The Bush Thread

[StorminNorman]

While I'd doubt it due to his character, and unlike George I actually believe he had a brain, it is certainly possible.

Power does weird things to people, especially when they are mentally screwed up to begin with like killing frogs for entertainment as a kid and experiencing loss like a death of a close family member with no-one to turn to to deal with the tragedy. I'd definitely consider George cheating a possibility since his dad has been saving him constantly for years. When you grow up learning you don't get to face consequences all your life corruption comes that much easier.

But see, you are doing this ENTIRELY based on what you WANT to have happened. Not on what did happen. Its irrelevant to any serious conversation for the matter.

 

[The Major]

But see, you are doing this ENTIRELY based on what you WANT to have happened. Not on what did happen.

I didn't say it did happen I said it was likely. Considering George's behavior this isn't a difficult conclusion to leap to.

You seem to under the impression I'm making up the fact George killed frogs as a kid, that he wasn't seriously hurt when his close relative died when he was a child, that his family would allow him to see a therapist if he had trouble dealing with the loss (this is conjecture on my part though considering which family were talking about I wouldn't be surprised at all) and that his relationship with his father was messed up.

Its irrelevant to any serious conversation for the matter.

It's a theoretical discussion. I can't prove it but it sure does make sense for how he graduated.

The elephant in the room is Skull and Bones. You haven't replied to anything I said concerning them. Bush's father was one of them IIRC and he was the director of the CIA. Either would have been enough to allow George to graduate without leaving any trace behind if his dad were inclined to use them to help his son in an Ivy league school.

 

[The Overlord]

LOL, I am so glad you edited your post. So glad, because see, this is fun. It also proves my point entirely in a way that I can not simply do with my own words. Thank you for providing the perfect example, you could not of done it better.

You see, people hate George W. Bush SOOOOO much that it's not simply enough that he was a flawed President who made great mistakes in his Presidency (I never argued this point, it should be noted) - he HAS to be more. He HAS to be an idiot. He HAS to be a self serving *******. He HAS to be worse than Clinton in every way.

Facts? Irrelevant.

Like you care about facts, you treat your pet theories like facts, you don't have the basis to lecture anyone about facts. You only believe in facts that fit your pet theories. You have so far ignored facts that contradict your pet theories.

For some reason people like The Overlord and apparently The Major think Bush HAS to be an idiot, a real idiot. Not just a poor leader - someone intellectually lacking. Someone with no redeemable or praise worthy feature. So in order to PROVE this point they dismiss the credit of IVY LEAGUE SCHOOLS (to quote The Overlord "Ivy League Schools are a joke").

I was being provocative genius. That's what that statement was about.

Let bring up Czar Nicholas the II again, I'm pretty sure he went to one of the top universities in Russia, did that mean he was competent leader?

I never said Bush was irredeemable, I'm saying overall he was a really bad President, that's why comparing him to Czar Nicholas II and not some monster, Czar Nicholas was not irredeemable, but he was a very bad leader who brought ruin to his country.

 

[StorminNorman]

That's highly debatable.

He was incredibly popular and was greatly respected across both party lines in Texas. Its hardly debatable.

What was his grade point average, what was his biggest accomplishment in school? Him just going to that school isn't in itself impressive, what he did there is. I respect actual feats of intelligence, not just name dropping about which school he went to.

Bush was an average student, he was a C student. Again, he preformed better academically than either Kerry or Gore. His impressive feats of intelligence include earning his degree from Yale and then obtaining an MBA from Harvard.

Perhaps I phrased that wrong, let me try again.

Thats all I asked the first time.

The point I'm making is about the overall picture about said individuals: Clinton may have been corrupt, but Bush had more overall faults in that he was corrupt, at least had very poor judgment and was far more ideological then Clinton, that's why I think he is a worse President, Bush had more strikes against him, personality, then Clinton did.

I think Clinton was far more corrupt than Bush, I think Bush was far more ideologically extreme than Clinton and I think both were very guilty of poor judgment as President.

