George W. Bush

I read the entire thread. Everything was thrown into the pot . . . creationism, big bang theory, Sumerians, the Book of Mormon, relativity, genetics---- awesome

__________________
Blonde Klingons: Because it was a good day to dye!

I'm reviving this thread. I've heard people talkin' smack about Dubya, and I've had enough! Alright, who's first? Who wants a piece of this? Who wants to talk smack about him? Go ahead, hit me with it.

I'm not talking smack, per say, but George W. Bush scares me. I think he will be the first president to launch a nuclear warhead, and well, that's a frightening prospect. George W. isnt dumb, I can admit that, but he scares the hell out of me. Someday, when we all live in a nuclear wasteland, and our kids have flippers for hands or worse, we can all thank our beloved Dubya for keeping America "safe"....

"All we are saying is give peace a chance" - John Winston Ono Lennon

I'm such a hippie.

__________________
"You, me, everyone...we are all made of star stuff." - Neil Degrasse Tyson

https://shawnsmovienight.blogspot.com/

Uh-huh. Okay man. I'll have to wait almost 7 years for you to see that that's not true, but I'm a patient guy. Man, I can't wait to see what this country's got cooked up next...including Dubya and his cabinet. I'm excited.

I certainly hope I'm wrong! I also hope that you're wrong and the people rise up and vote him out of office! (Or is he gonna have his brother fix the next election too? Is it a coincidence that the recounts were done in Florida, where Jeb Bush is the governor? I doubt it.) I can't imagine seven more years of Bush. It'd be like the Regan years all over again. or worse. Bush is the new NIXON. And do NOT tell me you liked Nixon too. You seem to love all the corrupt and insane ones....

Oh, yeah...and JFK is buried in Elvis' tomb...Elvis was moved to Roswell.

WHAT?!?! That's no answer! Don't talk to me like I'm a retard. I hope that you were joking when you said you were 17 in the Movies of the Year you were born thread, because if you weren't, YOU DIDN"T EVEN VOTE FOR THE MAN WHO IS RUINING OUR COUNTRY!

Sure it was an answer: it's another way of saying "don't be so paranoid. Not everything is a conspiracy, you know." Yes, I'm 17. That angers you, for some reason? Sure, I didn't vote for him. And yeah, that bothers me. I wish I could have. I'm just glad I'll be able to vote for him in his reelection campaign.

Ruining our country? Uh, needless to say I think you're completely wrong. The guy's been in office one year...he hasn't even had TIME to ruin anything, for crying out loud. Sorry, but the sky is NOT falling.

Yeah, I'll probably too dead to vote in the next election, which I'm sure you won't mind. I'm in the Army, and eventually I'll get sucked up into GWB's jousting at windmills, not catching Osama Bin Laden war against every other country. I was all for catching Osama, I really was, but now Bush is saying that it's not really about Osama...but he also said he'd catch OBL "Dead or Alive"back in September. I don't see any dead OR alive Bin Laden, and I don't see how attacking Iraq is gonna get him. I joined back in 99, B.B. (Before Bush), BTW.

Well, I hope you make it. And I thank you for serving in the Army. It's a noble thing your doing. I can't say I'm opposed to these military actions, though. Maybe we've gotten Bin Laden already, but don't know it. Maybe not. I don't think anyone really knows at this point...but he's right in saying it's about more than Bin Laden.

Anyway, I think he's been wonderful so far, and I think he'll be re-elected, and I think he'll do a good job in his second term there, and will, in the end, be considered by many as one of the better Presidents in American history. There's some Lincoln in Dubya, I tell ya', and I'm not the only one who thinks so. Donald T. Phillips, a Lincoln biographer, says the same thing. Reagan biographers seem to feel the same way. I think Dubya's something special; I'm thrilled to have him in The White House. I love how down to earth he is, with phrases like "Cough him up." I love how the media is reporting on how prompt and timely he is compared to the last administration.

