George W. - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Liquor Dealer · 05-12-2003, 08:04 AM

What kind of a man is George W Bush? How much power does he have? Is he as bad as some would like to make it appear? Is he really a moron, an imbecile as some would have you believe? Is he really on vacation more that he works?

The following is my opinion and nothing else more than my opinion. I am going to state it as such and not substantiate a single damn thing I say with any quotes or sources.

It really jerks my string when I hear people say that the President is on vacation more than he works - He is in New Mexico at this instance - he is on vacation and he is working. When he spent a few days in Texas he was on vacation - and he was working. If he chooses to just go on vacation and not work, he deserves it in my opinion.

George Bush is 180 degrees away from William Jefferson Clinton and for that I am indeed grateful. He is a decent caring human being. He is exactly what he appears to be and nothing more. To me it is good that we have a president who is not a total phony. I disagree with a lot of what George W. Bush stands for but - at least we know what he stands for. To be specific I totally disagree with his stand on abortion. We are both entitled to our beliefs and views.

George W. Bush is the most powerful man on Earth. The most powerful man on Earth. The most powerful man on Earth. I am not trying to overemphasize this. It is a statement of fact. Accept it as truth for a moment - With this power is he a moron? an imbecile? The President of the United States is in sole control of totally awesome power. Checks and balances are great but they take time! The discretionary power of the President of the United States far exceeds that of all the combined powers of the leaders of the EU and Great Britain. We are in the process of moving six carrier battle groups out of the waters surrounding Iraq. Six carrier groups - one carrier group is capable of unleashing more firepower than that of the total combined weaponry of WW ll. A single carrier is more than the total military capability of every nation on earth excepting three or four. And some of you still think he is a moron and an imbecile?

George W. is a Texan - he makes few pretensions at being any thing else. So you don't like his choice of words at times - at least you do understand what he said. So you don't care for his efforts at diplomacy. He has made it clear - that is the job of his appointees - he is the commander-in-chief of the most awesome military in history. Thank God (even those of you who claim to be atheists) that he is not the moron and imbecile some of you claim him to be.

smooth · 05-12-2003, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Liquor Dealer
He has made it clear - that is the job of his appointees - he is the commander-in-chief of the most awesome military in history. Thank God (even those of you who claim to be atheists) that he is not the moron and imbecile some of you claim him to be.

I just read an article (in the NY Times) the other day that stated the historical reason for appointing the president as commander in chief of the armed forces is to remind the world and society that the citizenry is the pinnacle of control--even in times of war the citizenry, not the military, is the head of state affairs.

ahh, here it is:
Man on Horseback

Quote:

Gen. Georges Boulanger cut a fine figure; he looked splendid in uniform, and magnificent on horseback. So his handlers made sure that he appeared in uniform, astride a horse, as often as possible.

It worked: Boulanger became immensely popular. If he hadn't lost his nerve on the night of the attempted putsch, French democracy might have ended in 1889.

We do things differently here — or we used to. Has "man on horseback" politics come to America?

Some background: the Constitution declares the president commander in chief of the armed forces to make it clear that civilians, not the military, hold ultimate authority. That's why American presidents traditionally make a point of avoiding military affectations. Dwight Eisenhower was a victorious general and John Kennedy a genuine war hero, but while in office neither wore anything that resembled military garb.

Given that history, George Bush's "Top Gun" act aboard the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln — c'mon, guys, it wasn't about honoring the troops, it was about showing the president in a flight suit — was as scary as it was funny.

Mind you, it was funny. At first the White House claimed the dramatic tail-hook landing was necessary because the carrier was too far out to use a helicopter. In fact, the ship was so close to shore that, according to The Associated Press, administration officials "acknowledged positioning the massive ship to provide the best TV angle for Bush's speech, with the sea as his background instead of the San Diego coastline."

A U.S.-based British journalist told me that he and his colleagues had laughed through the whole scene. If Tony Blair had tried such a stunt, he said, the press would have demanded to know how many hospital beds could have been provided for the cost of the jet fuel.

But U.S. television coverage ranged from respectful to gushing. Nobody pointed out that Mr. Bush was breaking an important tradition. And nobody seemed bothered that Mr. Bush, who appears to have skipped more than a year of the National Guard service that kept him out of Vietnam, is now emphasizing his flying experience. (Spare me the hate mail. An exhaustive study by The Boston Globe found no evidence that Mr. Bush fulfilled any of his duties during that missing year. And since Mr. Bush has chosen to play up his National Guard career, this can't be shrugged off as old news.)

Anyway, it was quite a show. Luckily for Mr. Bush, the frustrating search for Osama bin Laden somehow morphed into a good old-fashioned war, the kind where you seize the enemy's capital and get to declare victory after a cheering crowd pulls down the tyrant's statue. (It wasn't much of a crowd, and American soldiers actually brought down the statue, but it looked great on TV.)

Let me be frank. Why is the failure to find any evidence of an active Iraqi nuclear weapons program, or vast quantities of chemical and biological weapons (a few drums don't qualify — though we haven't found even that) a big deal? Mainly because it feeds suspicions that the war wasn't waged to eliminate real threats. This suspicion is further fed by the administration's lackadaisical attitude toward those supposed threats once Baghdad fell. For example, Iraq's main nuclear waste dump wasn't secured until a few days ago, by which time it had been thoroughly looted. So was it all about the photo ops?

Well, Mr. Bush got to pose in his flight suit. And given the absence of awkward questions, his handlers surely feel empowered to make even more brazen use of the national security issue in future.

Next year — in early September — the Republican Party will hold its nominating convention in New York. The party will exploit the time and location to the fullest. How many people will dare question the propriety of the proceedings?

And who will ask why, if the administration is so proud of its response to Sept. 11, it has gone to such lengths to prevent a thorough, independent inquiry into what actually happened? (An independent study commission wasn't created until after the 2002 election, and it has been given little time and a ludicrously tiny budget.)

There was a time when patriotic Americans from both parties would have denounced any president who tried to take political advantage of his role as commander in chief. But that, it seems, was another country.__

Daval · 05-12-2003, 10:45 AM

Firstly, Even when the president is on vacation he is still working. That goes for any president. That job is 24/7 and there is no lying on a beach drinking rum punches. So I have no doubt he was still in complete control and fully informed during his vacation periods.

I do not agree with the fact that his job is command and apointee's job is to act diplomatic. The president of any country is the ultimate diplomat and I think he definately gets a failing grade there.

He is indeed the most powerful man in the world, and if he wanted to he could cause REAL chaos and destruction - but does not. He is not an evil man and I believe that he is doing what he feels is right. I just respectfully disagree with his politics and his methods. On some stances I actually agree with him.

Liquor Dealer · 05-12-2003, 10:46 AM

Sen. Robert C. Byrd yesterday criticized the "flamboyant showmanship" he said President Bush showed by declaring victory in Iraq from aboard USS Abraham Lincoln last week. Top Stories

"It is an affront to the Americans killed or injured in Iraq for the president to exploit the trappings of war for the momentary spectacle of a speech," said Mr. Byrd, West Virginia Democrat.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

"There was a time when patriotic Americans from both parties would have denounced any president who tried to take political advantage of his role as commander in chief. But that, it seems, was another country."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh yeah! Their major complaint - the cost of the short ride to the carrier - he should have helicoptered out according to Byrd and Waxman - this came back to haunt them later when it was disclosed that the Greyhound operates at slightly less cost per hour than the helicopter they were bitchin' about.

smooth · 05-12-2003, 11:11 AM

I agree, I really wish neither of the parties would waste our time with this kind of bickering.

As soon as I saw the Dems jumping on this I was thinking, "Oh shit, here we go again..." One would hope they would have learned from the last election that people are wanting some leadership, not fingerpointing.

The_Dude · 05-12-2003, 05:27 PM

i have a big bias against him.

he's very very too damn religious for my taste.

that's the big strike against him for me.