What matters ultimately is end results, who left America in better shape for the next President?

And I believe Bush's actions as President were better for the country than Clinton's. While Bush is leaving office with America in a worse position than it was in 2000 (though Clinton gave Bush a recession too), I, again, think a lot of the problems economically have roots in Clinton, not Bush's, Presidency.

I think I have higher standards of what makes a good leader then you do. Call me an elitist, if you will.

I think George Washington was a great leader, even though he had little formal education. I think we have many great leaders in the Military that intellectually do not match up to many lawyers.

That's not what people were concerned about though, they were worried about the aftermath, not the war itself and that was not addressed for 3 years, how is that smart?

At the start of the war people were concerned about our battle plan to defeat Saddam. That was a success, a great success.

After removing Saddam, we had to deal with Iraq. With the battle plan no longer important, people now cared about this. This was a spectacular mistake.

They are two different pieces of a puzzle. They just happened to be right next to each other.

I never said he always wrong about everything, just that overall he did a bad job.

You say those are just opinions, fine, let's test them. I can name a ton of testable ways Bush was a fool (not having a plan to deal to deal with insurgency in Iraq for 3 years, appointing morons like Michael Brown), what truly intelligent thing has Bush done?

I assumed if you were looking for ways Bush did right, you thought he was wrong across the board.

Perhaps not, but I dispute your theory in the first place.

I figured you did but, again, this is not what you initially responded.

I'm not treating theories like they are facts, you are.

Of course you are, but I am not faulting you for it. If you really want to have a colorful debate you have to blur the lines between fact and opinion.

The problem is your treated your theory like a fact, when it clearly is a theory, that is a logical fallacy of the highest order. You had gall to assume I hadn't researched this myself and had the arrogance to assume that because I disagreed with theory meant that I was some sort of dullard.

Now see, this where you are exactly correct. My response was intentionally snarky and arrogant because I am so confident in my theory.

That is vexing and I'm calling you on it. I hate these kinds of attitudes, there is nothing worse then unwarranted arrogance.

But see, we are both guilty of this. I simply accept it as being necessary while you seem to want to imply that I am alone in this.

Note that my article was from the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, why would the guys you posted know where about this policy the government department that deals with how the government spends its money? I mean who is a bigger authority here?

Just because the Government states that the Government is not responsible for the economic crisis does not mean that the Government is not responsible for the economic crisis. The government is wrong all the time.

Besides I can easily find other articles disputing your "facts", I just posted the one I found first. That's the point, if I can place reasonable doubt and I think an article disputing your claims from Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System counts.

But I am not making a case in a court of law, I am debating my opinion of Clinton and George W. Bush.

Face it, you gambled and lost, be a man and admit you were wrong. You presented a theory as a fact and had the gall to lecture about it, that is just rude and ignorant.

It was rude but not ignorant. I hardly gambled. The delicious irony and humor is that you are now doing with a straight face what I was doing with a slight smirk. My theory is that the CRA is a major factor in the cause of the economic crisis of today - your theory is the opposite. But you are now treating yours as fact.

Too bad Nixon is still pretty disliked and Reagan was pretty well liked at the end of his second term.

Disliked by the people of today, but not entirely by scholars. As the population that went through Nixon dies out and the next population is taught by the scholars that are kinder the opinion of Nixon will rise.

The fact is your examples are old and dated, not suitable to the new information era. Nowadays people can look at bush bloopers on youtube, it will be harder for him to recover.

The fact is my examples have to be old and dated because we are gaging how history remembers a President. Only until we take a step back can we take a real look at a historical event like a Presidency.

You are living in the past, your examples are dated, they do not reflect the modern times.

If we were debating the success of Truman in 1953 you would be saying the same thing.

 

[StorminNorman]

Like you care about facts, you treat your pet theories like facts, you don't have the basis to lecture anyone about facts. You only believe in facts that fit your pet theories. You have so far ignored facts that contradict your pet theories.

I haven't ignored any facts, actually.