I love that he understands that money is better spent by those who worked for it, and that the Founding Fathers knew better than most of us, and that this country, despite being uneducated compared to many other civilized countries, and overweight compared to basically all of them, is still great, because of freedom, and that taxation is part of that. I think he gets it...and personally I simply CANNOT WAIT to see the rest of his time in office.

Okay, Okay...I call a truce. Let's just agree to disagree and get back to what's really important here....Movies.

What's the beef with George W. these days? I mean, heavens, he's just doing what he's always been doing: what's in the best interests for the country.

..Such as, stealing an election (gotta put up detours and police I.D. checks to keep the blacks away from the polls..can't have them ruining things), equating diversity with low standards, free enterprise with civil liberty, private schools based on free enterprise, and segregation of blacks with opportunity from white folks. Oh, and attempting to ban fetal tissue research (so the sick will die faster, as God intends them to), spending the entire budget surplus on a trillion dollar tax cut for the rich (justifying himself by lamenting about how "if only we knew 2 months ago" - when in fact experts were saying well before the idea was even conceptualized that there wouldn't be a surplus), stomping out medical marijuana, "cracking down" on drug offenders (because doing things to your own body is illegal), supporting guns in church (in case any criminals walk in), supporting the execution of prisoners with mental deficiencies, etc, etc.



As far as economics goes, I can't profess to know anywhere near as much as TWT does on the subject, but I'll point to Enron as an example of what I see in Bush's economy. For economic policies, Enron asked for deregulation with no government interference, and got it. On tax policy, they asked for the elimination of the corporate alternative tax, and got it. Enron asked for no caps on electricity prices in California, and got it. Enron and Bush were f--k buddies. And Enron went to sh-t.

Thanks to that company, my family now has no money. And for me it's impossible to look past the White House's role in its collapse.

We're also involved in a foreign war that my children's children will be paying for, in which we've bombed innocents (thousands in collateral damage). I think the original plan, to catch Osama Bin Laden, has been disregarded. He has shown no humanistic qualities that I've seen yet (I admit, though, I haven't been paying attention as much as I'm sure TWT has.) He seems ready to sacrifice more lives for his "cause", which seems to be an unworthy one to me.

Gee, I wonder, now that we've bombed the Afghan people back to the stone age, if America is going to set up a satellite government there?

I'm sorry if I'm offending anyone reading this, but I simply do not understand the appeal of George W. Bush. It seems to me (and I confess that I might be naive about some of these things) that the Bush administration (and many conservatives in general) are more concerned with labeling villains than constructing policies.

__________________
**** the Lakers!

See above post about JFK and Elvis. I'm sorry, but I don't think he stole an election. That, IMO, is a really cheap complaint to have about the man.

...yet his cabinet is highly diverse.

Where's that last one coming from? And yes, a free market is what this country is all about. Hell, what do you think the purpose of having 50 states is? COMPETITION.

I don't like the idea of human life being created so I can grow myself new parts.

"I will not waste my days in trying to prolong them." -- Ian Fleming.

For the 10 millionth time: where's the surplus come from? OVER TAXATION. And for the 20 million time: the rich pay more than their share. I shall say it again to drive the point home: the rich pay more than their share. Even with this "tax cut for the rich," they're getting back less than they ought to based on how much they pay in. So, are you gonna stop calling it that, or what? I've said these things before.

He has his reasons. And no, I don't agree with all he does. The medical marijuana issue is one I'm conflicted over. I can understand both sides.

Um, haven't there been two church shootings since he took office?

That's not true. I did plenty of work on this subject, and that's now how it went down. The reason Enron screwed people over was because their 401 (k)s didn't give them the freedom they needed; which was not Bush's doing. These people were not allowed to control their investments, so when the company sunk, they were stuck. It was too many regulations that hurt those people. Not enough CHOICE.

Difficult, perhaps, but not impossible. This is the kind of logic that has people blaming whoever is in office for whatever happens, regardles of what happened before to cause it.