Glad-I-Ate-Her · 05-12-2003, 08:00 PM

Preach it LD!

glad

Kadath · 05-12-2003, 08:23 PM

This morning I watched some of Bush's address in New Mexico. At one point, he said this (taken from the transcript of his speech).

Quote:

And it's important for CEOs of big publicly-held corporations to understand that we expect them to learn the lessons of the past; that shareholders, that employees, that Americans will insist they be held to account if they ever lie, cheat and steal. We're overcoming that -- (applause.)

I became so enraged that I began yelling at the TV. He has members of Enron's board on his staff. His vice president's former company, implicated in scandal during that man's term as CEO, received a cushy contract in post-war Iraq.
My sister and I were discussing the president tonight, and she said "You know, with Clinton I always felt like he knew what he was doing as president. I felt safe when he was in office. With Bush I'm afraid. I'm afraid he's making all the wrong decisions about the most important things. I'm worried for the future of my children." My sister is 19. She has no children yet, nor plans to have any soon. She fears that the repercussions of Bush's presidency will stretch that far into the future. While I don't worry that much (we recovered from Regan, after all) I don't relish the idea of 19 more months of Bush, let alone 67. If there is a just God, and he does indeed bless America, then he will free us of this man the next time around.

Dilbert1234567 · 05-17-2003, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kadath
This morning I watched some of Bush's address in New Mexico. At one point, he said this (taken from the transcript of his speech).

I became so enraged that I began yelling at the TV. He has members of Enron's board on his staff. His vice president's former company, implicated in scandal during that man's term as CEO, received a cushy contract in post-war Iraq.
My sister and I were discussing the president tonight, and she said "You know, with Clinton I always felt like he knew what he was doing as president. I felt safe when he was in office. With Bush I'm afraid. I'm afraid he's making all the wrong decisions about the most important things. I'm worried for the future of my children." My sister is 19. She has no children yet, nor plans to have any soon. She fears that the repercussions of Bush's presidency will stretch that far into the future. While I don't worry that much (we recovered from Regan, after all) I don't relish the idea of 19 more months of Bush, let alone 67. If there is a just God, and he does indeed bless America, then he will free us of this man the next time around.

i to fear what bush will do, after 9/11 we had an all time high of support for the US, now he has squandered nearly all support for us. he is reckless and i don't feel comfortable with his actions, especially his business dealings. the open ended contract to Halliburton is valued at up to 7 Billion dollars, much more than the amount Bush and the gang led on to.

Macheath · 05-17-2003, 12:04 PM

The issue of Bush's flight uniform that was mentioned in smooth's article disturbed me.

It disturbed me in part because I remember in a discussion on TFP v3.0 a few months back, all of the American posters who proudly declared that no American President would ever breach Constitutional protocol by strutting around in military uniform.

It feels like that is a non issue in today's America - that the twin precedents of ongoing war and top gun performance art photo ops will become more and more a part of what the Presidfency represents until they're no longer necessarily just photo ops, but something else.

Of course despite all that, whitehouse.org had fun with it:

http://www.whitehouse.org/news/2003/050103.asp

4thTimeLucky · 05-17-2003, 01:09 PM

May I put to you a different interpretation of the man:

***
Bush is a man of limited intelligence and even more limited application, whose few successes have been handed to him.

He is a failed businessman, a failed soldier and a failed father.

He has been arrested three times and is a former alcoholic.

His policies have continually taken from the poor, the sick and the environment with one hand and given to the rich and businesses with the other.

Are these the signs of a great man? Are these the signs of a "decent caring human being"?

Having powerful carrier battle groups and smart advisers does not make you a good man or a good president. You could put anyone or anything in the presidential chair and it would still have powerful carrier battle groups and smart advisers.

Is he lazy? Sure as hell. Look at his CV. It is filled to the brim with multi-year gaps and periods of coasting. He takes more holidays than almost any other President and has met criticism for the number of hours he works and his lack of attention to/comprehension of the reports he is given to read.

Now I have nothing against recovered alcoholics, people with wayward daughters, the lazy, the illiterate or the mollycoddled. We all have faults and I love Homer Simpson as much as the next person.

Nonethless, I want the President of America - the most powerful man on Earth - to be enthusiastic about politics, hard working, inquisitive about knowledge, well travelled, intelligent, quick on the uptake, comfortable with explaining complex issues, diplomatic and 'of the people'.

People want a President who has worked their way to where they are and embodies the American Dream. GW Bush embodies the American Mid-Afternoon Snooze.
***

Would the real George Bush please stand up.

archer2371 · 05-17-2003, 02:49 PM

Ok, number one, Cheney has nothing to do with that post-war Iraq deal that his former, notice the word FORMER, company got. Whenever you enter a public office, you are required to put any private earnings into a blind trust and to quit your position of influence in the company that you participated in. So let's just settle that right now. Number two, where the hell in the Constitution does it say, "The President MAY NOT WEAR MILITARY CLOTHING"? nowhere in the Constitution does it say that. Sure it may have been a Top Gun move, however, when you're flying in an F/A-18 Hornet or any other supersonic fighter, you must wear a flight suit, it's part of the safety precautions for the pilot and the navigator and/or passenger. Number three, Bush is not an idiot, you can not graduate from Harvard and be an idiot, I don't care if you got a C or an A, you are an intelligent and hard working person if you graduate from Harvard. Sure, Bush speaks very plainly, he may not use grandiose words, but he gets his point accross. You want to talk about failed father and soldier? Look at Mr. Draft Dodger/I Haven't Had Sex With My Wife In Years Clinton. Do you realize how traumatizing that must have been for Chelsea Clinton? She probably still does not forgive him. Sure, Bush's twins may be wild, but so are millions of other teenagers. If you disagree with his policies, fine, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but if all you have to bitch about is his personal life and the fact that he's a "what you see is what you get" kind of guy, then say you want a President who is enthusiastic about politics, then you need to check yourself.

SLM3 · 05-17-2003, 03:08 PM

Doesn't Cheney still receive money from his former company?

Bush did graduate from Harvard, but I'm curious as to how he got in in the first place. He couldn't even get into his state school, yet he was accepted to Harvard. Interesting.

Failed soldier? http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/document.htm

4thTimeLucky · 05-17-2003, 03:53 PM

Quote:

if all you have to bitch about is his personal life

I'm not bitching. I'm just putting another interpretation. And when a thread on Bush's policies comes up I will gladly post some ideas on it. This is a post about the Bush 'the man' and as such issues of his personal life will be raised.

Quote:

he's a "what you see is what you get" kind of guy

If by this you mean that he doesn't try and hide his flaws, then so what? He has a limited grasp of world politics and a simplistic vision of the world, and chooses to openly demonstrate this. Great.
However, I don't think that what you see is the real GW at all. I think it is carefully engineered and stage managed to make the very best of a bad lot. For the latter part of his presidential campaign that meant shutting him up completely.

Quote:

you can not graduate from Harvard and be an idiot

You have a lot of faith in the meritocracy of great universities. Given unlimited personal support and a lot of leniency, as Bush would have been, then pretty much anyone can pass at university. What we know about Bush was that - and this is by his own admission - he was a C student and got by with reading hardly any books at all. A hard working C is one thing. So is a lazy A. But a lazy C indicates a collection of character flaws that don't fit well with the duties of President.

Quote:

but he gets his point across

Does he? If his point really is that the world divides along a good/evil, us/them line then maybe he does. But somehow I suspect that there is more to US policy than the clumsy slogans and malapropisms that Bush proclaims. Or at least I hope there is.

Macheath · 05-17-2003, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by archer2371
Number two, where the hell in the Constitution does it say, "The President MAY NOT WEAR MILITARY CLOTHING"? nowhere in the Constitution does it say that. Sure it may have been a Top Gun move, however, when you're flying in an F/A-18 Hornet or any other supersonic fighter, you must wear a flight suit, it's part of the safety precautions for the pilot and the navigator and/or passenger.

It's a constitutional protocol, like a convention or very strict etiquette. Kinda like not throwing up on the Japanese ambassador, touching the Queen of England, musing that a dictatorship would be so much easier or joking about how you start bombing Soviet Russia "in five minutes". It's all shit YOU JUST DON'T DO. It doesn't have to be written in the constitution.

