Resume of George W. Bush Jr.

[13788]

Javierdude22: Look, I'm not a Bush fan at all. But like Gig and others mentioned before, he was elected, get over it.

Gore fucked up, i wholeheartedly agree with that. Although Bush wouldn't have come this far if his last name wasn't 'Bush' either.

I disagree with a lotta polic decisions Bush made, and makes, but ascribing EVERY thing that is wrong with the US to Bush is giving him too much credit. You have a governor as well ya know.

What frustrates me so much is that many Americans can get so worked up over this. You all claim the truth in very grey areas, maybe ya wanna try to stick to the hard facts. Iraq is one such grey area. I don't agree with the reasons the US went to war, nor should anyone have gone to war at all, as we see many Americans getting killed, more even psychologically damaged, and asituation in Iraq very similar to Vietnam. we alo haven't found Saddam nor Osama. But you guys are in Iraq, so deal with the current situation. If this is indeed such a bad situation than you would think the Democratic party would have itv easy with the coming elections. But they don't. So maybe it would be better to start putting efforts into strenghtening what you DO blieve in than merely discrediting what you DON'T believe in. That way maybe we'll have an alternative.

 

[13788]

gigantikok: Very well said, Javier.

All I'll say is that the war in Iraq started as a war on Terrorism. All I know is what I see, and for the last 2 years the United States has been completely untouched. No one hears about the Taliban or their attacks anymore, and Saddam is pretty much out of power. Call me simplistic, but that is a plus for Bush in my book.

And Jimbo, once again, pull out all the election conspiracy bullshit if you want, but I'll just repeat... GORE LOST HIS OWN FUCKING STATE. Forget about "unreported facts" and "Bush family conspiracies", Gore was such a loser he lost his home state and Clinton's home state. A blunder that was almost impossible to commit, and somehow he did it. If he had formed a better campaign and been overall a better candidate, we wouldn't be having this argument. Get over it and move on.

Anyway, still in the process of research. Ill report back when I have more.

 

[13788]

tracksuitboy: [quote author=gigantikok link=board=99;num=1068028797;start=20#21 date=11/06/03 at 03:01:23]All I'll say is that the war in Iraq started as a war on Terrorism.
[/quote]

No it didn't.  The Project for the New American Century proves the point that the attack on Iraq was planned in the nineties.

It's true that you don't hear about the Taliban any more (and - gosh! - I did approve of Bush's attack on Afghanistan because that was justified). However,  Al Quieda is still active and still killing people (did you hear about Bali?).  The war against Al Quieda is now non-existant as Bush has steered the agenda toward Iraq, a country where none of the 9/11 killers came from.  

As to Jimbo's original post, you and Javier are right that not everything can be blamed on Bush personally but the facts as quoted (re his history etc) are absolutely true.

 

[13788]

Javierdude22: Yes, they are true tracksuitboy, That I totally agree with.

What I don't understand though, is that you guys havent heard from the Taliban anymore. are you sure? Cause in the European press there is worry that the Taliban are regaining strength. It seems they are in control again of a pretty large territory in the north, although the Americans are still fighting them there. But it seems they are slowly winning ground. That worries me.

Oh well, just a piece of info.

 

[13788]

Jimbo: Gigantikok:

Your point of Gore losing his own state has NO relevence to my whole point.  The POINT is after all the votes were counted nationally, Bushie LOST by over 500,000 votes.  The election process itself was TAINTED with a stacked deck.  

The MAIN point however is that there are things going on that are being "invented", "spun"  and perpertrated that only benefit a select few while we all have to pay the price, sometimes with our very lives.  

Make sure that when you do your research you READ clearly what is being said.  REREAD the "resume" for starters without the automatically defensive, emotional rebuttals you keep posting and you will see what I am really trying to say.  Get past your emotion and look at what REALLY IS.  Educate yourself to the FACTS, not the stuff you are fed by their "spin doctors" that is desiged to distort, distract and deceive.

 

[13788]

gigantikok: A) Popular vote counts for shit

B) Millions of over seas Republican votes were thrown out of the state of California because they arrived after Gore officially won the state. If the votes had been counted, Bush would have won.

Obviously you dont look at the whole spectrum, you just keep the "facts" that help you and throw away the ones that don't.

And by the way, any part of the resume that credits Bush to

a) the ecomony
b) the defecit
c) anything else along those parameters

...is bullshit. You must remember, who was in control of Congress during most of Bush's Presidency? Democrats. What does Congress do? Control the budget and deal more heavily with the economy. So, to credit Bush to the current downfall of the economy, loss of jobs, etc. is incorrect. Credit that to the Democrats that were in control. Now that the Republicans are in control of Congress, Jimbo, you will very soon be seeing a rise in the economy, especially with Bush tax cut finally set into motion. See, the Republicans now the economy and they know their money.

