OT: If You Didn't Hate Bush Before

[Swaggs]

How can you possibly justify his pre-empting Thursday Night's Primetime lineup!?!?

Making me miss Survivor, the O.C., and potentially the Apprentice should be grounds for his removal from office. Now I will have to re-juggle my VCR and Tivo.

[Schmidty]

Dude! Bush is on??????? I'm there, yo!!!!!!!!!!!!

[MrBug708]

530 is primetime?

[TLK]

It looks like they just moved this weeks episode of The O.C., to next week..... not that I was worried about it.... :)

[terpkristin]

What's the dumbfuck talking about?
I fear that if I try to watch it, I'll start throwing things at my tv

/tk

[Neuqua]

I have never hated this man more than I do now!!!

[gottimd]

He is talking about the next release from Solecismic, and the date it will be released.

[Schmidty]

What's the dumbfuck talking about?
I fear that if I try to watch it, I'll start throwing things at my tv

/tk

I can tell you're an open-minded person.

[NoMyths]

Evidently we're making progress. Took a load off my mind.

[Swaggs]

Bush is deliberately trying to keep Ryan and Marissa apart.

I think impeachment is in order. If this spills past 9 o'clock, I think Trump will have my back.

[EagleFan]

I can tell you're an open-minded person.

as open minded as a terp can be.

[Galaxy]

Trump to Bush: "You're Fired"!

[Galaxy]

What's the dumbfuck talking about?
I fear that if I try to watch it, I'll start throwing things at my tv

/tk
You can't understand Bush, but what if it was Kerry? I would be confused more then ever if he was elected and speaking.

[terpkristin]

WOAH!
Now what's with the personal attacks here? I said BUSH was a dumbfuck. I was NOT extending it to all Republicans. I wasn't attacking anyone here personally. If we REALLY want to get into THIS kind of a fight, bring it on, but sheesh, I'd rather not do it so lay off. Let's face it, you really don't want to get beat by a girl.

/tk

[VPI97]

I've always liked bush.

[EagleFan]

Survivor will still be on, just later. Not sure how to address that soap opera watching female side of you that cares abuot the OC though. ;)

[terpkristin]

You can't understand Bush, but what if it was Kerry? I would be confused more then ever if he was elected and speaking.
You apparently DO want to bring it.
If it were Kerry, he wouldn't be audacious enough to come on national tv when he has absolutely NOTHING to say.

/tk

[EagleFan]

WOAH!
Now what's with the personal attacks here? I said BUSH was a dumbfuck. I was NOT extending it to all Republicans. I wasn't attacking anyone here personally. If we REALLY want to get into THIS kind of a fight, bring it on, but sheesh, I'd rather not do it so lay off. Let's face it, you really don't want to get beat by a girl.

/tk

calm down there missy. just kidding. I'll place the smilie this time ---> ;)

[Galaxy]

Who-hoo, the hair of Trump still gets air.

[gottimd]

You apparently DO want to bring it.
If it were Kerry, he wouldn't be audacious enough to come on national tv when he has absolutely NOTHING to say.

/tk
OH Its already been Broughten! :eek:

Lets Go Terps!! :D

[Schmidty]

You apparently DO want to bring it.
If it were Kerry, he wouldn't be audacious enough to come on national tv when he has absolutely NOTHING to say.

/tk

Wow. You really "brought it".

Har! :)

[larrymcg421]

Bush is deliberately trying to keep Ryan and Marissa apart.
Now I wish I had voted for him.

[Fritz]

someone needs some bon bons and a week in the box

[Schmidty]

someone needs some bon bons and a week in the box

that's what my I tell my wife, but she doesn't think I have the stamina. :(

[Joe]

Wow. You really "brought it".

Har! :)


She brought it like John Gilchrist. :eek:

[Galaxy]

that's what my I tell my wife, but she doesn't think I have the stamina. :(

:eek:

[terpkristin]

Hey, somebody made a comment, I made a logical retort.
There was no need to take anything any farther.

And good riddance to Gilchrist.

/tk

[Schmidty]

Hey, somebody made a comment, I made a logical retort.
There was no need to take anything any farther.

And good riddance to Gilchrist.

/tk

Logic or assumption? I'm not even a Republican. I wouldn't vote for Bush today given the option. I wouldn't vote for Kerry either, but that's another matter. You made a close-minded comment, I made a logical retort. :)

I'll go back to my box now.