The 'safety precaution' idea doesn't seem like the greatest excuse - his press people knew he'd need to wear a fight suit, they could have avoided the whole situation by getting his Marine One helicopter in...instead they took the ship back out to sea and put him in the jet anyway. It's all symbolic of what this President represents and the rest of the world is watching carefully.

What's next, a HALO jump over Red Square?

jsn117 · 05-17-2003, 08:04 PM

don't like him? vote him out of office. yes, it really is that simple

tricks · 05-17-2003, 09:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jsn117
don't like him? vote him out of office. yes, it really is that simple

Was he voted in?

Sorry.....

Kadath · 05-17-2003, 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by archer2371
Ok, number one, Cheney has nothing to do with that post-war Iraq deal that his former, notice the word FORMER, company got. Whenever you enter a public office, you are required to put any private earnings into a blind trust and to quit your position of influence in the company that you participated in. So let's just settle that right now.

I would consider it settled if Cheney didn't still receive, every year, a flat fee from Haliburton. It is not a salary, so it is not a position of influence, technically. All legal. And if you really believe that Cheney has nothing to do with the deal, then you are either a blind optimist or...there's nothing else, you must be a blind optimist. He's the vice president, for god's sake, to one of the least capable presidents in history.

seretogis · 05-17-2003, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tricks
Was he voted in?

That's clever, but pointless. Yes, he was voted into office. That's generally how people become President. If you have a problem with the system, then address it, don't pretend that Bush's presidency is illegitimate.

As for Bush's "flamboyant showmanship", it's ridiculous to hear people so starved for scandal that even his method of transportation is critisized.

seretogis · 05-17-2003, 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kadath
He's the vice president, for god's sake, to one of the least capable presidents in history.

That's a pretty bold statement to make with nothing to support it but the "feelings" of your 19 year old sister.

Phaenx · 05-17-2003, 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Liquor Dealer
Sen. Robert C. Byrd yesterday criticized the "flamboyant showmanship" he said President Bush showed by declaring victory in Iraq from aboard USS Abraham Lincoln last week. Top Stories

"It is an affront to the Americans killed or injured in Iraq for the president to exploit the trappings of war for the momentary spectacle of a speech," said Mr. Byrd, West Virginia Democrat.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

"There was a time when patriotic Americans from both parties would have denounced any president who tried to take political advantage of his role as commander in chief. But that, it seems, was another country."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh yeah! Their major complaint - the cost of the short ride to the carrier - he should have helicoptered out according to Byrd and Waxman - this came back to haunt them later when it was disclosed that the Greyhound operates at slightly less cost per hour than the helicopter they were bitchin' about.

I couldn't understand how he could criticize a president that flies a plane onto a carrier to honor his troops with his prescense. What an ass, a lot of politicians are so negative when it comes to the opposing party.

guthmund · 05-18-2003, 12:07 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by archer2371
Ok, number one, Cheney has nothing to do with that post-war Iraq deal that his former, notice the word FORMER, company got. Whenever you enter a public office, you are required to put any private earnings into a blind trust and to quit your position of influence in the company that you participated in. So let's just settle that right now.

He surely has retired his postition with Haliburton no doubt about it. But I find it hard to believe that there isn't a sense of 'you scratch my back...' The folks of Haliburton would have to be complete idiots to not try and play up the relationship with the vice president, and the vice presidency is a limited term office, which means that in the end Cheney goes back to play with the boys in the playground once his term is expired.

Quote:

Number two, where the hell in the Constitution does it say, "The President MAY NOT WEAR MILITARY CLOTHING"? nowhere in the Constitution does it say that. Sure it may have been a Top Gun move, however, when you're flying in an F/A-18 Hornet or any other supersonic fighter, you must wear a flight suit, it's part of the safety precautions for the pilot and the navigator and/or passenger.

It just reminded me of all the 'nutball' dictators (Kadafi, Castro, even our ol' buddy Saddam) walking around out there in military garb like they're 'one of the guys.' President Bush is far from being 'one of the guys,' and to make it worse he didn't really need to ride in the jet anyway, which makes this a conscious choice by either him or his PR people.

Quote:

Number three, Bush is not an idiot, you can not graduate from Harvard and be an idiot, I don't care if you got a C or an A, you are an intelligent and hard working person if you graduate from Harvard.

I think 4thtimelucky hit this one pretty square.

Quote:

Sure, Bush speaks very plainly, he may not use grandiose words, but he gets his point accross.

I want my President to use grandiose words. He's the leader of the of the free world and the "most powerful man on Earth." I want him to inspire the world. I want him to instill faith in the masses at his ability to run this massive multi-conglomerate we call The United States. I want him to put intelligent men in positions of power and be able to speak on the issues of the day without having to resort to catchphrases and cliches. He does speak plainly and I have no problem with that. I believe that the President of the United States can speak plainly and get his point across without murdering the English language and filling speeches with homemade malapropism.

I understand that he is only a man, on camera quite a bit and the pressures of the job must be enormous, but that is no excuse. The office of the Presidency should be held to a higher standard than the common man.

A quick word on the vacation thing. I know he's still doing work while on vacation. It's more about appearances. The world should see our leader in a suit and tie, not wranglers. It's stupid I know, but remember, it's 80% how you look.....

archer2371 · 05-18-2003, 08:18 AM

Ok in response to the "shady reasons for the flight suit" it is a safety precaution because of the fact that anything can go wrong when flying in an aircraft, if he had to eject, over the sea mind you, would a Brooks Brothers suit keep him warmer than the cold sea around him, or would a military issue flight keep him warm. Granted they could have brought in Marine One, but does anybody know exactly how far out the Lincoln was from shore? or from the United States for that matter. And on that military service record thing, did you read all of those documents or did you just look at the titles and make your own conclusions? If Bush was anything BUT Honorably Discharged then I would agree with what you were saying that he was a "failed" soldier. However he was honorably discharged because he wanted to attend Harvard Business School. Something that is protected by the G.I. Bill of Rights, that if you want to attend college instead of the military, that's fine with them. So he got a penalty for "bad attendance" a lot of people got one of those, heck in school everyone gets at least one detention for being tardy. Nowhere in those documents did I find any proof as to the statements that he is a failed soldier. If you could come up with some written statements by his COs that say something to the extent of "he was not a good soldier, he shouldn't have even been in the military, etc. etc." then I'll believe you, but if all you have to present is a bunch of half-readable papers that don't really say anything, then my convictions about Bush are still intact. Also, it was considered a tradition or a "very strict etiquette" to serve only two terms in office as POTUS. Did not the great Franklin Delano Roosevelt break this "very strict etiquette"? And not everybody will understand grandiose words, the President's job is to connect with the common people, those who may not understand what colloquial, grandiose, or other such words may mean. This is what Bush does, he speaks the colloquialisms of the common people. I mean, what's better, a President that speaks above everybody's heads except for a few, or a President that can tell everyone what he means? And may I recall Winston Churchill, who quite frequently ended sentences with a preposition. Like I said before, if you want to debate his policies fine, I don't mind that, but don't conform to the scandal hungry masses that will pounce upon every single thing that Bush will do wrong. If you want to debate his stance on abortion, go ahead, if you want to say that he's robbing from the poor and giving to the rich, you can do that too. But it's also considered a very strict etiquette to not judge a person you have never met.

4thTimeLucky · 05-18-2003, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by archer2371
Look at Mr. Draft Dodger/I Haven't Had Sex With My Wife In Years Clinton. Do you realize how traumatizing that must have been for Chelsea Clinton?

Quote:

Originally posted by archer2371
But it's also considered a very strict etiquette to not judge a person you have never met.

As you see, it's not that strict. In fact some might say it's what journalism, history and a lot of political studies is all about.