Let bring up Czar Nicholas the II again, I'm pretty sure he went to one of the top universities in Russia, did that mean he was competent leader?

It's funny because I believe I have stated to your disagreement that education and intelligence are neither a guarantee nor a disqualification from competency as a leader.

 

[The Major]

It's funny because I believe I have stated to your disagreement that education and intelligence are neither a guarantee nor a disqualification from competency as a leader.

What stupid leaders are competent or succeeded in their field?

It depends by what you mean education. People can learn without going to a school and there are many factors in whether education can work with a person who uses those learned skills. What skills has Bush used since leaving Yale that allowed him to succeed?

You're severely under-estimating how vital intelligence is to people. Humanity would still be living in caves if we didn't have smart people.

 

[StorminNorman]

I didn't say it did happen I said it was likely.

LOL. But again, to say it was LIKELY when you have nothing but your own agenda, your own blinded vision on the man as evidence of it is intellectually flawed and dishonest. If you think it was LIKELY that Bush cheated in college when there is nothing to indicate there is then you have no business debating serious issues with intelligent people. You can't debate with that type of lunacy. Its like debating race relations in America with someone that thinks blacks are inferior to whites biologically.

Considering George's behavior this isn't a difficult conclusion to leap to.

You seem to under the impression I'm making up the fact George killed frogs as a kid, that he wasn't seriously hurt when his close relative died when he was a child, that his family would allow him to see a therapist if he had trouble dealing with the loss (this is conjecture on my part though considering which family were talking about I wouldn't be surprised at all) and that his relationship with his father was messed up.

None of it in the least indicates that he cheated in college.

It's a theoretical discussion. I can't prove it but it sure does make sense for how he graduated.

No, you know what makes far more sense? That he...well...you know...did the work.

The elephant in the room is Skull and Bones. You haven't replied to anything I said concerning them. Bush's father was one of them IIRC and he was the director of the CIA. Either would have been enough to allow George to graduate without leaving any trace behind if his dad were inclined to use them to help his son in an Ivy league school.

Again...

GEORGE H. W. BUSH WAS NOT DIRECTOR OF THE CIA UNTIL BUSH HAD GRADUATED COLLEGE.

 

[StorminNorman]

What stupid leaders are competent or succeeded in their field?

Washington was a darn spiffy leader but wasn't a brilliant mind, but a fantastic leader.

I bet you can find tons of people the military whose I.Q. would not compete with someone like Jimmy Carter's.

 

[redfirebird2008]

Wow, this is an astoundingly silly argument the two of you have gotten yourselves into. Keep it up. It's very entertaining. t:

 

[StorminNorman]

The fact that I actually have to defend Bush's collegiate success (which I have never over hyped) against baseless accusations of bribery, cheating and fraud is baffling.

 

[The Major]

Washington was a darn spiffy leader but wasn't a brilliant mind, but a fantastic leader.

Why was he a fantastic leader to you?

I bet you can find tons of people the military whose I.Q. would not compete with someone like Jimmy Carter's.

Now you're under-estimating the military. Not only is what they do incredibly hard work that requires taxing their minds and bodies to the limit simultaneously but every soldier needs to intelligent at what they do whether it be in unarmed combat, figuring out strategies against enemies and using weapons. This type of thinking can be both book smart and street smart. You know why it's important for people in the military to be smart? They die if they are stupid on the battlefield.

 

[Paradoxium]

LOL at Overlord who refers to the Federal ****ing Reserve as a source.

The CRA is not a main source to the crisis, but it contributed. Bush and Rove had a hand in it too with something similar conceptually to the CRA (placating latinos into the Republicans). But this is not really that important....

....the point is, one of the BIGGEST contributors to this gigantic cluster**** of a economic mess is the god damn Federal Reserve itself. How the **** do you think they lower interest rates? What do you guys think the ramifications are?

 

[StorminNorman]

Why was he a fantastic leader to you?

The guy's example pretty much dictated the operation of the country until the Civil War if not later. The man also Washington was unquestionably one of the best President's in American history.