[terpkristin]

Logic or assumption? I'm not even a Republican. I wouldn't vote for Bush today given the option. I wouldn't vote for Kerry either, but that's another matter. You made a close-minded comment, I made a logical retort. :)

I'll go back to my box now.
See, this is the problem. My original statement, effecitvely "Bush = dumbfuck" wasn't a close-minded comment. It was a comment of opinion. Now if I'd made the generalization about Republicans in general, that's another story. But in and of itself, it was a statement of frustration and saying that he's stupid (in my opinion). SO EITHER WAY, it doesn't reflect open- or close-mindedness.

SO POINT 1. YOUR STATEMENT MAKES NO F'IN SENSE.

Now as far as whether or not Kerry would have broken in to national tv, it was in part an assumption and in part a generalization of character. It was also directly pointed to a different statement in this thread.

Yet again, YOU MAKE NO F'IN SENSE.

I feel dumber for having participated in this thread. I feel sorry for anybody who has had the patience/tolerance/boredom to read this far into it.

Regardless, I'm out of this thread. Say all you want about me now, I'm not going to see it and it only emphasizes my point on stupidity.

/tk

[Schmidty]

I'm just happy to know that there's someone on these boards more emotional than me. :)

Jeez, I was just messing with ya, I didn't mean to send you into a conniption fit. Seriously, sorry if I ruined your day or something.

[stevew]

Rosie O'Donnell as a retard. What appropriate casting.

[PSUColonel]

I have too. I can't understand why so many people have utter contempt for him. I agree with his policies, but even if I didn't see eye to eye with him on the issues (and I don't when it comes to immigration policy) I still wouldn't hate this man the way it seems so many do.

[VPI97]

I have too. I can't understand why so many people have utter contempt for him. I agree with his policies, but even if I didn't see eye to eye with him on the issues (and I don't when it comes to immigration policy) I still wouldn't hate this man the way it seems so many do. It's easier to say "He's a dumbfuck! He's an asshole! I hate him! Bush suxxx!" than it is to view each issue separately and possibly realize that while there may be some decisions you don't agree with, there may be other that have merit.

[NoMyths]

Stop fighting! We're making progress!

[Swaggs]

If we can't bring both sides together to agree that it is wrong to pre-empt Thursday Night TV, there is no hope. :(

[Schmidty]

If we can't bring both sides together to agree that it is wrong to pre-empt Thursday Night TV, there is no hope. :(

What happens on Thursdays other than the sims?

[larrymcg421]

If we can't bring both sides together to agree that it is wrong to pre-empt Thursday Night TV, there is no hope. :(
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:

`Article--
`SECTION 1. This article may be cited as the `Thursday Night Amendment' .
`SECTION 2. The preemption of regular prime time programming on thursday nights by the federal government or any other governments shall be prohibited.'.
`SECTION 3. For the purposes of this article, prime time programming shall be defined as the period from 8pm to 11pm Eastern Standard Time.
`SECTION 4. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

[Desnudo]

WOAH!
Now what's with the personal attacks here? I said BUSH was a dumbfuck. I was NOT extending it to all Republicans. I wasn't attacking anyone here personally. If we REALLY want to get into THIS kind of a fight, bring it on, but sheesh, I'd rather not do it so lay off. Let's face it, you really don't want to get beat by a girl.

/tk

You called our current president, whom a lot of people, believe or not, respect, a "dumbfuck." That's certainly inflammatory enough to get people to respond.

[Dr. Sak]

What happens on Thursdays other than the sims?

You remember that we sim thursdays?? Thats a first
:p

[timmynausea]

You called our current president, whom a lot of people, believe or not, respect, a "dumbfuck." That's certainly inflammatory enough to get people to respond.
But what if I sarcastically say "Bush is really smart." Is that inflammatory enough?

[Desnudo]

But what if I sarcastically say "Bush is really smart." Is that inflammatory enough?

I don't know, why don't you create a post and find out, you're obviously a bright boy? :p

[CamEdwards]

too bad i just got home from a baseball game. i was all set to tee off on the girl who doesn't live in the real world.

[NoMyths]

too bad i just got home from a baseball game. i was all set to tee off on the girl who doesn't live in the real world.Tsk tsk...that wouldn't be making progress.

[Rizon]

Dude, one extra week for Marissa's boobs to get bigger. A+

[Ragone]

You apparently DO want to bring it.
If it were Kerry, he wouldn't be audacious enough to come on national tv when he has absolutely NOTHING to say.

