This is topic George Bush's Resume in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=017971

---

Posted by Evie3217 (Member # 5426) on :
 
I just got this e-mail, and thought I'd share it with you......YIKES!!

GEORGE W. BUSH RESUME
The White House, USA


ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS PRESIDENT:

I attacked and took over two countries.

I spent the U.S. surplus and bankrupted the Treasury.

I shattered the record for biggest annual deficit in history.

I set an economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any
12-month period.

I set an all-time record for the biggest drop in the history of the
stock market.

I am the first president in decades to execute a federal prisoner.

I am the first president in US history to enter office with a criminal
record.

In my first year in office I set the all-time record for most days on
vacation by any president in US history.

After taking the entire month of August off for vacation, I presided
over the worst security failure in US history.

I set the record for most campaign fund raising trips by any president
in US history.

In my first two years in office over 2 million Americans lost their
jobs.

I cut unemployment benefits for more out-of-work Americans than any
other president in US history.

I set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12-month period.

I appointed more convicted criminals to administration positions than
any president in US history.

I set the record for the fewest press conferences of any president
since the advent of TV.

I signed more laws and executive orders amending the Constitution than
any other president in US history.

I presided over the biggest energy crises in US history and refused to
intervene when corruption was revealed.

I presided over the highest gasoline prices in US history and refused
to use the national reserves as past presidents have.

I cut health care benefits for war veterans.

I set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously
take to the streets to protest me (15 million people), shattering the
record for protest against any person in the history of mankind.

I dissolved more international treaties than any president in US
history.

I've made my presidency the most secretive and unaccountable of any in
US history.

Members of my cabinet are the richest of any administration in US
history. (The poorest multimillionaire, Condoleeza Rice, has a Chevron
oil tanker named after her).

I am the first president in US history to have all 50 states of the
Union simultaneously go bankrupt.

I presided over the biggest corporate stock market fraud in any market
in any country in the history of the world.

I am the first president in US history to order a US attack and military
occupation of a sovereign nation, and I did so against the will of the
United Nations and the world community.

I have created the largest governmental department bureaucracy in the
history of the United States.

I set the all-time record for the biggest annual budget spending
increases, more than any other president in US history.

I am the first president in US history to have the United Nations
remove the US from the Human Rights Commission.

I am the first president in US history to have the United Nations remove
the US from the Elections Monitoring Board.

I removed more checks and balances, and have the least amount of
congressional oversight, than any presidential administration in US
history.

I rendered the entire United Nations irrelevant.

I withdrew from the World Court of Law.

I refused to allow inspectors access to US prisoners of war and by
default no longer abide by the Geneva Conventions.

I am the first president in US history to refuse United Nations election
inspectors access during the 2002 US elections.

I am the all-time US (and world) record holder for most corporate
campaign donations.

The biggest lifetime contributor to my campaign, who is also one of my
best friends, presided over one of the largest corporate bankruptcy
frauds in world history (Kenneth Lay, former CEO of Enron Corporation).
I spent more money on polls and focus groups than any president in US
history.

I am the first president to run and hide when the US came under attack
(and then lied, saying the enemy had the code to Air Force 1).

I am the first US president to establish a secret shadow government.

I took the world's sympathy for the US after 9/11, and in less than a
year made the US the most resented country in the world (possibly the
biggest diplomatic failure in US and world history).

I am the first US president in history to have a majority of the people
of Europe (71%) view my presidency as the biggest threat to world peace
and stability.

I am the first US president in history to have the people of South
Korea more threatened by the US than by their immediate neighbor, North
Korea.

I changed US policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded
government contracts.

I set the all-time record for number of administration appointees who
violated US law by not selling their huge investments in corporations
bidding for government contracts.

I have removed more freedoms and civil liberties for Americans than any
other president in US history. In a little over two years I have
created the most divided country in decades, possibly the most divided
that the US has seen since the civil war.

I entered office with the strongest economy in US history and in less
than two years turned every single economic category heading straight
down.

RECORDS AND REFERENCES:

I have at least one conviction for drunk driving in Maine (Texas driving
record has been erased and is not available).

I was AWOL from the National Guard and deserted the military during a
time of war. I refuse to take a drug test or even answer any questions
about drug use.

All records of my tenure as governor of Texas have been spirited away
to my father's library, sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public
view.

All records of any SEC investigations into my insider trading or
bankrupt companies are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public
view.

All minutes of meetings of any public corporation for which I served on
the board are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view.

Any records or minutes from meetings I (or my VP) attended regarding
public energy policy are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public
review.

PERSONAL REFERENCES: For personal references, please speak to my dad or
uncle James Baker (They can be reached in their offices at the Carlyle
Group where they are helping to divide up the spoils of the US-Iraq war
and plan for the next one.)

President Bush Ranks Lowest IQ in 50 Years of US Presidents. In a report
published Monday, the Lovenstein Institute of Scranton, Pennsylvania,
detailed its findings of a four-month study of the intelligence quotient
of President George W. Bush. Since 1973, the Lovenstein Institute has
published its research to the educational community on each new
president, which includes the famous "IQ" report among others. There
have been twelve presidents over the past 50 years, from F.D. Roosevelt
to G.W. Bush, who were rated based on scholarly achievements, writings
that they produced without aid of staff, their ability to speak with
clarity, and several other psychological factors, which were then
scored using the Swanson/Crain system of intelligence ranking.

The study determined the following IQs of each president as accurate to
within five percentage points: In order by presidential term:

147.. Franklin D. Roosevelt (D)

132 ..Harry Truman (D)

122 ..Dwight D. Eisenhower (R)

174 ..John F. Kennedy (D)

126 ..Lyndon B. Johnson (D)

155..Richard M. Nixon (R)

121 ..Gerald Ford (R)

175 ..James E. Carter (D)

105 ..Ronald Reagan (R)

098 ..George Bush (R)

182 ..William J. Clinton (D)

091 ..George W. Bush (R)


In IQ order:

182.. William J. Clinton (D)

175 ..James E. Carter (D)

174 ..John F. Kennedy (D)

155 ..Richard M. Nixon (R)

147 ..Franklin D. Roosevelt (D)

132 ..Harry Truman (D)

126 ..Lyndon B. Johnson (D)

122 ..Dwight D. Eisenhower (R)

121 ..Gerald Ford (R)

105 ..Ronald Reagan (R)

098 ..George Bush (R)

091 ..George W. Bush (R)


The six Republican presidents of the past 50 years had an average IQ of
115.5, with President Nixon having the highest at 155. President G.W.
Bush rated the lowest of all the Republicans with an IQ of 91.