Now you're under-estimating the military. Not only is what they do incredibly hard work that requires taxes their minds and bodies to the limit simultaneously but every soldier needs to intelligent at what they do whether it be in unarmed combat, figuring out strategies against enemies or using weapons. These types of thinking can be both book smart and street smart. You know why it's important for people in the military to be smart? They die if they are stupid in the battlefield.

No, I have nothing but respect for the military. The military is full of people with more common sense than anyone in Washington - that being said most are not scholars. Its a different type of thinking than the type registered on the I.Q. - when I use the word "intelligence" I am using it in a scholastically manner.

 

[The Major]

The guy's example pretty much dictated the operation of the country until the Civil War if not later. The man also Washington was unquestionably one of the best President's in American history.

He must have been pretty smart if he could operate the country competently.

No, I have nothing but respect for the military. The military is full of people with more common sense than anyone in Washington - that being said most are not scholars. Its a different type of thinking than the type registered on the I.Q. - when I use the word "intelligence" I am using it in a scholastically manner.

When I talk about intelligence I don't just mean scholars. Intelligence isn't limited just to that definition. The military infantry may not be full of Einsteins but they are extremely intelligent in getting their job done. That's why I consider them smart.

 

[StorminNorman]

When I talk about intelligence I don't just mean scholars. Intelligence isn't limited just to that definition. The military infantry may not be full of Einsteins but they are extremely intelligent in getting their job done. That's why I consider them smart.

Fine then - what you call being "extremely intelligent in getting their job done" I call being "extremely skilled at their job". Its a matter of logistics.

BTW, I am curious - are you willing to admit that the FBI identified the Anthrax Killer?

 

[The Major]

Fine then - what you call being "extremely intelligent in getting their job done" I call being "extremely skilled at their job". Its a matter of logistics.

Without intelligence there is no skill.

BTW, I am curious - are you willing to admit that the FBI identified the Anthrax Killer?

I'll have to get back to you on that. I've been meaning to post a reply to your original post but I keep getting distracted by talking about other things in this thread.

 

[StorminNorman]

I'll have to get back to you on that. I've been meaning to post a reply to your original post but I keep getting distracted by talking about other things in this thread.

 

[Sebastos]

Bush who? As of today, President Obama.

 

[dnno1]

 

[Sebastos]

 

[The Overlord]

He was incredibly popular and was greatly respected across both party lines in Texas. Its hardly debatable.
.

Want to bet I can opinions and articles on the net that suggest otherwise?

Bush was an average student, he was a C student. Again, he preformed better academically than either Kerry or Gore. His impressive feats of intelligence include earning his degree from Yale and then obtaining an MBA from Harvard..

I measure intelligence not just in terms of education, but in terms of actual accomplishments and I think Bush competence has had more hits then misses. If someone has a great education, but can't run a business, how useful are they?

I think Clinton was far more corrupt than Bush, I think Bush was far more ideologically extreme than Clinton and I think both were very guilty of poor judgment as President.



And I believe Bush's actions as President were better for the country than Clinton's. While Bush is leaving office with America in a worse position than it was in 2000 (though Clinton gave Bush a recession too), I, again, think a lot of the problems economically have roots in Clinton, not Bush's, Presidency.

These are merely your pet theories, not facts.

The thing people will remember is how bad the state of affairs is at the end of the President's term, that may not be fair.

I think George Washington was a great leader, even though he had little formal education. I think we have many great leaders in the Military that intellectually do not match up to many lawyers.

Of course I have seen no evidence that Bush is a military genius either.

At the start of the war people were concerned about our battle plan to defeat Saddam. That was a success, a great success.

After removing Saddam, we had to deal with Iraq. With the battle plan no longer important, people now cared about this. This was a spectacular mistake.

They are two different pieces of a puzzle. They just happened to be right next to each other.