/tk


So going off this premise.. we'd never see kerry on tv..


this might not be a bad thing :)

[sterlingice]

It's easier to say "He's a dumbfuck! He's an asshole! I hate him! Bush suxxx!" than it is to view each issue separately and possibly realize that while there may be some decisions you don't agree with, there may be other that have merit.
Or maybe he just is dumb to some people. And, no, not because there are decisions that some people disagree with but because he comes off as a dim bulb whenever he tries to do public speaking.

SI

[Passacaglia]

It's about time Bush made a comeback. I haven't heard anything from them since "Everything Zen" and that was what, 93? 94?

[Subby]

I have too. I can't understand why so many people have utter contempt for him. I agree with his policies, but even if I didn't see eye to eye with him on the issues (and I don't when it comes to immigration policy) I still wouldn't hate this man the way it seems so many do.
Heh - I think I made this exact same post in 1999. :)

[ice4277]

Or, it could just be "that" time of the month.

[JeeberD]

It's about time Bush made a comeback. I haven't heard anything from them since "Everything Zen" and that was what, 93? 94?

Haven't you heard? Gavin's an "actor" now. Did you miss his brilliant performance in Constantine? :rolleyes:

[hhiipp]

It's about time Bush made a comeback. I haven't heard anything from them since "Everything Zen" and that was what, 93? 94?
You forgot the Razorblade Suitcase album, that was 96,97?

[rkmsuf]

Haven't you heard? Gavin's an "actor" now. Did you miss his brilliant performance in Constantine? :rolleyes:

I don't know what you are into over there but that's just gross. Maybe that's why Constantine was voted off AI.

[st.cronin]

Attacking Bush for his 'lack of intelligence' is moronic and drains the attacker of credibility. He has an MBA from HARVARD for chrissakes... I know he talks funny sometimes, but give it a rest... he's no dumber than Carter or Al Gore for example. If your scale is Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton, then you have a point, but that's an unrealistic level to expect ANYBODY to reach.

[gstelmack]

If it were Kerry, he wouldn't be audacious enough to come on national tv when he has absolutely NOTHING to say.
ROFL!

Yeah, right. And Clinton/Gore would never fly into RDU and tie up the one major highway in the area at rush hour...

[Klinglerware]

He has an MBA from HARVARD for chrissakes...

His SAT scores (566 verbal and 640 math) were solid, but unspectacular. He was obviously a legacy admit at Yale, where he pulled a C average. Of course, what counts is that he graduated from both Yale and Harvard--you do have to put in the work if you want to graduate at these places.

The irony is that his performances at Yale and Harvard actually serve to bolster the argument that preferences in admissions (affirmative action, athletic, alumni, etc.) don't hurt a universities' standing too much--most of these people graduate, these students benefit immensely from being at an elite institution, and the university community (and endowment) benefits by their presence as well...

[Raiders Army]

His SAT scores (566 verbal and 640 math) were solid, but unspectacular. He was obviously a legacy admit at Yale, where he pulled a C average. Of course, what counts is that he graduated from both Yale and Harvard--you do have to put in the work if you want to graduate at these places.

The irony is that his performances at Yale and Harvard actually serve to bolster the argument that preferences in admissions (affirmative action, athletic, alumni, etc.) don't hurt a universities' standing too much--most of these people graduate, these students benefit immensely from being at an elite institution, and the university community (and endowment) benefits by their presence as well...
How do you get a 566 score for verbal on the SAT? I thought they had to be multiples of 10.

[Desnudo]

His SAT scores (566 verbal and 640 math) were solid, but unspectacular. He was obviously a legacy admit at Yale, where he pulled a C average. Of course, what counts is that he graduated from both Yale and Harvard--you do have to put in the work if you want to graduate at these places.

The irony is that his performances at Yale and Harvard actually serve to bolster the argument that preferences in admissions (affirmative action, athletic, alumni, etc.) don't hurt a universities' standing too much--most of these people graduate, these students benefit immensely from being at an elite institution, and the university community (and endowment) benefits by their presence as well...

Or you could argue that his performances at Yale and Harvard prove the old cliche that the hardest part about the Ivy League is getting in.

[st.cronin]

How do you get a 566 score for verbal on the SAT? I thought they had to be multiples of 10.

The SAT has changed a bazillion times since Bush took it.

[Raiders Army]

Gotcha

[Warhammer]

ROFL!

Yeah, right. And Clinton/Gore would never fly into RDU and tie up the one major highway in the area at rush hour...