The six Democrat presidents had IQs with an average of 156, with
President Clinton having the highest IQ, at 182. President Lyndon B.
Johnson was rated the lowest of all the Democrats with an IQ of 126. No
president other than Carter (D) has released his actual IQ, 176. Among
comments made concerning the specific testing of President GW Bush, his
low ratings are due to his apparently difficult command of the English
language in public statements, his limited use of vocabulary (6,500
words for Bush versus an average of 11,000 words for other presidents),
his lack of scholarly achievements other than a basic MBA, and an
absence of any body of work which could be studied on an intellectual
basis. The complete report documents the methods and procedures used to
arrive at these ratings, including depth of sentence structure and
voice stress confidence analysis.

"All the Presidents prior to George W. Bush had a least one book under
their belt, and most had written several white papers during their
education or early careers. Not so with President Bush," Dr. Lovenstein
said. "He has no published works or writings, which made it more
difficult to arrive at an assessment. We relied more heavily on
transcripts of his unscripted public speaking." The Lovenstein
Institute of Scranton Pennsylvania think tank includes high caliber
historians, psychiatrists, sociologists, scientists in human behavior,
and psychologists. Among their ranks are Dr. Werner R. Lovenstein,
world-renowned sociologist, and Professor Patricia F. Dilliams, a
world-respected psychiatrist.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
While I'm no Bush fan, a number of these "facts" that aren't dishonestly represented are simply incorrect. Avoid stridency when possible, please.
 

---

Posted by msquared (Member # 4484) on :
 
Tom

You renew my faith.

Is this an example of Strawman? Or what?

msquared
 

---

Posted by T. Analog Kid (Member # 381) on :
 
I think "unsupported assertion" covers most of it better...
 

---

Posted by WheatPuppet (Member # 5142) on :
 
I'm no fan of Bush, and there are a bunch of things on there that I know are true, but there are also plenty of assertions that are probably a little over-dramatic. I'm sure that Bill Clinton has a record equally dissapointing (such as being the first president since 1975 or so to not raise fuel efficiency standards).
 

---

Posted by msquared (Member # 4484) on :
 
My problem with a lot of the things is that they imply that Bush is responsible for them. Like the downturn in the economy. That was coming no matter what and 9/11 just made it worse.

It seems to be blaming 9/11 on Bush when he had very little to do with it and I feel there was very little he could have done to prevent it.

msquared
 

---

Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
 
Yeah, I hate Bush, but I don't like this. Some of it might be true (I've heard it before,) but other stuff I've never heard, or is written in such a way as to make it read in the worst possible light. A more balanced piece would be infinitely better. Also, sources would make it better. (You know how I love sources. )
 

---

Posted by Pod (Member # 941) on :
 
well its already been said, but most if not all of this information is:

A) inaccurate
B) unsubstantiated
C) coincidence
D) more than one of the above

That said, i really don't like bush, and i'm curious what sort of criminal record he has now.
 

---

Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
 
M2, you know how I love to disagree with you. I am still of the opinion that the economy has much to do with consumer confidence. Consumer confidence was doing just fine till Bush came along and started predicting gloom and doom. It may as bad as the voodoo ecomonics of previous administrations, but it is my opinion.

However, many of the banking/corprate scandals were well underway before Bush took office, were they not? I don't think he was responsible for all of them, but then again, if he hadn't sunk the economy with the recession talk, it might not have come to light the way it did.

As to 9/11, it is rather hard for anyone to figure out if something could have been done, though some reports seem to suggest that the infrastructure had major problems (though inherited, one wonders why a person, on the job for six months, would take a month long vacation, especially knowing that, at the very least, they had the information that "someone" was planning on hijacking a plane an crashing it into a building/monument. After all, that is why John Ashcroft stopped flying commercially.) And where can I get a job where I get a month off after 6 months?

Has anyone been watching The West Wing on Bravo? They have these nifty little facts about presidents. Last night, they said that Reagan, when possible (implying as often as possible) worked 9-5 Monday - Friday, except for Wednesdays (which he took off) and Fridays (which he worked only in the morning.) I could use a job like that, too.
 

---

Posted by msquared (Member # 4484) on :
 
Pod I think it mentions a drunk driving conviction. It also implies more by saying that his Texas driving record has been erased. Also that all his records as Governor have been erased. What is this, 1984? George is a non-person in Texas?

A bunch of unsupported crap mixed in with misleading crap surrounded by more crap.

msquared
 

---

Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
 
Interesting. . .

http://michaelw.net/Articles/GeorgeBushsresumebyKellyK.html

quote:

---

June 15th, 2003

This page is now highly ranked by Google and I've been getting quite a bit of mail on the topic. I'm taking the unusual step of modifying previously published content because the google link means that people are unlikely to read other parts of my weblog first.

I'd like to make something very clear:

I did not write this resume. As I clearly state below and in the title of this page, it was written by Kelly Kramer. I found her email address on the web and asked her for permission to repoost. She was kind enough to grant me permission.

Many people have asked for references or sources that can validate the assertions of the resume.

One person has proofed it and offered grammatical corrections.

Some people, while agreeing with anti-bush sentiment, have objected to the use of half-truths to make a point.

I welcome all feedback. I have asked Kelly for more information. If you doubt the validity of any particular part, why not find the counter proof and send it to me. I will update this page from time to time with new information.

And now the original content written by Kelly Kramer.

George W. Bush's Resume

By: Kelley Kramer - 04/25/03

I recently had an email exchange with a right-winger from my local newspaper, and of course the war with Iraq came up pretty quick. But he said something in defense of George Bush that really surprised me. In defense of the attack on Iraq he said 'between Hussein and Bush, Hussein is the bad guy'.

My first response was ... So your guy is better than a third world dictator, Wow! what an accomplishment! Does he put that on his resume?

And with that in mind, I started wondering ... what would a George W. Bush resume look like exactly? Listed below is what I came up with.

George W. Bush Resume

Past work experience:

Ran for congress and lost.
Produced a Hollywood slasher B movie.
Bought an oil company, but couldn't find any oil in Texas, company went bankrupt shortly after I sold all my stock.
Bought the Texas Rangers baseball team in a sweetheart deal that took land using tax-payer money. Biggest move: Traded Sammy Sosa to the Chicago White Sox.
With fathers help (and his name) was elected Governor of Texas.
Accomplishments: Changed pollution laws for power and oil companies and made Texas the most polluted state in the Union. Replaced Los Angeles with Houston as the most smog ridden city in America. Cut taxes and bankrupted the Texas government to the tune of billions in borrowed money. Set record for most executions by any Governor in American history.
Became president after losing the popular vote by over 500,000 votes, with the help of my fathers appointments to the Supreme Court.

---

From there, it appears to be what is already posted.