Quote:

On November 2, 2000 Senators Bob Kerrey and Daniel Inouye, both recipients of the Congressional Medal of Honor, held a news conference to try to focus media attention on charges, originally reported by the Boston Globe, that there is a one-year gap in Bush's military service. "During my service, if I missed training for two years, at the least, I would have been court-martialed. I would have been placed in prison," Senator Inouye said.
Source

Original Boston Globe Article

The sons of Presidents can get away with an awful lot. Especially when it concerns the military.

archer2371 · 05-18-2003, 11:12 AM

Ok, makes it a little more believable, however it does say that he logged a hell of a lot of hours and days for active duty in May, June, and July. It is most likely true that they let him slide on those things, which shouldn't have been done, but it was. But like I said before, can we please just move on to debating the man's policies and not his personal record.

guthmund · 05-18-2003, 11:59 AM

It's all very well and good to berate the masses for discussing the private lives of public people, but if you're going to do so, it would be wise to abstain from the practice yourself.

The fact is politicians, much like celebrities, place themselves upon the alter of public scrutiny. So, in my opinion, the lives led by these spotlight seekers is open to public debate. If you want to discuss his policies, that's fine, but understand that there is a flesh and blood man making the decisions to set policy.

As for location of the U.S.S. Lincoln this is from Ari Fleischer:

Quote:

"The President wanted to land on it, on an aircraft that would allow him to see an aircraft landing the same way that the pilots saw an aircraft landing. He wanted to see it as realistically as possible. And that's why, once the initial decision was made to fly out on the Viking, even when a helicopter option became doable, the President decided instead he wanted to still take the Viking." (emphasis mine)

He flew in on a jet, because he wanted to fly in on a jet. The panel of politicians that came out after The President managed to find a helicopter.

As for the location, the carrier was close enough to dock. Several reports confirm that the carrier had been halted because it had arrived earlier than expected and would "do the soldiers and their families no good by disembarking early."

Quote:

I mean, what's better, a President that speaks above everybody's heads except for a few, or a President that can tell everyone what he means?

Most intelligent men can do both without calling the ignorant, ignorant. I don't fault the man for using simple words. In fact, sometimes it helps to get the point across using plain spoken English. I fault the man for not understanding his own language. I fault the man for sounding like an ignoramus. He must certainly be quite smart. He owned a baseball team, ran an oil company, graduated Harvard, was Gov. of Texas, and managed to find himself in the Oval Office. Idiots don't find themselves in these positions regardless of 'who his daddy is,' so he's certainly a pretty intelligent guy.

Quote:

And may I recall Winston Churchill, who quite frequently ended sentences with a preposition.

Ending an intelligible sentence with a preposition is hardly comparable to putting together a sentence that makes no sense.

Winston Churchill, who ended sentences with propositions, I'm sure, never left folks with a feeling of 'huh?'

Quote:

"Now, we talked to Joan Hanover. She and her husband, George, were visiting with us. They are near retirement — retiring — in the process of retiring, meaning they're very smart, active, capable people who are retirement age and are retiring." —George W. Bush, Alexandria, Va., Feb. 12, 2003
And

"There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." —George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002

Huh?

Macheath · 05-18-2003, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by archer2371
Granted they could have brought in Marine One, but does anybody know exactly how far out the Lincoln was from shore? or from the United States for that matter.

At the time the carrier was 30 miles offshore - within easy helicopter range.
He could easily have used Marine One; fact is, the whole thing was a political stunt and was disrespectful of the Presidency as a CIVILIAN office.

Kadath · 05-18-2003, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by seretogis
That's a pretty bold statement to make with nothing to support it but the "feelings" of your 19 year old sister.

If you want support, I'll give it to you. But my point was about Cheney's involvement with Haliburton and the incredible dishonesty that shows. Focus on the things that don't hurt your cause! This and other helpful tips for first timers in "Debating for Dummies:A Reference Guide for the rest of us" from the popular series of books.

Leander · 05-18-2003, 07:10 PM

As far as Cheney's involvement with Halliburton post his "election", shouldn't we understand his involvement with the administration's energy policy? This is the same policy that arose out of meetings that the American public is not allowed to know anything about. (Thank God for executive privilege). These are the same meetings that Enron execs attended to "help" form this administrations energy policies.
On another front, Bush originally graduated from Yale, the same school as his Daddy. For the Harvard MBA, would you screw with a kid whose father is the head of the CIA? And for what he learned in the MBA program at Harvard, how the hell did he fail at business so many times? If you want to point at owning a Major League Baseball team as an example of succeding, isn't the hallmark of a success winning a championship the litmus test? He didn't do it. Hell the team didn't even get a new ballpark during his stewardship. If the freaking Phillies can get a stadium, then the Four Horsemen of the Apocolypse must be trotting down my street.
There are so things to discuss with G.W. it is hard to even concentrate on what is important. An unnecessary jet flight? Not important. The screwing of America in toto? Very important

Mael · 05-18-2003, 11:32 PM

I like how a few of the posts have said that we should focus on the policies of Dubya rather than the person. I think that's assinine. His past, his character is very important. A lot of his policies are going to be based on his character. His being a "recovered" alcoholic, shows a lack of character. He may no longer drink, but I still wouldhave reservations about putting my child in the car with him. He seems to have replaced alcohol with God. And unfortunatly, that is going to play a huge role in his policies. Was he a failed soldier? I think so. First off, records show that he was not released to go to school. Second of all, records show that he refused to take mandatory drug tests, which to me would constitute refusing a direct order, and third, choosing to join the Air National Gaurd or whatever it was, instead of joining up with the army during war time, shows that he's a coward. Flying to the USS Abraham Lincoln was nothing more than PR to make him look like a triumphant General returning home from war. I think it's sad.

And to the person who, in the seemingly normal knee-jerk response to someone criticizing Bush, invoked mention of the holy blowjob, that is also, in my opinion, inappropriate. His getting a BJ from a fugly may have traumatized Chealsea, but i think the real disturbing thing was the fact that something that was private, not of public record at all. These things mentioned about Bush are public record, they aren't something that he could hide if he wants. And to me, drunk driving is a hell of a lot worse than getting a BJ'er since, last time i checked, getting a BJ didn't kill anyone.

Many politicians, and a lot of other people, cheat on their spouses. Is it right? I don't think so. But if your marriage has gone south, but not ended, i think it's understandable. And while a BJ is understandable, half of what Bush says isn't...

I'm gonna close with a quote, which I got from "They Misunderestimated Me! The very Curious Language of George W. Bush" day calender. For the day of March 6, this quote taken from 10/11/00, during a presidential debate, he said...
"I mean, there needs to be a wholesale effort against racial profiling, which is illiterate children." Huh?

seretogis · 05-19-2003, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mael
And to me, drunk driving is a hell of a lot worse than getting a BJ'er since, last time i checked, getting a BJ didn't kill anyone.

Many politicians, and a lot of other people, cheat on their spouses. Is it right? I don't think so. But if your marriage has gone south, but not ended, i think it's understandable.

You could have saved yourself a lot of typing if you just admit that whatever Bush does is wrong wrong wrong, but if Clinton did the same thing it would be understandable. Until third party candidates are worth voting for, the Democrat/Republican argument will continue to be mindless repetition of why when your candidate did something it was bad, but when mine did it it was understandable, or even right.

Where was Clinton when Bush was in the Air National Guard? He wasn't even in the country. Feel free to explain how leaving the country makes Clinton more morally "right" than Bush, who served in the Air National Guard.

http://www.war-stories.com/clinton-1.htm

WhoaitsZ · 05-19-2003, 11:15 AM

I wish I knew and understood more of how our governmant works. I do, however, feel i have a somewhat firm grasp on some things His Shrubary has done...

Pros:

He was highly agitated 9-11. He didn't ever look hurried and he spoke to some real civilians (albeit on camera).

He is honest. (or so i hope.)

Cons:

he has no grasp of real politics. or at least not on diplomacy.

he has becomes best friends with China. (I'm sorry, NOTHING makes being friends with nazis okay. period.)