I can personally vouch for this one, Gore would! Some guy rear ended me back in the late 90s, while Gore was VP. I call the police to report the accident, and they tell me to exchange information because they could not send any police out for accidents because they were all tied up with Gore's visit! :rolleyes:

Then again, in Memphis, nothing surprises me anymore.

[QuikSand]

Attacking Bush for his 'lack of intelligence' is moronic and drains the attacker of credibility. He has an MBA from HARVARD for chrissakes... I know he talks funny sometimes, but give it a rest... he's no dumber than Carter or Al Gore for example. If your scale is Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton, then you have a point, but that's an unrealistic level to expect ANYBODY to reach.

While I think this sort of thing is awfully hard to judge with any sort of precision from the evidence we have, I would offer that your dismissal of President Carter in this respect is wholly unfounded. He may well be the best pure intellect of the names you drop (possibly excepting Gingrich), but I'd stake my total net worth on Carter outpacing GW Bush on any fair IQ test by 20 points or better.

[st.cronin]

While I think this sort of thing is awfully hard to judge with any sort of precision from the evidence we have, I would offer that your dismissal of President Carter in this respect is wholly unfounded. He may well be the best pure intellect of the names you drop (possibly excepting Gingrich), but I'd stake my total net worth on Carter outpacing GW Bush on any fair IQ test by 20 points or better.


My point wasn't that Carter (or any of those named) were dumb - but there WAS a perception when Carter was in office that he was a bit of a dull thinker. I agree he's incredibly bright.

[MrBigglesworth]

My point wasn't that Carter (or any of those named) were dumb - but there WAS a perception when Carter was in office that he was a bit of a dull thinker. I agree he's incredibly bright.
You're thinking of Ford.

"It was my understanding that there would be no math"

[st.cronin]

You're thinking of Ford.

"It was my understanding that there would be no math"

HA

What the world need now is a new Chevy Chase.

[Desnudo]

While I think this sort of thing is awfully hard to judge with any sort of precision from the evidence we have, I would offer that your dismissal of President Carter in this respect is wholly unfounded. He may well be the best pure intellect of the names you drop (possibly excepting Gingrich), but I'd stake my total net worth on Carter outpacing GW Bush on any fair IQ test by 20 points or better.

It's pretty obvious that GW is not a closet intellectual. It's hard to imagine him taking elective college courses outside of his selected major. Or majoring in anything besides "business." I don't think his IQ would rate much above average. Which is probably why he inspires such distaste and bitterness in certain segments of society.

So yeah, Carter would kick his ass on an IQ test. I'd put the over/under at 30-40.

[st.cronin]

It's pretty obvious that GW is not a closet intellectual.

Unless by intellectual you are describing a style rather than an aptitude I don't see how it is obvious.

[Desnudo]

Unless by intellectual you are describing a style rather than an aptitude I don't see how it is obvious.

Purely based on my impression of him, and knowledge of what his hobbies and interests are.

[st.cronin]

Purely based on my impression of him, and knowledge of what his hobbies and interests are.


I would agree his style, evidenced by hobbies and interests is markedly anti-intellectual. I don't think that means he's not a bright man, which posters here and everywhere, not to mention media types of all sizes, consistently accuse him of. Even if his native aptitude isn't extraordinary (which I suspect it is), he's spent his entire life in intellectually elite environments.

[Desnudo]

I would agree his style, evidenced by hobbies and interests is markedly anti-intellectual. I don't think that means he's not a bright man, which posters here and everywhere, not to mention media types of all sizes, consistently accuse him of. Even if his native aptitude isn't extraordinary (which I suspect it is), he's spent his entire life in intellectually elite environments.

College is what you make out of it. If you spend your days sniffing cocaine off some chick's ass, it doesn't matter if it's at Yale or community college. His background gives him a university bearing. Beyond that, I haven't seen anything that shows special intelligence.

I do think he has practical intelligence, which wouldn't necessarily show up on an IQ test. He's surrounded himself with bright people, which says something for him.

[Warhammer]

There is a lot more to being president than just smarts. There are plenty of very intelligent people that are unable to do anything because they are snooty, or do not understand how to get people to agree with them. Others cannot inspire people to do a good job, yet more cannot understand practicalities of every day life.

Carter (although I hate his politics) was one of the brightest to occupy the Oval Office. Herbert Hoover was probably the brightest. However, neither one of them will win any best president awards, and most rankings have them in the lower third of all presidents.

[PSUColonel]

There is a lot more to being president than just smarts. There are plenty of very intelligent people that are unable to do anything because they are snooty, or do not understand how to get people to agree with them. Others cannot inspire people to do a good job, yet more cannot understand practicalities of every day life.