It's not quite as expensive as you make out...if Bush has his way economically, we won't be paying for it as long as you think. We're going to see the beginnings of a boom shortly, larger than the one we've been saying. Just wait and see. Reagan had the right idea about debt and spending, and Bush seems to have the same handle on things.

Bin Laden may or may not be dead. We may never know. But yes, it's not just about him...though personally I hope dearly we find him in one way or another. I think it would serve as a tremendous symbol.

The appeal, for me, is as follows:

• He's down to earth.
• He's more honest than our last President.
• He seems to have a good, Reaganesque handle on economics.
• He's not afraid of a fight; he knows that, sometimes, you've got to make tough choics like this.
• He's willing to poke a little fun at his own verbal mistakes.
• He's apparently highly prompt in his engagements, especially with the media, whereas the last administration was completely lax in comparison.

There's nothing else I can say to convince you, I don't think. I admire the man greatly.

Actaully, the New York Times, despite misleading readers with the title "Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote," reported Gore would have won had a statewide recount been conducted.


This is a false dichotomy, which begs the question: Are you pretending that anything other than laissez-faire capitalism is totalitarian communism?

Usually when people speak of the rich paying "more than their share" or getting "less back" they are only referring to the income tax, which is progressive (the more you earn, the more you pay). The opposite case would be sales tax and payroll taxes, which are regressive (the less you earn, the more you pay).

Would deregulation have helped Enron? Didn't work for the S&L's, and the taxpayers had to foot the bill.

There's something sinister about that last phrase, "regardles [sic] of what happened before to cause it." Are you BLAMING Clinton?

I guess we'll see.

"I did not have political relations with that man, Mr. Lay."

He was pretty prompt responding to 9/11, wasn't he? Oh well, since he had an excuse (even though it was a lie...), he can be forgiven.

I've heard reports both ways...claiming that both of them would have won. I'm not siding with either of them, because I think there was too much going on to truly know. I'm not arguing in favor of Bush having been some kind of clear winner...but I am arguing against the claim to know that he is truly illegitimate.

Of course not. I simply place a lot of emphasis on competition.

I'm not sure if we're talking about the same thing. I'm talking about the fact that, despite earning, say (made up example numbers...I had the actuals with me before, but I don't now), 20% of the money in this country, that same group of people account for 30% of the taxes. That sort of thing. Sure, the rich should pay more; but it's not their job to fund everything else. I'm amazed at the country's current level of taxation.

Well, unfortunately, we don't know for sure...but I do think more freedom would've helped, yes.

That "sinister" phrase was not referring to anything at all specific.

I didn't expect you to agree. I think he's more honest, period. Much more. I don't think it's even close...and I think most, as stupid as they may think he is, would agree. If you don't, well, fine by me.

I'm afraid I'm not familiar with what you're referring to...but what I mentioned was actually in reference to statements coming out of the media BEFORE 9-11. The consensus seemed to be that whereas Clinton's administration was reliably late (one reporter allegedly stated that he'd get there 15-20 minutes late on purpose, because he knew he wouldn't miss anything), Bush's was reliably prompt. Could it be wrong? Sure. But I believe it.

I think George W. is our sexiest prez., hands down.

George is the man...without a doubt. I cannot imagine the state the world would be in after 9/11 if we had a non-committal, spineless jellyfish, sack of donkey crap like the errr gentleman that ran against Bush. It's all about confidence of position and execution of plan and George has it together.

Oh...yeah, and what Matt said, too.

OH MAAAAAN. Did you read the paper? George W. Bush KNEW about the terrorist attacks before they happened. HE KNEW! He received a warning that they were going to hijack some planes and DIDN'T pass it on to anyone who could have prevented it! Justify that!!!

Geez, calm the hell down.

Which "paper" is this, pray tell? Ya' know, many news organizations have reported that Clinton had numerous opportunities to bag Bin Laden. Does that make it true? No...as much as I dislike Clinton, it doesn't make it true, and I don't consider it to be proof.

For all we know the government gets a terrorist threat every single day, and usually nothing happens. In my opinion, if this is the best you've got against Dubya, ya' ain't got nothin'.