As to Bush's arrests. . .

The first arrest of George W. Bush was for theft at a hotel.
The second arrest was for disorderly conduct at a football game.
The third arrest, we've now learned, is for a very serious crime -- drunk driving.

I believe they are talking about the dui, however.

Sheesh, there are like 20 pages at google that have that same resume. 20 pages, not 20 sites.
 

---

Posted by msquared (Member # 4484) on :
 
Kayla

I know your not so simple as to think that when the President goes to Texas that he does no work. Unlike the rest of us the President really has no vacation. He is on call all the time 24/7 and you know that.

About 9/11. There may have been rumors about something, even details like they were planning on flying planes into buildings, but no one has shown any where that any one had concrete evidence. Lets say that Bush did some how stop the planes from taking off. What would he have held the hijackers on? Liberals would have been screeming racist at him for daring to arrest 19 Arab Muslims, many of whom were students. Many people would have poo-pooed claims that they were going to fly planes into buildings. That is my problem with trying to stop terrorist attacks, unless you stop them driving to the place or with the bomb in the back of the truck, it does not seem like a large threat.

Can you see the head lines in an alternate history? Police arrest 19 Saudis. President claims that they were going to fly planes into the WTC, the Pentagon and the White House. What proof? Well they had suspected ties to Al-Quida and the took flying lessons with out learning how to land. That would surly get them life senteces.

My other claim is that 9/11 made the recession much worse than it would have otherwise. Most people know that we were heading in to recession before the election. Economic number show that that is true. It should have been a fairly mild recession. 9/11 changed all that. It devastated whole sections of our economy. We still have not recovered from it. I will grant that the Enron stuff and other corporate scandals also had thier part, but most of those scandals had their start under Clinton.

msquared
 

---

Posted by msquared (Member # 4484) on :
 
Ok so they were arrest, but I do not see any mention of convictions. It mentions criminal record but if you are not convicted you do not have a criminal record. Misleading.

msuqared
 

---

Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
 
If youre gonna cut and paste nine miles of garbage onto a forum, at least have some self respect about what youre gonna post. at least throw an issue of spy vs spy or a Calvin and Hobbes strip in there somewhere to add a bit of realism.

Oh yeah, typing '...than any other in history'at the end of a statement doesnt make it true. it just makes it sound like meaningless crap.


[ September 03, 2003, 04:11 PM: Message edited by: odouls268 ]
 

---

Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
 
You are very late posting this. I saw it several days ago, and unless you were trying to troll, others have pointed out its inadequacies. Actually, even if you were trying to troll, it is still inadequate.
 

---

Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
 
Hey, she's been here a couple of months and has over 200 posts. I don't think she was intentionally trolling. She got it as an e-mail and thought she'd share.

My complaint about Bush is that it would seem that his people knew about it and therefore had the choice as to whether or not to fly, but we, the people, didn't. Not that I think it would have been a good idea to tell the people, mind you.

Also, this malarkey that Ari Fleischer said about 9/11 "until the attack took place, I think it's fair to say that no one envisioned that [using planes as suicide bombs] as a possibility," is bull.

How they can actually put things out there like that is just beyond me. Aside from the fact that the original script for The Siege had nearly an identical plot, and the fact that Tom Clancy wrote a book where a jet was used (with a full load of fuel, so it would cause a large enough explosion, mind you) to crash into Congress (killing everyone except for the newly sworn in VP, Jack Ryan, of course ) the main reason they should have "envisioned" it is because of the report they had received. Granted, it was received on 9/11/99 and should have been taken care of under Clinton, but he was kinda busy with the impeachment and all.

quote:

---

The report, entitled the "Sociology and Psychology of Terrorism: Who Becomes a Terrorist and Why?," warned the executive branch that bin Laden's terrorists might hijack an airliner and dive bomb it into the Pentagon or other government building.

---

See, if someone in the government had realized what they had, they could have called the airlines together and told them this information. The public might have even been warned. Pilots are trained to deal with hijackers in a certain way. They should have been trained to do something completely different, given the information we had at the time. If the public had known that it was a possibility and that pilots were being trained to handle certain types of hijackings differently, then there wouldn't have been all the confusion on 9/11 from the "let's roll" passengers. They wouldn't have spent an hour or two debating what to do. Pilots of the flights that crashed into the WTC (unlikely, given the doubt that the pilots probably would have had, but possible) might have crashed the planes much earlier, into fields like the PA flight did. At least "the people" wouldn't have felt as betrayed and unprotected as some did after 9/11. Bush could have said, "this is why we trained the pilots to handle this situation like this." Or, even if the airlines, or "the people" threw a hissy fit and refused to allow pilots to train to intentionally crash their planes before a larger target could be struck, Bush still could have said, "I told you so."

Not that Bush seems to give a flying fig what "the people" want and/or care about. He seems perfectly content with doing what he wants, how he wants to do it, so I don't see how public opinion on new pilot training, or even mass middle east descent arrests would have mattered to him.

The big problem is that the government thinks in terms of a specific threat, which I think is a mistake. Apparently, we wait until we hear about a plan to take an airplane from a specific airport and crash it into a specific building before ever doing anything about it. It doesn't seem like a good idea to me. To me, a better plan would be to think of all the sick and horrible things people will do to each other and figure out a way to thwart it. Do it on likelihood/cost/damage ratio if they want. Yeah, someone smuggling a dirty bomb into the country is likely. However, the cost of trying to fix the problem (at this point and time) is too much. However, when we are thinking about changes that will need to occur over the next few decades, this kind of thing should be taken into account. Kind of like city planning. Once you realize you screwed something up, the only thing to do is to fix it with later improvements. Like highways. Those are always planned wrong, but since they are always in the process of rebuilding them, you can try and work new solutions into the mix as you go. Therefore, even though there is nothing we can do about ports and inspections and dirty bombs right now, it should be held as a possibility and worked into future upgrade plans. They knew flying planes into buildings was a possibility. Yet, they did nothing to adjust for that information. I still think a simple call to the airlines, telling them to let the pilots know that there was talk, would have been enough. For me, anyway. Just a basic acknowledgment that they were listening and cared.

Also, none of that is Bush's fault. At least not solely.

And. . .

Dubya pled guilty to a misdemeanor DUI charge. Although he likes to call it a "youthful indiscretion," he was 30 at the time and didn't quit drinking for another decade.

However, it's not like he pled guilty to a felony, though it's frightening to realize that a convicted felon could run for and be President of the United States.
 

---

Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
 
Oh yeah, I forgot this part.

quote:

---

I know your not so simple as to think that when the President goes to Texas that he does no work. Unlike the rest of us the President really has no vacation. He is on call all the time 24/7 and you know that.