I tire of your conspiracy theories and "Blame Bush for Everything" attitude.

 

[13788]

Jimbo: Giganitikok:

You STILL don't get it.  I guess there is nothing more for me to say.   I bet you did not even check out the link i gave to you.  I bet you really wont even bother to check out the VALIDITY of some of the points i stated in the resume.  "Your party, right or wrong" is an attitude that these S.O.B's count on to be able to get away with what they do.  To justify wrong behavior by stating "well they do it too" does not make shit smell any better, nor get to the bottom of what is REALLY happening.  This is not about choosing sides, this is about getting to the truth.  Once again you have shown that you dont really READ, but rather just emote when certain "triggers" are pressed.

So blindly continue to follow if it makes you feel better.  With an attitude like yours it makes you appear to be closer to being what your "byline" states than you probably realize.

 

[13788]

Tender: now, now, boys!!

i want you to hug and say "sawie"
ok?
OK?
you are brothers ya know!....

Tender

 

[13788]

gigantikok: Oh man Jimbo.

First off, what link are you talking about?  I did not see one.  I am still dealing with your "resume", still checking the validity of your statements.

Seriously dude, you accuse me of not getting it?  You feel as though you are SO RIGHT that you can accuse other people of being ignorant?  Wow.  Ironically, you are the one that isn't listening to one statement I am making in Bush's defense.  You just completely ignored my statement about Congress.  And I don't even defend Bush because I love him, I defend him because I am tired of people like you thrashing on him, calling him worthless, and trying to deligitimize everything he does.  Just give it up, man.  Stop living your life with so much hate and blindly following the anti-Bush propaganda that you've been fed over the years.  You accuse me of being emotional and irrational?  Maybe I am a bit pissy in my posts, but lordie, you are full of so much contempt for this man that I think it is clouding your better judgment and ability to decipher what is fact from fiction.  I am not choosing sides, I am simply keeping my mind open and believing what I believe.  I am always willing to listen to the opposing arguments, hell, that's why I post so much in regards to political debate, but your argument has not succeeding in anyway of convincing me or opening my eyes up to anything.  And it isn't about party lines because it isn't just me questioning the validity of your argument.  Even Javierdude, who falls pretty left of center last time I checked, is questioning whether Bush deserves all of the blame you are putting on him.  Your argument is irrational and full of holes, and I am seriously questioning whether or not I should waste my time trying to argue my opinion.  You won't listen to it anyway.

Either way, my vote is going to Bush.  I'll place a safe bet that you'll have to deal with Bush as president for another 4 years, so the quicker you drop your anger and spite towards the man, the happier you'll be.

 

[13788]

Tender: www.nesara.us

Im voting for Bush too, now that that is out of the way, as if we didnt know you were going to vote for him, lol
id of never guessed...

you just admitted to posting away all that stuff, and not even reading Jimbos post? i mean you didnt see the link?
ok ok honest mistake...
but still can we all just get along?
all this is more like arguing than being conversational.
ya think?

Tender

 

[13788]

tracksuitboy: [quote author=gigantikok link=board=99;num=1068028797;start=20#25 date=11/06/03 at 07:55:49]A) Popular vote counts for shit [/quote]

Sorry, but I thought that votes were rather important in elections.

 

[13788]

tracksuitboy: [quote author=Tender link=board=99;num=1068028797;start=20#27 date=11/06/03 at 08:59:44]now, now, boys!!

i want you to hug and say "sawie"
ok?
OK?
you are brothers ya know!....
 
Tender [/quote]

And just think, we haven't started the Govenor Arnie debate yet!

 

[13788]

longtimelurker: I know I'm a bit late on this one, but the Taliban are definately still active. It's not an everyday story in the press, or anything but I'd guess I see a story about them once every fortnight or so. I'd bet the reason quite a few people haven't heard about it is because it's 'yesterdays news'.

The most recent story I can find is dated Oct 13th 2003

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/story.jsp?story=452691

Unfortunately it's a premium story that you need to pay to get the full transcript - but you can get the gist from the bit it gives you.

As for the war on terror and the US remaining untouched - the US had remained untouched on its home soil for a hell of a long time before 9/11. Now the battlefield has just been taken to Iraq - the US is still the target, it's just the location that's changed.

 

[jay_too]

longtimelurker..

Yea, even in the USA newspapers like the NY Times and Washington Post and the news weeklies have been covering the re-imurgence of the Taliban....and yea, the Taliban are still using the opium fields to fund their political objectives and to harm Western Europe and the USA.

jay

 

[13788]

longtimelurker: And a quick second note on the economy. I will agree per-say with Javier and Gigs on this one (OK, you can pick yourself off the floor now!). On the flip-side however, you know how much they'd be touting it as their success if the economy was booming - so it's not really on when it is brushed under the carpet when it isn't.

Governing in a recession does still have a major effect economically, however. You may not be able to stop it completely, but you can ease the pain and do some good damage limitation.