Carter (although I hate his politics) was one of the brightest to occupy the Oval Office. Herbert Hoover was probably the brightest. However, neither one of them will win any best president awards, and most rankings have them in the lower third of all presidents.



I agree with this completely. The one quality no one has mentioned that I feel may be the most important for a President is leadership. I sort of feel much like President Bush. I am not a brilliant man, but I am certainly not stupid either. I feel I have an above average intelligence and spent a good portion of my career at Penn State partying away. I graduated with a 3.0 G.P.A. and really had no direction in life. Since then I managed to get started as a radio talk show host and have worked for a few stations. Now I am in enjoying a good job in television news and feel I am well on my way into a successful career. Was it because I'm intelligent? Maybe to some extent, but I'd rather think it has to do with the fact I've obtained practical experience over the years. So while intelligence may be a good thing to have, it's not imperative someone be brilliant to be successful. I feel the "elitist lefties" somehow think a President needs to score x amount of points on the S.A.T.'s or have a certain G.P.A. at a certain school. If that were the case for people, only a very few would ever enjoy success, which may be what they ultimately want anyway.

[MrBigglesworth]

I feel the "elitist lefties" somehow think a President needs to score x amount of points on the S.A.T.'s or have a certain G.P.A. at a certain school. If that were the case for people, only a very few would ever enjoy success, which may be what they ultimately want anyway.
Let's be honest here. Bush did not get anywhere in life based on his hard work or leadership. The reason us 'elitist lefties' don't like Bush's life path is not because we percieve him as dumb but rather because everything he has acheived in life has been because of who his father was. He got into Yale as a legacy. He got into the oil business because of who is father is, failed at it, but his Dad's buddies bailed him out by buying his bankrupt company. He got a sweetheart deal with the Rangers because the other owners needed his influence (because of who his father is) to get a new stadium. He was elected governor and then president because of the name recognition of his father.

At least that is 'our' perception. And there is nothing neccessarily wrong with that, I use my parents as much as I can to help me out in life. But I think the hypocrisy of him portraying himself as a populist politician, a guy that was born in CT and attended Yale and Harvard that now miraculously is a Texan complete with a Texas twang, a guy whose political machine rails against the very elitism that he comes from and, in a rational world, would represent, is what really gets under 'our' skin.

And while I am ranting a little, how are the 'lefties' elitist? The faith based righties are the ones that say that God is on their side, what is more elitist than that?

[gstelmack]

And while I am ranting a little, how are the 'lefties' elitist? The faith based righties are the ones that say that God is on their side, what is more elitist than that?
Lefties are elitist because in general they think they know what's best for everybody else. At least that's how I see it.

[Galaxy]

Just imagine if Bush was voted MLB Commish instead of the Selig. As for Bush, he isn't a great speaker. But neither was Kerry. Both are IVY-League products. Being booksmart and streetsmart are differnet things. I do like Bush for two reasons, 1) He sticks to his guns 2) He is a straight-shooter. I don't agree with all his policies, but I don't hate him.

[Klinglerware]

Lefties are elitist because in general they think they know what's best for everybody else. At least that's how I see it.

And how is that different from the Christian conservatives? They've run roughshod over everyone, including their supposed fiscal conservative allies in the past few years--the Schiavo case is quite instructive on how they will ignore the rights of individuals if they don't agree with how those individuals are exercising their rights under the law...

[MrBigglesworth]

Lefties are elitist because in general they think they know what's best for everybody else. At least that's how I see it.
I can see that in some respects, but it is the GOP that is on the side of 'knowing what is best for everybody else' on the abortion issue and the gay marriage issue, and the whole 'judicial war on faith' thing that the right wing is screaming about is an attempt to get judges on the bench that rule from scripture, implying that they also know what is better for everyone else because of their Bible.

[Joe]

I don't know if anyone's posted this quote from Bush last night, but I got a chuckle from it.






Earlier, the press conference was to start at 8:30PM ET. Later, it became 8. Earlier, it wasn't going to air on all four major broadcast networks. Later, it did. Well, most of it, anyway. Three cut away from it before Bush finished: CBS to 'Survivor,' Fox to 'The Simple Life' and NBC to 'The Apprentice.'

"I don't want to cut into some of these TV shows that are getting ready to air, for the sake of the economy."