---

And I know you're not as naive to think that someone can actually run for, and win, the Presidency of the United States and think that it is anything less than a full-time, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year commitment. Do I have a problem with any President taking a vacation? Yeah, a bit. I mean, yeah, the President should have some time off, but not a month in Texas. Not a month anywhere. It's not like he doesn't get to go gallivanting around the world just doing his job. I remember Clinton taking Chelsea on overseas trips and using some of that time for sightseeing, and I don't have a problem with that. I do, however, have a problem with these guys who think the job is 9-5 with a month off in the summer. Where does he think he is, France? This is the most important job in America. No one can "cover" for the President. If he didn't want the job, he shouldn't have tried to get elected.
 

---

Posted by Sweet William (Member # 5212) on :
 
lack of scholarly achievements other than a basic MBA

Yeah, those Harvard MBA's are just a freakin' cake walk.

The biggest cake walk in HISTORY!!!!!

[ September 03, 2003, 05:50 PM: Message edited by: Sweet William ]
 

---

Posted by wieczorek (Member # 5565) on :
 
I think it was pretty pathetic on our hegemon's part to hide when 9/11 was going on. What? Does he think he's worth assassinating? Right...sure Mr. Bush. The only kind of person who'd try to kill him would be someone with a hit-list based on annoying people.


"Remember, the enemy's gate is down"
 

---

Posted by Possum (Member # 2549) on :
 

quote:

---

I know your not so simple as to think that when the President goes to Texas that he does no work. Unlike the rest of us the President really has no vacation. He is on call all the time 24/7 and you know that.

---

Come on! Many, many of us are responsible all day and all night. When the call comes, we go. Doctors, firemen, custodians, principals, national guard...on and on.

Give me a break. I wish I had his health insurance.

edited for spelling error, dang it.

[ September 03, 2003, 06:00 PM: Message edited by: Possum ]
 

---

Posted by msquared (Member # 4484) on :
 
Possum

That is bunk. In normal situations ever one you listed is allowed to take time where they are not availble to be called. In an emergency they are called, but they all get vacations and regular time off. There are times where they are on call, which means that they don't have to be at thier normal place, but have to be available.

I really don't think that Bush's month was a month of doing nothing but relaxing. Didn't he have the leaders of other countries visiting him?

I am sure he can do almost as much from his ranch in Texas as he can from Washington. Congress is out of session so there is nothing going on there. I think this is too harsh on the guy.

msquared
 

---

Posted by Evie3217 (Member # 5426) on :
 
Alright...I must clear a few things up:

First of all, I don't believe all of this. I just thought it was an interesting point of view, and thought that I'd share it with you to see what you thought about it.(mistake)

Second: I'm not "trolling" anything (whatever that means).

Third: I don't appreciate being slandered by people just for putting this up here. I'm not saying that these are my beliefs. I only posted it because I thought hatrackers would be interested.

Fourth: Thank you Kayla for being the only one nice to me on this thread, backing me up, but not the e-mail. I appreciate it very much.

I found quite a few things in the e-mail outrageous, but didn't post them. I'm sorry if I offended any of you. That was not my intent.
 

---

Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
 
BOO HISS BOO

This borders on libel.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
well, no, no it doesn't
 

---

Posted by Geoffrey Card (Member # 1062) on :
 
It's very easy to criticize the administration about September 11 with our 20/20 hindsight. Sure, there were indications and ideas that terrorists might use planes as missiles. There were also thousands upon thousands of other totally unrelated warning signs about totally different threats available at the same time. Exactly what criteria should the administration (EITHER administration) have used to determine exactly which one would be used, to devastating effect, in 2001, and therefore, which one deserved the drastic attention it would have taken to thwart the attack? Come on.

And the whole deal about "hiding" during the attack. Yes, the gallant thing to do is to stand up and show the American people that you're not afraid. But there is also a comprehensive machinery in place to protect the life of the president, and when you are in the midst of an attack, and you have NO IDEA how extensive the attack is going to be, or what the enemy might know, or what they might do next, it makes a LOT of sense to trust the tried-and-true methods and reflexes of the Secret Service until you are in a better position to assess the situation. On the large scale of war, Bush's temporary disappearance was less than a flinch in the face of a sudden, unexpected attack.

Remember in elementary school, when that annoying kid would swing a fist at your face, stopping an inch from you eye? Naturally, your reflexes would cause you to flinch, since you had no way of knowing if the attack was real or not, and your nervous system is geared up to automatically evade certain types of assaults. But then that stupid kid would point and laugh, mocking you for being "afraid". You weren't afraid, you simply had a working nervous system with automatic defenses.

Similarly, the President is part of a well-oiled machine with defenses that are designed to automatically keep the upper echelon of our government intact in the face of disaster. It worked. Had an attack been planned on the president immediately after the plane crashes, it certainly would have been thwarted by our government's reflexes. Now we know there wasn't one. Does that make our government's reflexes a BAD thing? Does that mean that our president should be reckless with his life in the face of the unknowable?

I just think Bush's enemies want to shame him into getting himself assassinated next time around

My own pet peeve about that resume? The part about Bush being the most-protested leader in history. Puts his critics in perspective, doesn't it? If that statistic is true, then Bush is more loudly detested than Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao, Hussein, or Milosevic. A little petty, don't you think, for such anger to be directed at someone so relatively benign?
 

---

Posted by TheTick (Member # 2883) on :
 
Geoff, of course he's the most loudly protested of that bunch. If you spoke against Stalin of some of those others, you got a bullet to the head in your prison cell.
 

---

Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
 
History will be not kind.

So G.W.B. is not the best president, but a lot of it is circumstances, and bad luck. An abler man might have been able to carry off difficulties with ease, but G.W.B. doesn't have that talent.
 

---

Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
 
Geoff, they should weigh the cost. Just like the car manufacturers do before a recall. How much will it cost if it happens per person, how many people will it happen to, how much will it cost to fix the problem. It 1 x 2 is less than 3, nothing happens. How much would it have cost to give a heads up to the airlines that it might be possible and they should warn their pilots and consider bullet proof doors?

quote:

---

"Suicide bomber(s) belonging to al Qaeda's Martyrdom Battalion could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives (C-4 and semtex) into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), or the White House," the September 1999 report said.

The report noted that an al Qaeda-linked terrorist first arrested in the Philippines in 1995 and later convicted in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing had suggested such a suicide jetliner mission.

"Ramzi Yousef had planned to do this against the CIA headquarters," author Rex Hudson wrote in a report prepared for the National Intelligence Council and shared with other federal agencies.

---

It seems like they knew it was a possiblity. You can't tell me that the group that was tenacious enough to bomb the WTC twice wasn't considered a threat.
 