 

[B_JohnTheHorse]

Let's keep in mind that in the USA the electoral college elects Presidents, not the popular vote.

Debate this: Once a necessary constitutional lever to protect the interests of small states vs large ones in the 18th century, is it now time to abolish this anachonism in the information age. The college had a vitel role to play once, but I think it is dated now.

Having said that as a person who voted for Gore and who dislikes Bush intesely, I support his win because under the rules which we have elected Presidents for 200+ years he won. That's right Jimbo - Bush won. I and many others may not like it, but part of what gives this country stability and has made it NOT be like Bosnia or Somalia or like a lot of shitty counties in the globe is the fact that we do was the law says we should NOT what we feel doing because we hate a Bush or a Clinton or a Reagan etc.

Last, Gore was handed a booming economy, unrivaled global power, and a pretty content populace AND STILL LOST. I persoanlly think that doesn't say anything about Democrats or the Democratic party but about the nominee as a individual.

Gore was a lemon from a party that usually drives classics off the assembly line.

As for 2004, I am looking a Dean and or Clark. To me Lieberman is running from the wrong country (he should be running for office in Israel) Edwards is too greasy, Shaprton and Mosely-Braun aren't qualified, and Kerry is a bore.

 

[13788]

gigantikok: [quote author=tracksuitboy link=board=99;num=1068028797;start=20#30 date=11/06/03 at 09:40:28]

Sorry, but I thought that votes were rather important in elections.[/quote]
Not the popular vote.  There's a system that elects our president called the electoral system, whether you like it or not.
[quote author=JohnTheHorse link=board=99;num=1068028797;start=20#35 date=11/06/03 at 15:07:04]As for 2004, I am looking a Dean and or Clark. To me Lieberman is running from the wrong country (he should be running for office in Israel) Edwards is too greasy, Shaprton and Mosely-Braun aren't qualified, and Kerry is a bore. [/quote]
Yea, but Dean is a weak willed pussy and Clark almost started World War 3 (and changes his views and opinions on a weekly basis).  Yup, there was a time that Clark supported the war in Iraq and he was stating this opinion publicly. But, lo and behold, he gets a call from the Democratic party telling him,"No no no, that is not an opinion our "party" believes in". And, the very next press conference he states,"Oh no, I don't support the war in Iraq or Bush at all!"....No thanks.  IMO, I'm sticking to Bush.  He's STILL the lesser of two evils.

 

[13788]

Inwood: Popular vote counts. It just counts more at state level then at Presidential level. I've no problem with the Electoral College. I think it makes sure that our national leaders pay attention to the whole country not just the large population centers that have needs different from other areas of our nation.

Actually at the beginning of Bush's first year in office the control of Congress was held by the Republicans. It wasn't until early summer of 2001 when Jeffords declared himself an Independent that Democrats regained control of the Senate, the first time since 1994.
The Republicans remained in control of the House of Representatives, which they also gained control of in 1994. The Link is below:

http://www.uhsa.uh.edu/gov/federal/2002/107congress01.html

According to the Constitution "All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills."

http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html

So according to your post Gig, the Republicans in the House, who were in control of the part of Congress that set the revenue agenda during the early part of Bush's presidency, are the ones responsible for the state of the economy these past two years?

Gig, you'll have to give a link or two about what you've said about California. I'm not familiar with the law relating to absentee ballots in California but I thought generally absentee ballots had to be received by a certain date or postmarked by a certain date to be eligible to be counted. I thought the news outlets for the 2000 election had decided not to project winners, at least by state, until polls in that state had closed (Yes, I think they slipped up on the panhandle of Florida). If Gore was declared the winner I assume the polls had closed by that time and no more votes would be counted anyway unless they met certain criteria. But since that is from my memory of that time I look forward to taking a look at the links you provide.

 

[jay_too]

To add some vitriol to the discussion.

And Bush

<< delete>>

jay

 

[13788]

James249620002000: I usually vote for Democrats. You can guess that from my posts. And I sometimes vote for Republicans.

My problem with the current Bush administration is that the Republicans are controlling everything. I believe that the economy and other areas were better under Clinton because both parties had control of major portions of government. Compromise and checks and balances had to happen.

I don't like for either party to be completely in charge. I am as concerned about the far left as I am about the far right. Our problems today are because the far right is in control of all areas of our government. I hope that each of you can look at the situation as I do and see that there is a need for diversity in our houses of power. Diversity creates compromise, and our country desperately needs compromise to bring the angry sides together. I have said before that I am old, and I have never seen such polarization as we have today. Let's all work to develop shared power and compromise.

I am voting against Bush simply because I do not want the far right, conservative Republicans to have the power they have right now. I voted for Republicans in Congress when Clinton was in power to keep the far left from having complete control. It just seems reasonable and logical to me.