Bush's resumé

[bamthedoc]

Originally posted by VBadGirl
doc...the fact u live in us doesn't mean here in australia the information doesn't reach coz we are too far away. Oh i know very well what an asshole bush is..don't u worry. if u like him it's fine with me..just tell him not to cross my sight..coz i might shoot him .

ch33rs

Sorry if I insulted you with my statement. I need to clarity more often...

What I meant is that the media in Australia hates Bush, so the papers and other news media won't publish everything truthfully or that he does.

Or am I mistaken and you look to internet media more often and cross-reference more?

BTW: I'd like you thank your military. They were quite helpful in the Alliance.

Originally posted by MarkS
He will be re-elected. 70% of the country supports him. And the whole thing about Bush landing on the USS Abraham Lincoln and how that was disgraceful. COME ON! He's the Commander and Chief! He deserves to get in a jet and land. Did you see the military supporting him as he got off the plane? They love him! They have no problem with what he did! And oh, I better get off my computer...MAJOR storm rolling in. Lightning strikes every 5 seconds...

Wow, I thought you didn't like him...

Oh well, I think Bush had to do that! Come on, you send your military to another country to fight any war, you had better be supporting them. What Bush did was cheered by the intelligant public, but jeered by the media (except MSNBC and the limited other conservitive media).

 

[MarkS]

Originally posted by bamthedoc

Wow, I thought you didn't like him...

No, where did you get that idea from? I'm a full supporter of Bush. Quoting myself here...Yeah, I know that's kind of strange to quote yourself. You know, It's like the Baptist preacher who spoke such a great sermon that he autographed his own Bible ...but anyway, beside the point.

Bush is doing a GREAT job, even more so especially for the circumstances this country has gone through the past 2-3 years.

 

[bamthedoc]

Sorry, I missed that...

Hey, we all have to quote ouselves at times. I know I have.

 

[RoaCh of DisCord]

Originally posted by Lamma_monk
You know, Bush is the best president in Modern history. He has far surpassed Clinton, his dad, maybe Regan, and definatly Carter...etc. So all this come downs to is the fact that he is a Republican...thats it.

After your comment that 30% of us must be french, your opinion is null and void.

 

[MarkS]

Originally posted by RoaCh Of DisCord
After your comment that 30% of us must be french, your opinion is null and void.

Well, to be "splitting hairs" which I sometimes like to do for fun, but anyway. To be technical, an OPINION can never be void because of it's very nature...an opinion. Let's jump to Webster:

__________________________

Main Entry: opin·ion
Pronunciation: &-'pin-y&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin opinion-, opinio, from opinari
Date: 14th century
1 a : a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter
___________________________

I agree with what he said (Not the 30% thing). I think he said that ouf of sarcasm, and metaphorically, but didn't truly think that.

 

[B~E]

Corporate ties? Please, no1 but B~E respond to this. I want to see what he thinks of my statement and for him to explain himself better.

What about the fact that it's corperations, industry, services, enterprise, and other such things that run our economy? Don't we need someone that understands that it is business that pays people who then buy stuff? (I'm not just refering to trickle-down economy, though I had a good arguement before the whole hack thing happened...)

My point was that bush didn't made any regulation regarding the "acceptable" level of cyanur/arcenic (I forgot which one...) in our water. You said that it was so the corporation will do it themselfe. Your having trust in our huge, faceless corporations that have to answer to no one, while I'd rather trust my elected representative to make those regulation, kuze if he fail at least he'll live to regret it.

When we get all the facts straiten out, like we did last time, it only come down to a mattter of personal opinion.

I believe the US policy right now is to develop a clean-fuel vehicle. So, what exactly was your statement about? Bush is pushing for the hydrogen-fuel cell. It's big politics right now, and one of few things both parties agree with.

During the first 2 years of his term, he literaly cut funding for clean alternative fuel researche. Now, what could justify something like this, other than some lobying from some oil compagnies?
Your going to tell me he was going to save money maybe? well, why can't he cut in that 120 billion military spending, or close one of those 160 military bases you have in other countries, especialy in europe. Except from a handfull in the pacific, they are pretty useless.