---

Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
 
Actually history will be kinder to Bush than say Harding. Harding had the good (or bad)luck of dying right when his administration went down the tubes. He was voted the worst President in history, even worse than William Henry Harrison (who governed 30 days)
 

---

Posted by T. Analog Kid (Member # 381) on :
 
Evie,

I think the comments were directed at the e-mial, not at you, for the most part.

Mine certainly were.
 

---

Posted by WheatPuppet (Member # 5142) on :
 
The problem is, we havn't had a great president in a long time. Where did they all go? I want a great president, and I'm afraid I'll die (I'm 19, by the way) before I see one. The next presidential election looks kinda grim. I don't want Bush, I think he's dangerous, but Dean, Kerry, and the lot seem kinda unfit to be president.

Evie, thanks for posting the thread. I always enjoy watching political debates. The more I see,the more I realize that nobody is right, and how okay that is.

I hope I wasn't one of the ones that came off as a slanderer. If so, I didn't mean it.
 

---

Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
 
Personally I don't approve of some this being posted at all such as

"I am the first president to run and hide when the US came under attack
(and then lied, saying the enemy had the code to Air Force 1)."

"I am the first president in US history to order a US attack and military
occupation of a sovereign nation, and I did so against the will of the
United Nations and the world community."

"I am the first US president to establish a secret shadow government."

Then a lot of that first and only stuff is ridiculous. If you deleted any of it then I can't possibly comprehend why you didn't delete some of this other stuff. Either leave all of it or remove all of the offending material. At some point it comes across as an endorsement when you post something like this without a disclaimer.
 

---

Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
 
Fret not, all of you. I will run for president in 2020, and all will finally be well again

 

---

Posted by Jerryst316 (Member # 5054) on :
 
OK this is gonna get all the righties and maybe even some other people mad at me but hey i just wanted to share. A while ago, (i cant remember when), there was a book in France that claimed that the US government was responsible for 9/11. In fact, if I remember correctly it was the best selling book in France for easily 3 months. I guess my point is that with all the stuff you guys are talking about, if I were French everything WOULD be Bush's fault. I think thats one of the reasons that France did what it did at the UN.

To me, this is the most apparent reason that President Bush should lose that title in just over a year. As much as he sides with business over the environment, secrecy over openess, and war over peace, the main reason I will not vote for him in 2004 is the simple fact that he has turned good will into pure hatred from most of the world. He has been, without question, the most antagonistic president ive ever lived under and it can only hurt the US to be alienated from the rest of the world. Remember, history repeats itself, and every great civilization in history has fallen. We could be next.
 

---

Posted by Pod (Member # 941) on :
 
Hart:

I think you're wrong.

History won't be kind to bush. His administration will eventually be known for dropping more balls than anyone was aware of now. The seeds of far too many things are being sown by this rendition of the US government. So the republicans got to have things their way. We'll get to see how it pans out in 10-20 years.
 

---

Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
 
ok jerry, fair enough.
how would you have handled 9-11 and protected the US from further attack?
 

---

Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
 
OK, of course someday the American civilization will be destroyed. That doesn't mean that it will happen under Bush or even that it will be America's fault. It could be because China's technology catches up with its population and size and they simply overwhelm us. Or a madman may finally manage to send us into a truly nuclear war. As long as Bush continues to do the right thing I will support him.
 

---

Posted by Jerryst316 (Member # 5054) on :
 

quote:

---

ok jerry, fair enough.
how would you have handled 9-11 and protected the US from further attack?

---

quote:

---

lack of scholarly achievements other than a basic MBA

Yeah, those Harvard MBA's are just a freakin' cake walk.

The biggest cake walk in HISTORY!!!!!

---

quote:

---

History will be not kind.

So G.W.B. is not the best president, but a lot of it is circumstances, and bad luck. An abler man might have been able to carry off difficulties with ease, but G.W.B. doesn't have that talent.

---

quote:

---

Its ridiculous to say Bush has squashed criticism when you're still talking now.... It disgusts me that you would consider 9/11 to be good luck for anyone except for Al-Queda.

---

If you mean that Bush hasn't set up a secret police to break down our doors, then yes technicall you are correct. But surely Lalo was referring to the fact that Bush has leveraged 9/11 to silence the Democrats on many issues. I do not blame Bush for this though. It was an expected political move. I'm more pissed at the Democrats for not fighting back.
 

---

Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
 
At worst Democrats silenced themselves. It was a political move on their part to show that they were with the president in fighting terrorism. There have been no McCarthy hearings or any real threats to make liberals be quiet on any issues.
 

---

Posted by Jerryst316 (Member # 5054) on :
 
newfoundlogic- I have two words for you. "Dixie Chicks"

Even without hearings, there are many things which made liberals be quiet especially about the war. Along with the news media, the republicans did a FANTASTIC job when they equated anti-war with anti-troop. Instantly, anyone who was opposed to the war in Iraq also wanted to see young American soldiers killed and defeated by Iraqi forces. OF course, this made it political suicide to come out against the war. They also did a great job of convincing you that in a democracy, suppressing the opposition is a great thing.

[ September 04, 2003, 01:46 AM: Message edited by: Jerryst316 ]
 

---

Posted by T. Analog Kid (Member # 381) on :
 
yeah, that famously right-wing news media did it...

Why is it that nobody faults the Dixie Chicks for biting the hand that fed them? A bunch of people have said their comments were out-of-line, but hell, I make out-of-line comments all the time. A lot of people have said that they have been unjustly persecuted (though I think this is the first time I've heard someone suggest they were censored by the government).

What I have heard almost no one say is how mind-bogglingly STUPID and ungrateful those comments were. The Chicks' careers were MADE in Texas by the very people that elected him governor twice and voted both him and his father into office at every opportunity. Added to that, their hit single at the time was a sympathetic ditty about a soldier killed in action. It stands to reason that their fan base at the time was largely supportive of Bush and the military and they chose to spit in those people's faces-- "we don't care what you spend on us, we're smarter than you yokels that buy our patriotic songs!"

I am much more appalled at their ingracious lack of humility than at *any* political implications to their statement.

So while I am not actively boycotting them, I don't particularly pity them either... and I can't really fathom anyone who does.

[ September 04, 2003, 09:31 AM: Message edited by: T. Analog Kid ]
 

---

Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
 
Newfound,

quote:

---

Personally, I don't give a damn about alienating the world when not doing so comes at the expense of doing an incredibly important thing such as liberating a people oppressed in a most horrific fashion and ending an attempted genocide.

---

quote:

---

If you mean that Bush hasn't set up a secret police to break down our doors

---

I'd just like to point out that, technically, bush has done that (well okay, simply given the current police the right to do that). It's called the Patriot Act.
 