He constantly instructs Israel on how to act while they are getting attacked daily, yet at the same time we get attacked once in years and he acts like he will DESTROY these evil suicide bombers and their leaders. fuckin Hypocrit

He couldn't remember Cheney's name when he announced who would be VP. Now, I do give him props on that everybody forgets things, but my God.. its almost like saying "I take thee.. um. susan? as my wife".

He threw temper tamtrums untill the UN and our congress gave him the Okay to go to Iraq due to those obviously hidden in plain sight Weapons of Mass Destruction. oh no.. there are none! whoops! sorry!

do you guys nto realize dick cheney had an electric bill going over 300k a month around 2001? (i believe it was summer of 2001, i could be mistaken).
he paid $15k on it.... $275k for his POWER bill. that would totally cover two, maybe three families for a year.
oh and remember Californias black outs? whoops!

i do not believe in hanging a man with no evidence. and i hate all the cynics who latch on to -every-little-thing- but Bush.. this man is evil. I'm sorry to say it, but... he's evil. it sucks.

hopefully in 2004 the votes will be counted properly and he won't win. Maybe the media can STFU awhile... good luck on that, though.

-despairing-

Uocom · 05-19-2003, 01:05 PM

Hey, Hitler was sure about his beliefs! How can anyone be so blind as to not notice the difference between the state of our nation under Clinton Administration when compared to it's current state? September 11th is no longer a valid excuse.

archer2371 · 05-19-2003, 02:01 PM

Let me start with one thing, I don't care about the sexual indescrepencies of Clinton. I care about the fact that he lied to the American People and a Grand Jury, which is perjury and obstruction of justice (mind you, the same charges Richard Nixon was brought up on). And you keep bringing up the fact that "oh, that carrier stuff was all PR crap" CLINTON DID IT TOO, except, was he EVER part of the military? NO! He hightailed it to Canada to smoke dope and smoke crack. Ok, if the man is inept at diplomacy, how the heck did he negotiate that very high tension situation with China and the recon plane? Huh? Can anyone give me the answer on that one? You bring up he whined about the WMD, that are in fact there, to the UN until they let him do it. He could have just sent the military straight to Iraq and done what has been done right from the get-go. Instead he went through the proper channels, knowing that France, Russia, and China would oppose him all the way. Ok, if he can be honest and evil at the same time, how is that possible, it doesn't go together, it just doesn't. He's a man of God, which I am thankful for, which will instill moral reasoning in his policies now, which I am also thankful for. And those WMD are there, trust me. Granted, he isn't the greatest orator in the world, but he tries ok, and he's getting better, there have been fewer slipups than there used to be. And the thing about the Texas Rangers, the Rangers will forever be a crappy team, because management doesn't realize that THEY NEED PITCHERS. But I digress. You guys are creating a double standard here, ok, I agree with you now, Bush could have rode in on a chopper, but he chose to fly co-pilot (a position that is required to be wearing a flight suit, check with any pilot, it's standard procedure). WTF is the big deal? Do you dare bring up something like that when Clinton continually showed no respect for the military whatsoever. Big flippin deal that he was the POTUS that deployed the military the most times ever in the history of the Oval Office, he misused them, and didn't let the correct people run things and thus, we had debacles like Mogadishu. So don't even frickin bring up the so called "military failures" of Bush, without thinking about the military screw-up that Clinton was. If your going to bring up the blemishes of Bush (there are, he's human) then don't double standard it and say it was allright for Clinton to do the same thing. And I believe 9/11 is a valid excuse, because it has hurt the airline companies so much (all the major corporations are declaring Chapter 11), consumers don't really want to spend, and ppl are still reacting from the huge loss of the dot com one hit wonders, that's what's responsible for the bad economy, was everyone putting stock in the flash in the pan internet companies. After the '29 and '89 Crashes, you think we'd learn, so that's no fault of the Administration's (Democrat or Republican). So don't try that card, not to mention the fact that for most of the Clinton years, the DJIA was at about the level it is now.

Mael · 05-19-2003, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by seretogis
You could have saved yourself a lot of typing if you just admit that whatever Bush does is wrong wrong wrong, but if Clinton did the same thing it would be understandable. Until third party candidates are worth voting for, the Democrat/Republican argument will continue to be mindless repetition of why when your candidate did something it was bad, but when mine did it it was understandable, or even right.

Where was Clinton when Bush was in the Air National Guard? He wasn't even in the country. Feel free to explain how leaving the country makes Clinton more morally "right" than Bush, who served in the Air National Guard.

http://www.war-stories.com/clinton-1.htm

actually, i'm not a democrat or a republican. i am liberal, but i don't particularaly care for either party. clinton should have gone and served when he was drafted, rather than going abroad to study and skip out, but this isn't a debate about Clinton. I only mentioned the BJ because someone else brought it up. I really don't like how whenever someone criticizes Bush, Bushites have to bring up the BJ, and then the Clintonites try to defend clinton and retaliate against bush. Clinton is pretty much irrelevant now, since he is no longer president and cannot be pres again because he's served both terms allowed. Bush hasn't, so discussing his character is rather important.

guthmund · 05-19-2003, 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by archer2371
Let me start with one thing, I don't care about the sexual indescrepencies of Clinton. I care about the fact that he lied to the American People and a Grand Jury, which is perjury and obstruction of justice

Then why bring it up? The character flaws of Bill Clinton are irrelevant for he'll never be President again. The character flaws of George W. Bush are very relevant since he'll be seeking re-election. Now, I agree with you. The American people were lied to; the Grand Jury were lied to, which like you pointed out was very illegal. On the other hand, he wasn't charged, he wasn't impeached and he didn't do any jail time; fair? maybe not, but he's had his day in court and fair or not, he's a free man.

Quote:

And you keep bringing up the fact that "oh, that carrier stuff was all PR crap" CLINTON DID IT TOO, except, was he EVER part of the military?

No, the flying in the jet stuff was all PR crap. Speaking on the deck of an aircraft carrier to men in uniform is one thing, flying in on a jet fighter is something else entirely. I do seem to remember Clinton being Commander-in-Chief there for a while....

Quote:

NO! He hightailed it to Canada to smoke dope and smoke crack. Ok, if the man is inept at diplomacy, how the heck did he negotiate that very high tension situation with China and the recon plane? Huh? Can anyone give me the answer on that one?

First, you're throwing stones again. Second, It was only a high tension situation because we made it one. We shouldn't have been flying in China's airspace. We shouldn't have told them "it's time for them to send the plane back." We screwed up playing the toughguy bit, and China didn't flinch. Then it turned into gracious apology and feelings of "remorse and regret." Hardly a foreign policy coup.

Quote:

You bring up he whined about the WMD, that are in fact there, to the UN until they let him do it. He could have just sent the military straight to Iraq and done what has been done right from the get-go.

I'm not sure what you meant by ,"that are in fact there," are you implying that there are Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq as a fact? I wasn't aware they had found any, but I'd like to read something on it if you've got a link to the story. And again, to be fair he did "just" send "the military straight to Iraq. He had no approval from any governing body.

Quote:

Ok, if he can be honest and evil at the same time, how is that possible, it doesn't go together, it just doesn't. He's a man of God, which I am thankful for, which will instill moral reasoning in his policies now, which I am also thankful for.

I do think that President Bush is honest in his intent. That being said I don't want him instilling 'moral reasoning' into his/American policies. I want him to instill "rational reasoning" into American policies. Pervading American policy with moral reasoning isn't acceptable to most folks. We don't like the Government to interject moral reasoning into laws, we want them to fair, both in my opinion are two very different sides of the coin.

Quote:

And those WMD are there, trust me.

I guess that cleared up my confusion from earlier. I was under the impression that the Gov't had pictures of factories linked to WMDs. Are entire factories disappearing?

Quote:

And the thing about the Texas Rangers, the Rangers will forever be a crappy team, because management doesn't realize that THEY NEED PITCHERS.

Now, I'll agree with you there 100%

Every contending team needs a stellar bullpen

Quote:

Do you dare bring up something like that when Clinton continually showed no respect for the military whatsoever....