And he started funding them again recently probably because some aid finaly realised it might look bad. But thats just some irrelevent speculation from me, hehe

Or are you refering to the oil in Alaska? Bush gave a very good compromise. He gave permission to drill, but only under the contingent that they be carefully watched. And I do mean carefully. The way the pipes are built and kept-up, it's almost impossible to harm the Alaskan wilderness. In fact, more recent studies show that the drilling has done nothing to the environment (yet anyway, though I doubt anything will happen), and has provided us with more oil (which we basically run on right now).

Well, lets cross out fingers nothing bad happen, eh?

Until we have a viable hydrogen-fuel cell car (the Ford Model U is the only example of a non-hybrid concept right now), I'm sticking with gasoline, and Bush's decisions are very good. Most of them are "forced" compromises.

Well, whatever float our boat. Maybe some cyanur flavoured water, eh?

And I am very disapointed you guys ignored this embarrasing facts. :

First year in office set the all-time record for most days on vacation by any president in US history;

Meh, its just funy.

 

[bamthedoc]

Originally posted by Black~Enthusiasm
My point was that bush didn't made any regulation regarding the "acceptable" level of cyanur/arcenic (I forgot which one...) in our water. You said that it was so the corporation will do it themselfe. Your having trust in our huge, faceless corporations that have to answer to no one, while I'd rather trust my elected representative to make those regulation, kuze if he fail at least he'll live to regret it.

When we get all the facts straiten out, like we did last time, it only come down to a mattter of personal opinion.



During the first 2 years of his term, he literaly cut funding for clean alternative fuel researche. Now, what could justify something like this, other than some lobying from some oil compagnies?
Your going to tell me he was going to save money maybe? well, why can't he cut in that 120 billion military spending, or close one of those 160 military bases you have in other countries, especialy in europe. Except from a handfull in the pacific, they are pretty useless.

And he started funding them again recently probably because some aid finaly realised it might look bad. But thats just some irrelevent speculation from me, hehe



Well, lets cross out fingers nothing bad happen, eh?




Well, whatever float our boat. Maybe some cyanur flavoured water, eh?

With all the corperation and oil stuff...

Bush set an interesting compromise up. He told corporations that they would have more time than certian health organizations were giving. BUT, he then added that they had to have representitives from those organizations had to observe the corporations and how the do buisiness. If they do not abide by Bush's compromise, they can be sued. Research has shown that it will be cheaper and more profitable in the long run to "decrease pollution", so to say. It also gives busisness (including oil and corperations) more time to adjust rather than falter. This way, also, the businesses also won't leave our country to just pollute worse somewhere else with lower standards and regulations.



For the Hydrogen-Fuel Cell Cars, it has always been the conservatives standpoint that the government should help (and only help) in research of new technologies. Generally, it's not a good idea to fund too much of the research. Bush was getting heat from some Republicans that we were spending too much in the aid or research and development. Then some analysists said that the compromise decreased it too much. I think there are some still arguing that spending has increased too much again...well, this will all get sorted out soon.

There is a lot happening in DC, more than anybody realizes. And the truth is that this Congress is the worst balance we've ever had. Bush has to put up with this. He does this through compromise and a lot, a lot of discussion.








And on a side note, I think it's arseninc. And by cyanur, I'm assuming you mean cyanide...

 

[B~E]

Generally, it's not a good idea to fund too much of the research.

Since when does cutting funding for research into renewable energy source by 50% help anything? Or by cutting funding for research for more cleaner, more efficient car and truck by 28%?

And how about the 39 million he cut from federal spending in libraries,

Or the 100 million per year he promised in rain forest conservation? it was one of is main campaign promise regarding environement
or pulling out of the kyoto agreement

or cut half a billion in the Environmental Protection agency,

or abandoning is campaign pledge to regulate carbon dioxid emission?


Fine, you can like bush all you whant, but I am amased by everyone's failiur to critisise him.

 

[MarkS]

Originally posted by Black~Enthusiasm
Or the 100 million per year he promised in rain forest conservation? it was one of is main campaign promise regarding environement

It's called 9/11. That cost the government and the economy tens of billions. Priority changed instantly. What would everyone think of Bush if he came on saying after 9/11, "Well, these are tragic events, but I promised the US that I would give 100 million a year to rain forest conservation, so I am not going to fund recovery from 9/11, I'll just stick with the forrests!" Then you would be criticizing him for saying that! But 9/11 changed priority...MAJORLY.