---

Posted by Pod (Member # 941) on :
 
Also, since when did there have to be hearings for something to be McCarthy like?

If you'll look at republican behavior (particularly of Orrin Hatch) during recent judicial nominations, you'll see the most reprehensible public conduct i've ever seen during my 21 years.
 

---

Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
 
Bush is from Conneticut.
 

---

Posted by T. Analog Kid (Member # 381) on :
 
Yeah... but it was bound to be taken that way... Texans are a prideful (sensitive bunch).

I actually empathize with them on that count as I have a habit of saying devastatingly rude or insulting things without meaning to. The reason I don't feel sorry ofr them is their lack of humility in response, preferring (for whatever reason) to play the oppressed artist speaking out against tyrrany rather than simply saying "I'm sorry... I really didn't mean to insult y'all. My bad."
 

---

Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
 
!!!REMINDER!!!
__________________________________________________

Of all the bad things that have happened in the United States of America, George W. Bush is not responsible for any of them.

Much like Kenneth Lay wasn't responsible for any of the bad stuff that happened at Enron.
__________________________________________________
 

---

Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
 
The Dixie Chicks made innapropriate comments in an innapropriate place for an attempted monetary gain. Their gamble failed and they suffered the consequences, I pity them not. Why do you think people associate anti-war with anti-soldier? Maybe its because of all the Vietnam War protesters screaming, "Baby Killers!!!" World War II vets had victory parades, Korean vets were ignored, and Vietnam vets were spit on. Bush and the Republican Party had nothing to do with that sentiment, the protesters did it to themselves.
 

---

Posted by Godric (Member # 4587) on :
 
I just want to know if those IQ scores were accurate? What are guys with 160, 170, 180+ IQs doing in politics? Shouldn't they be philosophers or scientists or mathematicians or, well, anything important?
 

---

Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
 
My stereotype of Texans is that they are rugged individualists who take pride in their independence. How can Bush, who rode his daddy's coat tails all the way to the presidency, be representative of Texans?
 

---

Posted by Chade Fallstar (Member # 5581) on :
 
Texans are individualists, but they also have more state pride than any other state I've been to. So because of this it makes sense for them to react that way. Being a Texan means more to Texans than being a Virginian means to Virginians or Floridians to Floridians.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"The Dixie Chicks made innapropriate comments in an innapropriate place for an attempted monetary gain."

Why were they inappropriate comments in an inappropriate place? It seems to me that the comments were both appropriate to the place AND the topic at hand.

Moreover, why do you think they criticized the president for attempted monetary gain?
 

---

Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
 
The "topic" was a concert, not a political discussion. The comment was innapropriate for the place it was given because it was done in front of a foreign audience condemning the American president. My point wasn't that they were condemning Bush because he was trying to get a monetary gain, but that they were attempting to make money by those comments. Their intention was to gain support from a crowd they assumed was anti-Bush. Notice how they backed off their comments afterward when they saw the economic backlash. Bush on the other hand has not tried to make money off of this war. It would be completely illogical to do so. It would be a lot easier to just open Iraq to American investment by lifting the sanctions. That way he could have skipped the whole inevitable "chaos" period.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Okay, I really don't want to harp on this, but let's ask a few questions:

1) Do you really believe that the Dixie Chicks criticized Bush -- on behalf of their state -- because they thought it would make more Brits buy their albums?

2) Do you really believe that it is inappropriate for citizens of the United States to criticize our president in the presence of foreigners?

3) Do you really believe that the Dixie Chicks "backed off" of their earlier statement on their own initiative, and not because Sony whapped them hard in the back of their heads with their contract?

4) Do you really believe that Bush, his friends, and his business partners have not tried to make money off this war?

[ September 05, 2003, 01:06 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
 

---

Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
 
Screw the Dixie Chicks, who really cares what they say about politics except for some disappointed fans?

TomD, for my views on criticizing the president see below.
Question 4) Of course they have tried to make money, they are rich businessmen. Seeking profits is one thing, but all of those "no-bid" contracts awarded before,during and after the Iraq war would make even Huey Long blush in shame.

Concerning the original "resume": it's a little stunning to see all of that in one long post. While some of it is either not true, half-true, or coincidental, enough of it sticks to Dubya that if he is re-elected, it will be the biggest election triumph since Nixon's re-election in 74, after Watergate. There were plenty of mistakes and exaggerations in that "resume," but there is plenty of sheer incompetence and corruption as well. The sad thing is, newfoundlogic is right: many Americans think Bush has done a bang-up job.

quote:

---

As far as I and many other Americans are concerned Bush has been successful in his presidency especially concerning foreign policy.

Personally, I don't give a damn about alienating the world [etc.]

---

quote:

---

get your fact and use your brain.

---

 

---

Posted by ^eleKtron (Member # 5619) on :
 
heh, i was in the middle of editing my post when you replied w/ that.... go me for proof reading
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"all that matters is that there are less of them than there were."

Elektron, many of the things you said were staggeringly ignorant. This one, however, was the ignorantest.
 

---

Posted by ^eleKtron (Member # 5619) on :
 
if you think so, then back it up... oh and using the word "ignorantest," THAT'S ignorant
 

---

Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
 
eleKtron, you know, I think the biggest problems I have with posts like that (your first one) is the contrast between the moral superiority complex and the seemingly complete lack of educational superiority. When did the schools stop teaching Capital letters? And History, apparently. Love it or leave it? Isn't the First Amendment the right to free speech? Maybe you are the one who should leave since you obviously don't agree with the very essence of the country's being.
 

---

Posted by ^eleKtron (Member # 5619) on :
 
oh, and know what i find interesting? remember when clinton did his littler tantrum in iraq? bombed them for a few days and such... no one seemed to find a problem with that.... the interesting thing about that whole deal was that it accomplished NOTHING. LITERALLY NOTHING. but no one hated on him for that. even thr republicans (myself included) had his back... it was the ideals behind it that mattered.

now bush takes that 5 levels up and actually gets SOMETHING done over there and people do nothing but trash him and crap...

i dont know about you, but that makes no sense to me...

[ September 05, 2003, 10:45 AM: Message edited by: ^eleKtron ]
 

---

Posted by ^eleKtron (Member # 5619) on :
 
kayla- hmmmmm, so you cut me down because i dont capitalize letters.... looks like you have more important issues to work out than i do... this is the internet, not my english term paper. and you're definatley not my professor.

[ September 05, 2003, 10:45 AM: Message edited by: ^eleKtron ]
 

---

Posted by ^eleKtron (Member # 5619) on :
 

quote:

---

Isn't the First Amendment the right to free speech?