[MrBigglesworth]

I do like Bush for two reasons, 1) He sticks to his guns 2) He is a straight-shooter. I don't agree with all his policies, but I don't hate him.
I agree with (1), but disagree with (2), and you can see that in the biggest foreign and domestic issues of the day: Iraq and Social Security. In Iraq, he has pushed forward no matter what, despite the world and everyone else telling him he was wrong, and has pushed forward a new meme everytime his previous one has been invalidated (WMD's-->Al Queda-->Freedom). Very much sticking to his guns. However, every indication is that his administration intimidated intelligence analysts, forged documents (Niger), and otherwise made up information to sell the war to the public. Not exactly being a straight shooter. And I can understand why, the public would never have gone along with the truth.

With SS, he has doggedly continued on, pushing private accounts even though it is clear that the public does not support it. Very much sticking to his guns. However, his speeches and talks on the issue are full of misleading statements, mistatements of fact, and Orwellian wordplay. Not exactly being a straight shooter. And I can understand why, the public would never go along with the truth.

[PSUColonel]

And how is that different from the Christian conservatives? They've run roughshod over everyone, including their supposed fiscal conservative allies in the past few years--the Schiavo case is quite instructive on how they will ignore the rights of individuals if they don't agree with how those individuals are exercising their rights under the law...


The problem in this case is there wasn't any law to go by..just hearsay. Usually (I didn't say never) in cases like these there aren't two parties contesting each other. Lesson? ...everyone should have a living will.

[PSUColonel]

I can see that in some respects, but it is the GOP that is on the side of 'knowing what is best for everybody else' on the abortion issue and the gay marriage issue, and the whole 'judicial war on faith' thing that the right wing is screaming about is an attempt to get judges on the bench that rule from scripture, implying that they also know what is better for everyone else because of their Bible.


I don't know if that's correct, but lets assume it is. If it is true, then it's because the left is looking for those judges who will do just the opposite, therefore the need to have more conservative judges becomes a greater one. For some reason, Liberals want nothing to do with faith, they feel like everything should be equal and academic on all levels of life. This philiosophy is not realistic. They take a "all things being equal approach to life". Well, I'm here to say all things are not equal..our laws are in fact based on Chirstianity. The only thing the government cannot do is sanction a religion..which it doesn't. THe constitution doesn't prohibit religion IN the government. People in this nation are free to practice any kind of religion they choose..and that's a far better deal than most get in this world.
Why is the left playing the obstructionist game? Not really because they're concerned about people like Bolton and others..it's simply because they don't like Bush, or the "way he is". Pelosi and others are simply there to counter the President on any given issue. If he says it's black thier job is to fall in line with the liberal mantra and say it's white. Liberals in congress are not interested in reforming social security under Bush..even though many of his ideas for reform were first proposed by themselves during the Clinton administration. They simply just cannot stand by and watch Bush get any kind of Kudos can they? I'm 34 years old and I know his plan makes sense. I'm not going to get into that right now, as I'd be writing all night.

[PSUColonel]

I agree with (1), but disagree with (2), and you can see that in the biggest foreign and domestic issues of the day: Iraq and Social Security. In Iraq, he has pushed forward no matter what, despite the world and everyone else telling him he was wrong, and has pushed forward a new meme everytime his previous one has been invalidated (WMD's-->Al Queda-->Freedom). Very much sticking to his guns. However, every indication is that his administration intimidated intelligence analysts, forged documents (Niger), and otherwise made up information to sell the war to the public. Not exactly being a straight shooter. And I can understand why, the public would never have gone along with the truth.


With SS, he has doggedly continued on, pushing private accounts even though it is clear that the public does not support it. Very much sticking to his guns. However, his speeches and talks on the issue are full of misleading statements, mistatements of fact, and Orwellian wordplay. Not exactly being a straight shooter. And I can understand why, the public would never go along with the truth.

Well, there were seven points of going to war, all that you listed were parts of the reasoning. All agreed there were WMD, all congress, Russia, France, and just about every nation in the world accept Iraq. The problem is once it became evident they were none there(gone, taken transported IMO-why did Hussein not allow UN Weapons Inspectors if he knew he was clean?) they jumped political ship against Bush. Bush stuck to his guns.


