tide things over for a better solution.

Ok that was an exaggeration, but my point remains valid. Much more powerful sources for eneregy do exist, but are only in experiemental stages. The reseaon they are still in these stages is because they have no funding. Nuclear Power is a good alternative, temporairly, but springing these things up all over the place is not a good idea. To the public this may seem like a safe alternative, but it is not.
What are you basing that on? I've heard a bit about nuclear power (my stepdad used to work in that field), and virtually all I hear says that it pollutes less than alternative sources, and is VERY safe overall. Things have changed quite a bit in the past 15 years or so.

I don't know about you, but I've never been in such a situation where I have found it necessary to fight off the evil ways of the American Government with a shotgun! I've never been opressed by the government. The government has never phyiscally manifested itself, rang my doorbell and punched me in the face. If the Government makes a law that does opress me, what do I do? Shoot the American flag??
See, that's the problem: everyone is thinking "well, I've never been oppressed by the government! So what's the problem?" The problem is that it still can happen...and probably would, if we were to get rid of guns. It wouldn't happen overnight, but it would happen, unless something was done to prevent it.

No offense, but to say that you don't think it's a problem because you haven't had to worry about it so far is sort of naive. It's the opposite of the logic that supports taking care of the environment...or the type of logic that has California in darkness now and then.

Like I said earlier: I think the Founding Fathers had it right. Maybe you think they were wrong, but I don't. I think all governments, if given the chance, will become oppressive in some ways, over time. As for England: as Ryan said, we're different countries altogether, but from what I understand, England has less freedom than we do...and that includes economic freedom.

Everything would continue as normal, except there would be much less gun related deaths in the US. I agree that in todays world, guns are necessary to maintain peace on a global basis, but I see no reason for guns in house.
I suggest you get yourself a copy of "America's First Freedom," a pro-2nd ammendment magazine. Maybe after reading through some of the testimonials they publish every single issue, you'll realize that there are lots of people who's lives (or the lives of their family, or their property) have been preserved thanks to their ownership of a gun.

The reason there are more now that 16,000 years ago is because it takes time to perfect the reciepe for a rainforest. They don't appear out of no where. Who says more is a bad thing anyway? We have more people now than 16,000 years ago, doesn't justify genoicide.
I think you may have misunderstood me. More is NOT a bad thing. I'm trying to demonstrate that we're not tearing this planet apart...I don't think were capable of it. I think this planet will live through virtually everything we can throw at it.

You asked for a comparison. I compare him to Clinton. Clinton was a fine president. Exclude that, lets compare them as individuals. Clinton used proper grammar. Clinton was a good icon to represent America when being seen by other nations. Bush is not, in my opinion. Not only does Bush not appear to be a smart individual, as Clinton did, he truly isn't. I bring back the point of his IQ, 126. Clinton's was 186. That is 60 points higher than Bush's. He just isn't all too bright.
There's no way in bloody hell Clinton's IQ is over 180. I've heard from several places that those tests aren't even accurate above 150. I would also like to add that Clinton, despite his high IQ, did a lot of stupid things, and made more than his share of mistakes. I'll take a smart, honest man with a passion for his country over a sneaky, suspicious genius who lacks respect for all around him.

I thought 100 was average so if Bushy is 126, isnt that still higher than average? And if Clinton is 186, then Clinton is genius!
Yes, 126 makes him a smart, talented person (intellectually, that is). Not necessarily educated, but if that number is accurate, he has plenty of raw intelligence. And yes, 186 would make for a genius -- although a number that high can't be accurate. It's really ridiculous. I think even 140 or so is enough to be called a genius.



Again, the problem with arguing about the IQs of various presidents is that we don't know them. President Clinton has never released his IQ score, nor has President Bush. So for us to accept made-up numbers as fact is to turn this argument into nothing more than an argument about fantasy. We might as well be arguing about which dragons are harder to kill.

For the record, Al Gore did release his IQ tests and he got scores of 133 and 134. If we accept that IQ scores have a direct correlation to SAT scores, then that would put Bush's IQ at 119 (the same as President Kennedy's, by the way, whose IQ we actually do know since his test score was released).

But there has never been a link established between the SAT and IQ, and other data would suggest that President Bush's IQ is above the 119 level that the SAT score would suggest (assuming a correlation that doesn't exist). The average national IQ for people with advanced degrees is 125. President Bush has an MBA from Harvard Business School, which would suggest a higher-than-119 IQ if he were merely average.

By the way, President Nixon had the highest reported IQ of any President at 143. President Clinton's IQ is likely high, but it has never been reported. Any numerical claim of his IQ is merely a guess. I could just as accurately say his IQ is 91.



I'm taking the easy way out on this one... I'm in TWT's corner and I hereby give him the power to speak for me on this issue. I would weigh in in detail but I have work commitments. I saw one statement that wasn't elaborated on that I want to address:

"Drilling for oil in Alaska is mainly so that the American Public can pay lower prices for gas."

This is an added bonus but I don't think this is the point. At this moment in time America is controlled by oil. We would come to a screeching halt if we had none. Right now the oil supply is controlled by countries who are not exactly on friendly terms with us (in fact they are squeezing our ba**s).

Also, under the Clinton administration, military reserves were depleted. What would happen if the middle east teamed up with China (who also has no love for us) and decided to start a war? I know that economically China is better off at peace with us... but who knows what they are thinking.

End result is we are far better off being dependent on ourselves than being dependent on others.



I ain't gettin' in no fryer!
I was readin the other day of all the "Bushims" to date, and let me say...I am a repulican, and this is hella-hilarious. I'm surprised that the title of this thread isn't George Dubya Bush. The man may have bright spots, and is 20 times better than a tree hugger(Gore), but he isn't all there all the time. Does his mind take vacations while he is actually working??? Anyways, the guy is a good man, and I'm glad he got office, but he needs to snap out of the stupid bit, and start working.
__________________
"I was walking down the street with my friend and he said, "I hear music", as if there is any other way you can take it in. You're not special, that's how I receive it too. I tried to taste it but it did not work." - Mitch Hedberg



How can you snap out of being stupid? Ha, Im sure theres a nob joke in there somewhere.



I ain't gettin' in no fryer!
Well the man needs to start drinkin decaf, or gettin on some hooked on phonics, or somethin cause he aint winnin brownie points sayin words he thinks make him look smart.