---

you said it not me... you basically cut me down because of something i said/the way i said it and then threw this out there. lol, way to contradict yourself...
 

---

Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
 
Hoooo boy.
 

---

Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
 
I'm tired. Do I have to take this one?

edit: Man, why do I even feel compelled? It's not like I'm a babysitter for n00bs.

Ralphie: this is a note from THE FUTURE. Never post without having slept for 36 hours again.

[ September 05, 2003, 10:57 AM: Message edited by: Ralphie ]
 

---

Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
 
Welcome to the forum, elektron. Now Ryan Hart will have some competition for "most reactionary."

people like you make me sick. get your facts straight and use your brain.--elektron
Ditto--Morbo

you're as bad as the friggin iraqis. sing bushes praises one day and curse him the next. get the hell out of the country if you dont like it.--elektron
Perhaps you just don't get the concept of free speech--it's in the Bill of Rights. I missed the part about arbitrary exile by blowhards. The right to bitch about our rulers is as American as apple pie.--Morbo

just keep your two faced self out of the political world in any case--elektron

Who specifically was two-faced? The author of the original e-mailed resume? A hatrack poster? Someone else --Morbo
 

---

Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
 
You have the right to free speech. So do I. What part of that do you not understand?

If you want to sound ignorant/uneducated, or just want to give the impression that your time is too valuable to waste on the common courtesy of making your post readable, that's fine. However, it is my right to make fun of you and dismiss you out of hand for doing so. It's not a contradiction. If I told you to shut the hell up, that would be a contradiction.

You know what? I don't have the time to deal with you today.
 

---

Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
 
Elektron, you do have a point about Clinton's ineffectual and unoppossed use of force in 98.
 

---

Posted by ^eleKtron (Member # 5619) on :
 
morbo- About the clinton question: only that it's odd that people supported him an a pretty pointless show of force back then and wont support bush now when he actually did something. just says something pretty lousy about america....

About the two faced question: maybe two faced was the wrong term... my meaning is that people dont know or care what they believe. they will follow the crowd and media and trash bush at the lightest whim despite the incredible good he;s done for the country. why is it come election time people don't think about all the good the previous president did, only the bad...

kayla- lol, i DID make my post readable. as you recall i edited it to get rid of the couple typo's. is my lack of capitaization causing you to have trouble reading reading my post? how long have you actually been around on the internet? 95% of the the conversations that go on over the internet have no capitalization and/or incorrect punctuation. get used to it. if this were a term paper as i said before i would certainly spend the time to make sure all the grammatical errors were fixed. this, however, is not.... sorry to disappoint, but i dont plan on publishing any of this...

-------------------------------------------------

Let me throw in something else i find interesting. It's really kinda funny that all the democratic presidential candidates are smashing on bush over iraq... Bill Clinton came out about a month ago and said he totally backs all that bush did in iraq... kinda weird how that happens. i still wish i could have an explanation for such a huge gaping hole here. i think the democrats running for election probably dont even believe what they themselves are saying about iraq. they're just trying to light the emotions of the voters to score some votes... but that pure speculation/theory...

[ September 05, 2003, 11:20 AM: Message edited by: ^eleKtron ]
 

---

Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
 

quote:

---

you forgot "i saved an entire nation of people from the rule of a heinous, evil dictator." (Iraq)

---

quote:

---

and "I rooted out a controlling organization that had been ruthlessly running a country and disbanded countless terrorist cells as well as killed countless would-be terrorist murdering slime." (Afganistan)

---

quote:

---

and as far as the people revolting again, do you honestly think that ANY person would EVER have been able to truly change anything over there?

---

A crucial reason revolt was impossible was Bush Sr. f***ed up the treaty negotiations after Gulf I, allowing Saddam to crush the Shi'ia and Kurds with helicopter gunships. A classic example how half-measures are often the worst course, and of losing a war at the treaty table--we kicked him out of Kuwait but left him with his totalitarian forces intact. And we encouraged the Shi'ia and Kurds to revolt, then turned our backs on them when they needed our support, a blunder we are still feeling in relations with those groups today. Just like Cubans were abandoned by Kennedy at the Bay of Pigs.

[ September 05, 2003, 11:20 AM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
 

---

Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
 
I love the "this isn't a term paper argument". I love it in the same way I love bull crap. Which is to say, I don't love it all.
Now, I realize when you're talking to Joe 12-year old gamer on Battle.net you don't use caps and you don't bother with grammar, and that's fine for that community. This is a different community. Different community, different expectations. People here *are* going to be bothered if you don't use proper grammar.

Granted, porcelein girl doesn't use caps either. But there's a difference between the two of you. She's nice. You're being a wanker.
 

---

Posted by ^eleKtron (Member # 5619) on :
 
awwww, i'll be sure to log that away bob... if you dont like the way i type, don't read it...
 

---

Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
 
You know, looking over what you've written, I don't think I count that as any big loss
 

---

Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
 
I could care less if you capitolize or what ever. But many on this forum do, so they'll mock you or ignore you if your posts are full of grammar and spelling errors. Just FYI.
 

---

Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
 
eleKtron - While I'm not quite the Nazi some people around here are, capitalization and proper grammar/punctuation is a sign that you take other people into consideration. Because we've been raised reading books, the mind automatically reads much easier and faster if the written language is correct.

It's a courtesy.

The reason why this may be something that you should take into consideration is that you're sharing ideas with people here. You're trying to communicate your concepts, opinions and ideologies and, at the same time, have others share theirs with you. Because that is your goal, by showing common courtesy you are going to have a much more willing audience - they will know you at least care that much about them, and so will be far more persuaded by your words. Love stimulates interest, and interest stimulates learning. Think of it as a mild form of agape.

Oh, and chill a little before you hit the "add reply" button. Flaming anyone around here won't do any good but get yourself ignored by reasonable people who don't appreciate ad hominems and flame-worthy language. Hatrack is a good place, and it deserves respect. If you don't see that yet, you will. And when you do and reread your earliest posts, you'll feel like SUCH a punk.

[ September 05, 2003, 11:27 AM: Message edited by: Ralphie ]
 

---

Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
 
So, the longer I've been online, the less often I'll use capital letters? I bet Tom Davidson would disagree with that.

quote:

---

sorry to disappoint, but i dont plan on publishing any of this...

---

quote:

---

if this were a term paper as i said before i would certainly spend the time to make sure all the grammatical errors were fixed.