As far as social security goes, I for one would like to be wealthy some day. I already buy up to 4k worth of Roth IRA's each year...which in the end will not be taxable, Bush is trying to do the same with privatizing the system. The problem is the media is so sharply critical of the idea that the American public truely doesn't understand what he's proposing. Ask to anyone who works for the Federal Government. What he's proposing is very similar to the retirement plan they get. What people don't understand is that there is more choice in theis program than people realize. I don't see how anyone can sit by and not support this. The current system is doomed. The funny part is those who will not be affected by the new plan, are the biggest critics. (those 65+) I can't understand why eveeryone seems to think social security is a god given right. The actual name of it is Social Security Insurance...meaning if you live to a certian age, you have protection. When it began the avg. age of life expectancy was 67. That's why people got it at 65. Today the avg life span is 77 years. This number has not been adjusted to reflect that and the government has borrowed against the fund for years..in essence bankrupting the system. Most people only get about 14 thousand dollars a year from it, but what I'm really sick of is the feeling that it's owed as a means of supplementing people's income in retirement. That's not waht it was created for. Did these people pay in?...sure, but we've been paying the people who are really too young for too long. It's time to change this once very serviceable system into something new. It's time to evolve folks.

[MrBigglesworth]

If it is true, then it's because the left is looking for those judges who will do just the opposite, therefore the need to have more conservative judges becomes a greater one.
The Senate has confirmed 90% of the judges that have been nominated by Bush, it's just a couple of 'activist' judges that they are filibustering (plus the whole fiasco with the Michigan judges, which is a different issue and reason for filibustering).

..our laws are in fact based on Chirstianity.
Of the ten biggest laws of Christianity, two are illegal in the United States. Of those two (murder and bearing false witness), at least one is illegal in every country, and i'd wager that they both are. Because of that, I do not think it is fair to say that our laws are based on Christianity.

Why is the left playing the obstructionist game? Not really because they're concerned about people like Bolton and others..it's simply because they don't like Bush, or the "way he is". Pelosi and others are simply there to counter the President on any given issue. If he says it's black thier job is to fall in line with the liberal mantra and say it's white.
Re: Bolton, I don't think it is fair to say that opposing a candidate that has publicly denounced the organization he is being nominated to is just for partisan gains. If it is just partisan politics, I also wonder why Voinovich, Hagel, and Nelson seem to be on the verge of voting against Bolton. The left is playing the obstructionist game because it is our view that the policies being pushed through are terrible policies, which is a good reason to be obstructionist.

Liberals in congress are not interested in reforming social security under Bush..even though many of his ideas for reform were first proposed by themselves during the Clinton administration. They simply just cannot stand by and watch Bush get any kind of Kudos can they? I'm 34 years old and I know his plan makes sense. I'm not going to get into that right now, as I'd be writing all night.
Bush has made it clear that he has not submitted a plan yet (doesn't want to debate with himself), so I think it's too early to say definitively if it makes sense or not. However, if you want to start a SS thread I would love to discuss it, because almost every element of the potential Bush plan that I have seen (benefit cuts, clawbacks, etc) is a bad deal for the majority of people.

[MrBigglesworth]

Ask to anyone who works for the Federal Government. What he's proposing is very similar to the retirement plan they get.
The people that have the Thrift Savings Plan have that on top of social security, not as a replacement for it. It's more similar to an add-on account rather than a carve-out account. TSP also, to my knowledge, does not have clawbacks, disability benefits, or survivor benefits.

The current system is doomed
By the pessimistic economic outlook of the SSA, the unfunded liability of SS over the next 75 years is dwarfed by both the cost of the Medicare drug benefit signed by Bush and the costs of the Bush tax cuts. If the economy performs as well as it would have to for private accounts to work out, there would be no unfunded liability at all.

When it began the avg. age of life expectancy was 67. That's why people got it at 65. Today the avg life span is 77 years.
That's kind of misleading, because life expectancy at 65 is different than life expectancy at birth. The former has only changed by 4 years over the past 60 years, which means that people only collect SS for 2 years longer than they did in 1940. This was all foreseen by the SS actuaries, which is part of why we have the trust fund.
http://www.ssa.gov/history/lifeexpect.html

Most people only get about 14 thousand dollars a year from it, but what I'm really sick of is the feeling that it's owed as a means of supplementing people's income in retirement. That's not waht it was created for.
Wasn't SS was created as part of a three-legged retirement plan, along with pensions and personal savings, to help insure that the elderly and infirm did not fall below the poverty line?