 

[bamthedoc]

Originally posted by Black~Enthusiasm
Since when does cutting funding for research into renewable energy source by 50% help anything? Or by cutting funding for research for more cleaner, more efficient car and truck by 28%?

And how about the 39 million he cut from federal spending in libraries,

Or the 100 million per year he promised in rain forest conservation? it was one of is main campaign promise regarding environement
or pulling out of the kyoto agreement

or cut half a billion in the Environmental Protection agency,

or abandoning is campaign pledge to regulate carbon dioxid emission?


Fine, you can like bush all you whant, but I am amased by everyone's failiur to critisise him.

By cutting funding the renewable resource, it is hoped that business will make more profit. Many believe federal grants create "governmental ties" that have to be...paid off somehow. That's a scary proposition to many.

As for the 100 million for Rain Forest Conservation, I don't think anybody realizes how difficult it is right now to make policy in the US. He was planning to do that his second or third year in office.

As for cutting library spending...that is one thing Republicans think the fed should stay out of. They want to increase State power by giving them all "access" to the libraries. It's difficult to explain.


I can't say that I'm mad at Bush right now. Trying times have made it next to impossible to "carry out business as usual". He would have definetly done that stuff, and more, had various things not occured.

Here, I'll critic Bush. He said that every teach would have to be "standardized". That means a test, and includes teachers assistants. That means all teachers have to have degrees. Not all teacher's assistants can afford even a 2 year degree in teaching. There, I critisized Bush, albeit minor.

 

[Kamikaze]

here are some quotes:

Sometimes it takes a lot of courage to keep a promise

Our strength often increases in proportion to the obstacles imposed upon it

The smallest act of kindness is worth more than the grandest intention

Never esteem anything as of advantage to you that will make you break your word or lose your self-respect.

Once integrity goes, the rest is a piece of cake

The most important part of doctrine is the first two letters

We cannot do everything at once, but we can do something at once

A promise made is a debt unpaid

We must not promise what we ought not, lest we be called on to perform what we cannot



i don't care what has happened in the us, a real man doesn't break a promise. i've never broken a promise in my life, no matter how much it may have hurt to keep it.
if he really wanted to keep his promise all he had to do was stop bombing iraq for 1 or 2 days during the war, and he would have had the money.

 

[bamthedoc]

Not neccessarily true.

A true man would never break a promise, is, however. Bush hasn't "broken" any promises. He has simply reset his priorities. In a few months, after economic recovery has set in, he will probably try again with his promises. What we have to understand is that the liberals in Congress don't want him to be popular, and it's easy for them to run PR to pretend they didn't vote against something they should have voted for (I've seen it before). Then Bush gets blamed. Being US President is one of the hardest jobs in the world because it requires a base of support and cooperation. Bush is getting niether through Congress. His job is made more difficult through having to reword everything he does so that the liberals are fine with it.

So my question is...How is one supposed to keep a promise if there are those who must vote on it and hate "one"?

(BTW: "one" refers to Bush in this case)

 

[Lamma_monk]

I'm sorry to inturrupt but:

After your comment that 30% of us must be french, your opinion is null and void.

I retract the ****ing statement asshole.

 

[Apherius]

this report is so full of omission and mistatements that I would ask everyone to research all these tidbits before believing any of this bullcrap. This president has done all i could ask for him to do. Did not Clinton subvert the UN to carry out bombings that included the Chinese embassy?

Look this up.

The nation is on par for another wholly divise election pitting conservatives vs liberals. This is how our system is supposed to work, two polar bodies fighting gridlock to administer a nation. Another layer of checks and balances.

 

[VBadGirl]

Lamma boy don't take it too serious now. it's a free world so any1 says whatever they want. because they saying it..doesn't mean they are right also. And btw..u have some unsolved issues with him...Asylums it's ALL yours. expess ur rage over there like a true man that u are .

ch33rs

 

[Lamma_monk]

I don't have rage, and I don't want to offend anyone...too late but oh well. Its not a big deal really, I retract my French statment(I realise now my absolute stupidity) However I understand if some people still shun me.