Again, it's not the policies and political failings of William Jefferson Clinton that were debating here. You can't compare a former President to the sitting President; especially with the extraordinary circumstances that President Bush has had to face in September 11th and the subsequent war on Terror....Afghanistan...oops Iraq....

Quote:

And I believe 9/11 is a valid excuse, because it has hurt the airline companies so much (all the major corporations are declaring Chapter 11), ...so that's no fault of the Administration's (Democrat or Republican).

How long can we hang our coats on September 11th? The event, while tragic, has been blamed for everything. The earlier tax cuts, since which America has lost 1.5 million jobs, is a big factor in the current economy. It didn't work. With a new tax cut looming on the horizon and evidence of the first one in hand, I find it hard to believe this is the all soothing balm which will finally heal the dreaded economy slump from September 11th. I'm sure a majority of those bankrupticies had nothing to do with bad bookkeeping or fudging of numbers.

Quote:

So don't try that card, not to mention the fact that for most of the Clinton years, the DJIA was at about the level it is now.

Finally, the Dow Jones Industrial Average when it was handed to the current administration was over 11,700 points. Today it closed at nearly 8500 after a big rally yesterday and a fall of 185.58 points late today. Hardly comparable.

seretogis · 05-19-2003, 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by guthmund
..he wasn't charged, he wasn't impeached and he didn't do any jail time..

That is incorrect. Clinton was impeached, and was the second president in history to have been. Did you somehow miss the months of constant Republican demonization happening in mass media? The incredibly slanted accusations on every major news network of there being a "vast right-wing conspiracy" (tm) against the peace-loving and completely innocent Clinton?

Also, as far as I know Clinton had his ability to practice law stripped from him due to his lying to a grand jury.

Mael · 05-19-2003, 10:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by seretogis
That is incorrect. Clinton was impeached, and was the second president in history to have been. Did you somehow miss the months of constant Republican demonization happening in mass media? The incredibly slanted accusations on every major news network of there being a "vast right-wing conspiracy" (tm) against the peace-loving and completely innocent Clinton?

Also, as far as I know Clinton had his ability to practice law stripped from him due to his lying to a grand jury.

while i can only make a guess about guthmond, i know that before the impeachment i thought that when a president was impeached, they were actually kicked out of office. i didn't realize how it worked until it actually happened to clinton. but while he was impeached, he wasn't convicted. maybe that's what he meant?

and clinton currently runs a law practice based out of harlem. whether or not he can practice in arkansas, i don't know. i know there was talk about how teh impeachment would affect it, but i know he is currently doing so.

seretogis · 05-19-2003, 11:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mael
and clinton currently runs a law practice based out of harlem. whether or not he can practice in arkansas, i don't know. i know there was talk about how teh impeachment would affect it, but i know he is currently doing so.

That depends on what the definition of "law" is.

guthmund · 05-21-2003, 12:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mael
while i can only make a guess about guthmund, i know that before the impeachment i thought that when a president was impeached, they were actually kicked out of office. i didn't realize how it worked until it actually happened to clinton. but while he was impeached, he wasn't convicted. maybe that's what he meant?

I knew better when I posted it, but thanks Mael for giving me a way out.

Yes, Clinton was impeached. You'll have to forgive me, it did happen several years ago....although you'd think it happened just yesterday from the coverage just here on the board...

It was a rather lengthy reply and although I edited the reply about a thousand times, I guess I missed this one.

Thanks for the correction.

05-12-2003, 08:04 AM	#1 (permalink)
Liquor Dealer Super Agitator Location: Just SW of Nowhere!!! In the good old US of A	George W. What kind of a man is George W Bush? How much power does he have? Is he as bad as some would like to make it appear? Is he really a moron, an imbecile as some would have you believe? Is he really on vacation more that he works? The following is my opinion and nothing else more than my opinion. I am going to state it as such and not substantiate a single damn thing I say with any quotes or sources. It really jerks my string when I hear people say that the President is on vacation more than he works - He is in New Mexico at this instance - he is on vacation and he is working. When he spent a few days in Texas he was on vacation - and he was working. If he chooses to just go on vacation and not work, he deserves it in my opinion. George Bush is 180 degrees away from William Jefferson Clinton and for that I am indeed grateful. He is a decent caring human being. He is exactly what he appears to be and nothing more. To me it is good that we have a president who is not a total phony. I disagree with a lot of what George W. Bush stands for but - at least we know what he stands for. To be specific I totally disagree with his stand on abortion. We are both entitled to our beliefs and views. George W. Bush is the most powerful man on Earth. The most powerful man on Earth. The most powerful man on Earth. I am not trying to overemphasize this. It is a statement of fact. Accept it as truth for a moment - With this power is he a moron? an imbecile? The President of the United States is in sole control of totally awesome power. Checks and balances are great but they take time! The discretionary power of the President of the United States far exceeds that of all the combined powers of the leaders of the EU and Great Britain. We are in the process of moving six carrier battle groups out of the waters surrounding Iraq. Six carrier groups - one carrier group is capable of unleashing more firepower than that of the total combined weaponry of WW ll. A single carrier is more than the total military capability of every nation on earth excepting three or four. And some of you still think he is a moron and an imbecile? George W. is a Texan - he makes few pretensions at being any thing else. So you don't like his choice of words at times - at least you do understand what he said. So you don't care for his efforts at diplomacy. He has made it clear - that is the job of his appointees - he is the commander-in-chief of the most awesome military in history. Thank God (even those of you who claim to be atheists) that he is not the moron and imbecile some of you claim him to be. __________________ Life isn't always a bowl of cherries, sometimes it's more like a jar of Jalapenos --- what you say or do today might burn your ass tomorrow!!! Last edited by Liquor Dealer; 05-12-2003 at 08:06 AM..

05-12-2003, 10:45 AM	#3 (permalink)
Daval Junkie Location: The True North Strong and Free!	Firstly, Even when the president is on vacation he is still working. That goes for any president. That job is 24/7 and there is no lying on a beach drinking rum punches. So I have no doubt he was still in complete control and fully informed during his vacation periods. I do not agree with the fact that his job is command and apointee's job is to act diplomatic. The president of any country is the ultimate diplomat and I think he definately gets a failing grade there. He is indeed the most powerful man in the world, and if he wanted to he could cause REAL chaos and destruction - but does not. He is not an evil man and I believe that he is doing what he feels is right. I just respectfully disagree with his politics and his methods. On some stances I actually agree with him. __________________ "It is impossible to obtain a conviction for sodomy from an English jury. Half of them don't believe that it can physically be done, and the other half are doing it." Winston Churchill

05-12-2003, 10:46 AM	#4 (permalink)
Liquor Dealer Super Agitator Location: Just SW of Nowhere!!! In the good old US of A	Sen. Robert C. Byrd yesterday criticized the "flamboyant showmanship" he said President Bush showed by declaring victory in Iraq from aboard USS Abraham Lincoln last week. Top Stories "It is an affront to the Americans killed or injured in Iraq for the president to exploit the trappings of war for the momentary spectacle of a speech," said Mr. Byrd, West Virginia Democrat. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "There was a time when patriotic Americans from both parties would have denounced any president who tried to take political advantage of his role as commander in chief. But that, it seems, was another country." ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Oh yeah! Their major complaint - the cost of the short ride to the carrier - he should have helicoptered out according to Byrd and Waxman - this came back to haunt them later when it was disclosed that the Greyhound operates at slightly less cost per hour than the helicopter they were bitchin' about. __________________ Life isn't always a bowl of cherries, sometimes it's more like a jar of Jalapenos --- what you say or do today might burn your ass tomorrow!!! Last edited by Liquor Dealer; 05-12-2003 at 10:48 AM..

05-12-2003, 05:27 PM	#6 (permalink)
The_Dude The GrandDaddy of them all! Location: Austin, TX	i have a big bias against him. he's very very too damn religious for my taste. that's the big strike against him for me. __________________ "Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

05-12-2003, 08:00 PM	#7 (permalink)
Glad-I-Ate-Her Junkie Location: 1 mile from Ground Zero	Preach it LD! glad __________________ I'm "Glad I Ate Her" because the payback was worth it!!