Considering the amount of political capital Bush was asking for in regards to this war, Bush not having all the pieces of the puzzle put together right away, means that people were going to lose faith in this project in short order and that's what happened. The war becoming unpopular was his fault and only his fault, getting his **** together 3 years later is too little, too late, he missed his chance.

I assumed if you were looking for ways Bush did right, you thought he was wrong across the board..

Well its impossible to be wrong, all the time, that's just silly.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Of course you are, but I am not faulting you for it. If you really want to have a colorful debate you have to blur the lines between fact and opinion.

I never presented my theories as indisputable facts, you did, you treating your theory as indisputable, that's what I didn't like. I hate that kinda of attitude, its self rightous and arrogant and don't care if it comes from a left or right winger.

Now see, this where you are exactly correct. My response was intentionally snarky and arrogant because I am so confident in my theory.

But its not indisputable like you claimed it was, that makes your original statement arrogant in a unwarrented manner and I don't care that.

You actively insulted me and called me an ignortant child, because I disagreed with it, you made it petty and personal, that is why I don't like your statements, that is a childish attitude.

But see, we are both guilty of this. I simply accept it as being necessary while you seem to want to imply that I am alone in this.

I didn't start with the personal insults because of it though.

Just because the Government states that the Government is not responsible for the economic crisis does not mean that the Government is not responsible for the economic crisis. The government is wrong all the time..

That departemnt was controlled by Bish's officals when that report was released, still think your theory is an indisputable fact?

But I am not making a case in a court of law, I am debating my opinion of Clinton and George W. Bush.



It was rude but not ignorant. I hardly gambled. The delicious irony and humor is that you are now doing with a straight face what I was doing with a slight smirk. My theory is that the CRA is a major factor in the cause of the economic crisis of today - your theory is the opposite. But you are now treating yours as fact.

I never said it was, when did I say that, you did say it.

Frankly if you are going to be rude like, you better be damn sure your theory is fact, which it clearly isn't its theory.

You want me to treat you in an civil manner, act in a civil way, learn some manners and then I wil stop harping on this.

Disliked by the people of today, but not entirely by scholars. As the population that went through Nixon dies out and the next population is taught by the scholars that are kinder the opinion of Nixon will rise.



The fact is my examples have to be old and dated because we are gaging how history remembers a President. Only until we take a step back can we take a real look at a historical event like a Presidency.



If we were debating the success of Truman in 1953 you would be saying the same thing.

Again those are before age of information, now every blooper is on the net forever, that's why I don't think Bush will recover.

 

[dnno1]

You don't know how long I have waited to do that.

So much for Dick Cheney. He's going to the Inauguration in a wheel chair.

 

[Sebastos]

^ Who would have thought he'd end up like that in the end.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out George!

 

[Malice]

I dont care for Bush that much....I just cant understand why more people blame Congress, who is where the true power lies....or should...
They haven't done anything..

 

[The Major]

LOL. But again, to say it was LIKELY when you have nothing but your own agenda, your own blinded vision on the man as evidence of it is intellectually flawed and dishonest.

Says the guy who was conned by a man who can't say under-estimated.

If you think it was LIKELY that Bush cheated in college when there is nothing to indicate there is then you have no business debating serious issues with intelligent people. You can't debate with that type of lunacy.
Its like debating race relations in America with someone that thinks blacks are inferior to whites biologically.

I've backed up my side of the argument with more evidence then you have.

Have you actually paid attention to Bush's character at all? He isn't a person who does things because he wants to help people.

None of it in the least indicates that he cheated in college.

It does show a past that could lead into it very easily. Is what I described sound like mentally healthy person to you? He still had other resources the average fratboy didn't. His father owned his own oil company, was incredibly wealthy and held massive influence in politics. Still more then enough to help his son in college.

No, you know what makes far more sense? That he...well...you know...did the work.

I disagree.

Again...

GEORGE H. W. BUSH WAS NOT DIRECTOR OF THE CIA UNTIL BUSH HAD GRADUATED COLLEGE.

Then it could be the other option. That's why I said he could have used two things. George H W Bush still had the resources to get that done.