P.S. I love Wayne, my psuedo girlfriend lives there, we're taking the train into the city tomorrow night for dinner. If you see her at the Wawa on Lexington in the morning one day, tell her I said hi! ;)

[sterlingice]

I agree with this completely. The one quality no one has mentioned that I feel may be the most important for a President is leadership. I sort of feel much like President Bush. I am not a brilliant man, but I am certainly not stupid either. I feel I have an above average intelligence and spent a good portion of my career at Penn State partying away. I graduated with a 3.0 G.P.A. and really had no direction in life. Since then I managed to get started as a radio talk show host and have worked for a few stations. Now I am in enjoying a good job in television news and feel I am well on my way into a successful career. Was it because I'm intelligent? Maybe to some extent, but I'd rather think it has to do with the fact I've obtained practical experience over the years. So while intelligence may be a good thing to have, it's not imperative someone be brilliant to be successful. I feel the "elitist lefties" somehow think a President needs to score x amount of points on the S.A.T.'s or have a certain G.P.A. at a certain school. If that were the case for people, only a very few would ever enjoy success, which may be what they ultimately want anyway.
I love how this morphed from tk calling Bush a "dumbfuck" to condemning her as close minded to attacking the guy he beat months ago to condemnation because calling the president a dumbfuck is disrespectful to the "you're a Democrat fanboy" the obligatory "that time of the month thread" to claiming there are more important qualities than intelligence for the presidency to an argument about the pros and cons of him and his job.

So, in the end, 80 posts later, only one person even tried to refute the fact that he is a "dumbfuck" with anything stronger than "well, there are a lot dumber people out there". Congrats, st cronin- I completely disagree with you but at least you argued your point. But, for everyone else- way to make a flame war out of something you, at most, halfheartedly disagree with.

SI

[andy m]

i find it fascinating how folks on this site support and flag wave for their favourite politician like they are some kind of sports team. crazy crazy.

we can't stand our politicians over here. we are highly aware that the mainstream party members are almost all a bunch of hyprocritical bullshitters. pretty much everyone knows it. you'd be hard pushed to find someone on a british forum posting something like:

"w00t go BLAIR! HE REALLY HANDED HOWARDS AZZ TO HIM!!!1111. ALL YOU TORY LOVERS - HAHAHA. JOO SUCK"

or the slightly more eloquent versions of that which you'd read on a forum such as this.

politicians are rubbish.

[st.cronin]

I love how this morphed from tk calling Bush a "dumbfuck" to condemning her as close minded to attacking the guy he beat months ago to condemnation because calling the president a dumbfuck is disrespectful to the "you're a Democrat fanboy" the obligatory "that time of the month thread" to claiming there are more important qualities than intelligence for the presidency to an argument about the pros and cons of him and his job.

So, in the end, 80 posts later, only one person even tried to refute the fact that he is a "dumbfuck" with anything stronger than "well, there are a lot dumber people out there". Congrats, st cronin- I completely disagree with you but at least you argued your point. But, for everyone else- way to make a flame war out of something you, at most, halfheartedly disagree with.

SI

Thanks, I guess. I wasn't actually trying to condemn anyone - just trying to raise the level of discourse. It's easy for anybody to say 'Bloomberg's an IDIOT' or 'How can Bush be so STUPID' - but most of the time that's just shorthand for 'I vehemently disagree with such and such that Bloomberg/Bush/etc. advocated.' However, in Bush's case (as with Ford), this often goes way beyond that - there is a whole section at my local bookstore containing books asserting our President is a dimwit. I contend this is at best ludicrous and preposterous, and robs the attacker of credibility. Effective dissent is critical to our parliementary system, but delusional, insane dissent ... well, it just makes me weep for our future.

[ice4277]

I love how this morphed from tk calling Bush a "dumbfuck" to condemning her as close minded to attacking the guy he beat months ago to condemnation because calling the president a dumbfuck is disrespectful to the "you're a Democrat fanboy" the obligatory "that time of the month thread" to claiming there are more important qualities than intelligence for the presidency to an argument about the pros and cons of him and his job.

So, in the end, 80 posts later, only one person even tried to refute the fact that he is a "dumbfuck" with anything stronger than "well, there are a lot dumber people out there". Congrats, st cronin- I completely disagree with you but at least you argued your point. But, for everyone else- way to make a flame war out of something you, at most, halfheartedly disagree with.

SI
Actually, the thread started as a lighthearted attempt at comedy about the Prez interrupting the prime-time TV lineup. The first shot in this flame war was fired with a "Bush is a dumbfuck" quote.

[gstelmack]

And how is that different from the Christian conservatives? They've run roughshod over everyone, including their supposed fiscal conservative allies in the past few years--the Schiavo case is quite instructive on how they will ignore the rights of individuals if they don't agree with how those individuals are exercising their rights under the law...
I'm not a big fan of Christian conservatives, either.