05-12-2003, 11:11 AM	#5 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	I agree, I really wish neither of the parties would waste our time with this kind of bickering. As soon as I saw the Dems jumping on this I was thinking, "Oh shit, here we go again..." One would hope they would have learned from the last election that people are wanting some leadership, not fingerpointing.

05-17-2003, 12:04 PM	#10 (permalink)
Macheath Junkie Location: Sydney, Australia	The issue of Bush's flight uniform that was mentioned in smooth's article disturbed me. It disturbed me in part because I remember in a discussion on TFP v3.0 a few months back, all of the American posters who proudly declared that no American President would ever breach Constitutional protocol by strutting around in military uniform. It feels like that is a non issue in today's America - that the twin precedents of ongoing war and top gun performance art photo ops will become more and more a part of what the Presidfency represents until they're no longer necessarily just photo ops, but something else. Of course despite all that, whitehouse.org had fun with it: http://www.whitehouse.org/news/2003/050103.asp

05-17-2003, 01:09 PM	#11 (permalink)
4thTimeLucky Psycho Location: 4th has left the building - goodbye folks	May I put to you a different interpretation of the man: *** Bush is a man of limited intelligence and even more limited application, whose few successes have been handed to him. He is a failed businessman, a failed soldier and a failed father. He has been arrested three times and is a former alcoholic. His policies have continually taken from the poor, the sick and the environment with one hand and given to the rich and businesses with the other. Are these the signs of a great man? Are these the signs of a "decent caring human being"? Having powerful carrier battle groups and smart advisers does not make you a good man or a good president. You could put anyone or anything in the presidential chair and it would still have powerful carrier battle groups and smart advisers. Is he lazy? Sure as hell. Look at his CV. It is filled to the brim with multi-year gaps and periods of coasting. He takes more holidays than almost any other President and has met criticism for the number of hours he works and his lack of attention to/comprehension of the reports he is given to read. Now I have nothing against recovered alcoholics, people with wayward daughters, the lazy, the illiterate or the mollycoddled. We all have faults and I love Homer Simpson as much as the next person. Nonethless, I want the President of America - the most powerful man on Earth - to be enthusiastic about politics, hard working, inquisitive about knowledge, well travelled, intelligent, quick on the uptake, comfortable with explaining complex issues, diplomatic and 'of the people'. People want a President who has worked their way to where they are and embodies the American Dream. GW Bush embodies the American Mid-Afternoon Snooze. *** Would the real George Bush please stand up. __________________ I've been 4thTimeLucky, you've been great. Goodnight and God bless!

05-17-2003, 02:49 PM	#12 (permalink)
archer2371 Sarge of Blood Gulch Red Outpost Number One Location: On the front lines against our very enemy	Ok, number one, Cheney has nothing to do with that post-war Iraq deal that his former, notice the word FORMER, company got. Whenever you enter a public office, you are required to put any private earnings into a blind trust and to quit your position of influence in the company that you participated in. So let's just settle that right now. Number two, where the hell in the Constitution does it say, "The President MAY NOT WEAR MILITARY CLOTHING"? nowhere in the Constitution does it say that. Sure it may have been a Top Gun move, however, when you're flying in an F/A-18 Hornet or any other supersonic fighter, you must wear a flight suit, it's part of the safety precautions for the pilot and the navigator and/or passenger. Number three, Bush is not an idiot, you can not graduate from Harvard and be an idiot, I don't care if you got a C or an A, you are an intelligent and hard working person if you graduate from Harvard. Sure, Bush speaks very plainly, he may not use grandiose words, but he gets his point accross. You want to talk about failed father and soldier? Look at Mr. Draft Dodger/I Haven't Had Sex With My Wife In Years Clinton. Do you realize how traumatizing that must have been for Chelsea Clinton? She probably still does not forgive him. Sure, Bush's twins may be wild, but so are millions of other teenagers. If you disagree with his policies, fine, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but if all you have to bitch about is his personal life and the fact that he's a "what you see is what you get" kind of guy, then say you want a President who is enthusiastic about politics, then you need to check yourself. __________________ "This ain't no Ice Cream Social!" "Hey Grif, Chupathingy...how bout that? I like it...got a ring to it." "I have no earthly idea what it is I just saw, or what this place is, or where in the hell O'Malley is! My only choice is to blame Grif for coming up with such a flawed plan. Stupid, stupid Grif."

05-17-2003, 03:08 PM	#13 (permalink)
SLM3 Insane	Doesn't Cheney still receive money from his former company? Bush did graduate from Harvard, but I'm curious as to how he got in in the first place. He couldn't even get into his state school, yet he was accepted to Harvard. Interesting. Failed soldier? http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/document.htm

05-17-2003, 08:04 PM	#16 (permalink)
jsn117 Tilted Location: LA	don't like him? vote him out of office. yes, it really is that simple

05-18-2003, 08:18 AM	#23 (permalink)
archer2371 Sarge of Blood Gulch Red Outpost Number One Location: On the front lines against our very enemy	Ok in response to the "shady reasons for the flight suit" it is a safety precaution because of the fact that anything can go wrong when flying in an aircraft, if he had to eject, over the sea mind you, would a Brooks Brothers suit keep him warmer than the cold sea around him, or would a military issue flight keep him warm. Granted they could have brought in Marine One, but does anybody know exactly how far out the Lincoln was from shore? or from the United States for that matter. And on that military service record thing, did you read all of those documents or did you just look at the titles and make your own conclusions? If Bush was anything BUT Honorably Discharged then I would agree with what you were saying that he was a "failed" soldier. However he was honorably discharged because he wanted to attend Harvard Business School. Something that is protected by the G.I. Bill of Rights, that if you want to attend college instead of the military, that's fine with them. So he got a penalty for "bad attendance" a lot of people got one of those, heck in school everyone gets at least one detention for being tardy. Nowhere in those documents did I find any proof as to the statements that he is a failed soldier. If you could come up with some written statements by his COs that say something to the extent of "he was not a good soldier, he shouldn't have even been in the military, etc. etc." then I'll believe you, but if all you have to present is a bunch of half-readable papers that don't really say anything, then my convictions about Bush are still intact. Also, it was considered a tradition or a "very strict etiquette" to serve only two terms in office as POTUS. Did not the great Franklin Delano Roosevelt break this "very strict etiquette"? And not everybody will understand grandiose words, the President's job is to connect with the common people, those who may not understand what colloquial, grandiose, or other such words may mean. This is what Bush does, he speaks the colloquialisms of the common people. I mean, what's better, a President that speaks above everybody's heads except for a few, or a President that can tell everyone what he means? And may I recall Winston Churchill, who quite frequently ended sentences with a preposition. Like I said before, if you want to debate his policies fine, I don't mind that, but don't conform to the scandal hungry masses that will pounce upon every single thing that Bush will do wrong. If you want to debate his stance on abortion, go ahead, if you want to say that he's robbing from the poor and giving to the rich, you can do that too. But it's also considered a very strict etiquette to not judge a person you have never met. __________________ "This ain't no Ice Cream Social!" "Hey Grif, Chupathingy...how bout that? I like it...got a ring to it." "I have no earthly idea what it is I just saw, or what this place is, or where in the hell O'Malley is! My only choice is to blame Grif for coming up with such a flawed plan. Stupid, stupid Grif."

05-18-2003, 11:12 AM	#25 (permalink)
archer2371 Sarge of Blood Gulch Red Outpost Number One Location: On the front lines against our very enemy	Ok, makes it a little more believable, however it does say that he logged a hell of a lot of hours and days for active duty in May, June, and July. It is most likely true that they let him slide on those things, which shouldn't have been done, but it was. But like I said before, can we please just move on to debating the man's policies and not his personal record. __________________ "This ain't no Ice Cream Social!" "Hey Grif, Chupathingy...how bout that? I like it...got a ring to it." "I have no earthly idea what it is I just saw, or what this place is, or where in the hell O'Malley is! My only choice is to blame Grif for coming up with such a flawed plan. Stupid, stupid Grif."

05-18-2003, 07:10 PM	#29 (permalink)
Leander Crazy Location: The Land o'Toxins and Wudder	As far as Cheney's involvement with Halliburton post his "election", shouldn't we understand his involvement with the administration's energy policy? This is the same policy that arose out of meetings that the American public is not allowed to know anything about. (Thank God for executive privilege). These are the same meetings that Enron execs attended to "help" form this administrations energy policies. On another front, Bush originally graduated from Yale, the same school as his Daddy. For the Harvard MBA, would you screw with a kid whose father is the head of the CIA? And for what he learned in the MBA program at Harvard, how the hell did he fail at business so many times? If you want to point at owning a Major League Baseball team as an example of succeding, isn't the hallmark of a success winning a championship the litmus test? He didn't do it. Hell the team didn't even get a new ballpark during his stewardship. If the freaking Phillies can get a stadium, then the Four Horsemen of the Apocolypse must be trotting down my street. There are so things to discuss with G.W. it is hard to even concentrate on what is important. An unnecessary jet flight? Not important. The screwing of America in toto? Very important __________________ Just me and God, watching Scotty die..

05-18-2003, 11:32 PM	#30 (permalink)
Mael Banned Location: The Hell I Created.	I like how a few of the posts have said that we should focus on the policies of Dubya rather than the person. I think that's assinine. His past, his character is very important. A lot of his policies are going to be based on his character. His being a "recovered" alcoholic, shows a lack of character. He may no longer drink, but I still wouldhave reservations about putting my child in the car with him. He seems to have replaced alcohol with God. And unfortunatly, that is going to play a huge role in his policies. Was he a failed soldier? I think so. First off, records show that he was not released to go to school. Second of all, records show that he refused to take mandatory drug tests, which to me would constitute refusing a direct order, and third, choosing to join the Air National Gaurd or whatever it was, instead of joining up with the army during war time, shows that he's a coward. Flying to the USS Abraham Lincoln was nothing more than PR to make him look like a triumphant General returning home from war. I think it's sad. And to the person who, in the seemingly normal knee-jerk response to someone criticizing Bush, invoked mention of the holy blowjob, that is also, in my opinion, inappropriate. His getting a BJ from a fugly may have traumatized Chealsea, but i think the real disturbing thing was the fact that something that was private, not of public record at all. These things mentioned about Bush are public record, they aren't something that he could hide if he wants. And to me, drunk driving is a hell of a lot worse than getting a BJ'er since, last time i checked, getting a BJ didn't kill anyone. Many politicians, and a lot of other people, cheat on their spouses. Is it right? I don't think so. But if your marriage has gone south, but not ended, i think it's understandable. And while a BJ is understandable, half of what Bush says isn't... I'm gonna close with a quote, which I got from "They Misunderestimated Me! The very Curious Language of George W. Bush" day calender. For the day of March 6, this quote taken from 10/11/00, during a presidential debate, he said... "I mean, there needs to be a wholesale effort against racial profiling, which is illiterate children." Huh?

05-19-2003, 11:15 AM	#32 (permalink)
WhoaitsZ Crazy Location: right behind you...	I wish I knew and understood more of how our governmant works. I do, however, feel i have a somewhat firm grasp on some things His Shrubary has done... Pros: He was highly agitated 9-11. He didn't ever look hurried and he spoke to some real civilians (albeit on camera). He is honest. (or so i hope.) Cons: he has no grasp of real politics. or at least not on diplomacy. he has becomes best friends with China. (I'm sorry, NOTHING makes being friends with nazis okay. period.) He constantly instructs Israel on how to act while they are getting attacked daily, yet at the same time we get attacked once in years and he acts like he will DESTROY these evil suicide bombers and their leaders. fuckin Hypocrit He couldn't remember Cheney's name when he announced who would be VP. Now, I do give him props on that everybody forgets things, but my God.. its almost like saying "I take thee.. um. susan? as my wife". He threw temper tamtrums untill the UN and our congress gave him the Okay to go to Iraq due to those obviously hidden in plain sight Weapons of Mass Destruction. oh no.. there are none! whoops! sorry! do you guys nto realize dick cheney had an electric bill going over 300k a month around 2001? (i believe it was summer of 2001, i could be mistaken). he paid $15k on it.... $275k for his POWER bill. that would totally cover two, maybe three families for a year. oh and remember Californias black outs? whoops! i do not believe in hanging a man with no evidence. and i hate all the cynics who latch on to -every-little-thing- but Bush.. this man is evil. I'm sorry to say it, but... he's evil. it sucks. hopefully in 2004 the votes will be counted properly and he won't win. Maybe the media can STFU awhile... good luck on that, though. -despairing-

05-19-2003, 01:05 PM	#33 (permalink)
Uocom Upright	Hey, Hitler was sure about his beliefs! How can anyone be so blind as to not notice the difference between the state of our nation under Clinton Administration when compared to it's current state? September 11th is no longer a valid excuse.

05-19-2003, 02:01 PM	#34 (permalink)
archer2371 Sarge of Blood Gulch Red Outpost Number One Location: On the front lines against our very enemy	Let me start with one thing, I don't care about the sexual indescrepencies of Clinton. I care about the fact that he lied to the American People and a Grand Jury, which is perjury and obstruction of justice (mind you, the same charges Richard Nixon was brought up on). And you keep bringing up the fact that "oh, that carrier stuff was all PR crap" CLINTON DID IT TOO, except, was he EVER part of the military? NO! He hightailed it to Canada to smoke dope and smoke crack. Ok, if the man is inept at diplomacy, how the heck did he negotiate that very high tension situation with China and the recon plane? Huh? Can anyone give me the answer on that one? You bring up he whined about the WMD, that are in fact there, to the UN until they let him do it. He could have just sent the military straight to Iraq and done what has been done right from the get-go. Instead he went through the proper channels, knowing that France, Russia, and China would oppose him all the way. Ok, if he can be honest and evil at the same time, how is that possible, it doesn't go together, it just doesn't. He's a man of God, which I am thankful for, which will instill moral reasoning in his policies now, which I am also thankful for. And those WMD are there, trust me. Granted, he isn't the greatest orator in the world, but he tries ok, and he's getting better, there have been fewer slipups than there used to be. And the thing about the Texas Rangers, the Rangers will forever be a crappy team, because management doesn't realize that THEY NEED PITCHERS. But I digress. You guys are creating a double standard here, ok, I agree with you now, Bush could have rode in on a chopper, but he chose to fly co-pilot (a position that is required to be wearing a flight suit, check with any pilot, it's standard procedure). WTF is the big deal? Do you dare bring up something like that when Clinton continually showed no respect for the military whatsoever. Big flippin deal that he was the POTUS that deployed the military the most times ever in the history of the Oval Office, he misused them, and didn't let the correct people run things and thus, we had debacles like Mogadishu. So don't even frickin bring up the so called "military failures" of Bush, without thinking about the military screw-up that Clinton was. If your going to bring up the blemishes of Bush (there are, he's human) then don't double standard it and say it was allright for Clinton to do the same thing. And I believe 9/11 is a valid excuse, because it has hurt the airline companies so much (all the major corporations are declaring Chapter 11), consumers don't really want to spend, and ppl are still reacting from the huge loss of the dot com one hit wonders, that's what's responsible for the bad economy, was everyone putting stock in the flash in the pan internet companies. After the '29 and '89 Crashes, you think we'd learn, so that's no fault of the Administration's (Democrat or Republican). So don't try that card, not to mention the fact that for most of the Clinton years, the DJIA was at about the level it is now. __________________ "This ain't no Ice Cream Social!" "Hey Grif, Chupathingy...how bout that? I like it...got a ring to it." "I have no earthly idea what it is I just saw, or what this place is, or where in the hell O'Malley is! My only choice is to blame Grif for coming up with such a flawed plan. Stupid, stupid Grif."