---

quote:

---

Elektron, if only Bush and his people had emphasized that before the war, it might have some credability. Unfortunately, the reason given was mainly "an imminent threat to America from Iraq," pretty funny considering they couldn't shoot down a single US plane flying in their own airspace

---

well, al-quada(sp?) certainly couldn't shoot down a figher jet, but they sure did kill a lot of americans... it's called terrorism and harboring it.

as far as the quagmire goes, sadly i would have to agree with you...

half measures? wow i would totally agree with you there. Gulf war one, bay of pigs, vietnam, you name it. even clintons attacks in iraq... it IS kinda funny how yaknow, 1000 years ago when a coutry conquired another they WIPED it out. the problem was gone... now we are more worried about other things and the problem remains. not that i want us to nuke iraq or anything and wipe it out, but i think a more focused approach to WIPE OUT the powers at be would be better. my poitions concerning bush still stand but there's obviosly ALWAYS room for improvment. he didnt get the job completely done but he sure did a heckuva lot more than anyone else.

The thing that pisses me off about people vs bush is that they trash EVERYTHING he's done. he did a TON of good for this country that people either ignore or twist so it's now bad... and that's just sickening...
 

---

Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
 
Dude, what did I tell ya? The GrammatikFurer ( a real member name) and the Editor-in-chief haven't even shown up. Yet.
 

---

Posted by ^eleKtron (Member # 5619) on :
 
kayla- don't twist my words. you know exactly what i meant by publishing...
 

---

Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
 
elektron,

This isn't 95% of the internet. I'm not saying we are special, or anything. I'm just saying, that if you read this forum, you will find people capitalizing even silly fluff.

It is a convention of this particular internet community.

It is harder to see where sentences begin when you don't use capitals. Even with the period showing where the previous sentence ended, the brain may feel like something is missing. Is that where the sentence really begins, or is it a fragment?

Most people capitalize without even thinking about it. It isn't hard to get into the habit of hitting that shift button at the appropriate time. So when it seems like such a small thing to do, to follow style conventions that you learned in kindergarten, or first grade, it feels to the rest of us more a problem of being lazy than a problem of education. The laziness appears to us to show a lack of desire to actually contribute. We feel you just want to stir the pot, and tend to downgrade our perceptions of your posts to 'troll'.

Is this true for every internet community? No. To Hatrack? Yes. That tiny bit of effort will gain you a bit more respect.

Also, don't make assumptions about how people have felt about Bush when you haven't even been here for the whole administration. For the most part, I don't think I've seen one fairweather Bush friend here. They've pretty much always disagreed him.

I'm irritated because a lot of our problems now don't stem from Bush, but from the previous administration dropping the ball with both Iraq AND with our economy. There were lots of indications that the economy would slump way before Bush ever took office. The funny thing about it, is the Clinton administration probably actually couldn't have done a thing about it. It arose from a technology gold rush that became over inflated. Presidents really have very little control over the economy.

[ September 05, 2003, 11:36 AM: Message edited by: Amka ]
 

---

Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
 
And here I thought publishing something meant entering something into the public domain. Just because nobody pays you to press "post" doesn't mean it hasn't been published.
But now you're going to yell at me for arguing semantics.
 

---

Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
 
Dude, there really is NO need to be this vehement. People around here do not require a bashing over the head. They're REASONABLE people.

I've been to a lot of forums where flaming is the norm, but it's the exception to the rule here. It's not required and, actually, will do more harm than good for your argument.

Chill.
 

---

Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
 

quote:

---

1000 years ago when a country conquired another they WIPED it out. the problem was gone.

---

elektron

One weird but chillingly logical idea I've read in recent years is that slavery was actually a good thing when first invented, what, 5,000 years ago? Because after that at least some of a conquered tribe or nation lived on, instead of the whole population being put to the sword (or club.)

Mind you, I AM NOT PRO-SLAVERY. But it is an interesting idea.

[ September 05, 2003, 11:38 AM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
 

---

Posted by ^eleKtron (Member # 5619) on :
 
for thsoe who have a problem with my "writing" techniques:

sorry you have issues with it. consider it my own personal literary style if you must. I've been around on the internet for a long time and it's just the way i've developed my communication. among certain communities it may rub people the wrong way, but it's the way i type. sorry if it offends but it's not changing. gosh, instead of concentrationg that something as stupid as that, stick to the topic at hand and start a new topic about poor grammar in the internet if it tickes your fancy. but doing that here is doing nothing but looking for another argument within the argument....
 

---

Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
 
That is interesting, Morbo. Growth of civiliation. Some behaviors are worse than others, and as we have grown up through the list, behaviors that were once considered benevolent and more moral are now barbaric.
 

---

Posted by ^eleKtron (Member # 5619) on :
 
Morbo- now THAT'S a chilling idea right there... it's kinda a "Xenocide" kinda thought. Do you wipe them out to keep the Descolada from spreading or do you spare them at the possible expense of the universe...

its not right in-line with that but if you could go back and change it, would ya, yaknow?

[ September 05, 2003, 11:44 AM: Message edited by: ^eleKtron ]
 

---

Posted by Sweet William (Member # 5212) on :
 
Morbo:

I could care less if you capitolize or what ever.

FYI:

The phrase is "couldn't care less;" the word is "capitalize;" and "whatever" is one word.

Just thought I'd get all "grammarian," too.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Here's the deal, eleKtron:

I could care less about your spelling or punctuation. Your text is at least comprehensible -- unlike the product of MANY of the really egregiously bad communicators we occasionally get on this forum -- so it's no biggie (although you should probably expect to get teased about it by some of our resident Grammar Nazis.)

But your actual ARGUMENTS are, well, stupid. It's fairly clear that you haven't read the dozens of conversations we've had on this board over the last year on exactly this topic, because you're bringing up tired, jingoistic cliches instead of some new and interesting perspective.

I would address you point by point, but first I'll refer you to our search engine, which you can use to find the many OTHER debates on this issue that have, quite frankly, been far more coherent than this one.
 

---

Posted by ^eleKtron (Member # 5619) on :
 
LOL, IT NEVER ENDS!!!!

I'm going to go find something high to jump off of.

Here, i have to get this out of my system:

yuo poelpe aer ttolly obosesed wiht teh ; prlobesm ni gmrmaar!!!>.#@@!!!!!11111....

Whew, ok....much better.
 

---

Posted by Sweet William (Member # 5212) on :
 
could care less

Could everyone please stop using this phrase? PLEASE?

The correct phrase is "couldn't care less."

***Goes back to bed*****
 

---

Posted by ^eleKtron (Member # 5619) on :
 
Tom, you are correct that since i am new i've never had the possibly of experiencing a politcal debate here. i don't doubt that there are far more intellectually superior beings that have graced these forums with their arguments, but quite honestly i dont know that i want to read all of them. i'll take your word for it...
 

---

Posted by ^eleKtron (Member # 5619) on :
 
william, yaknow, i've often thought the same thing before. well, wondered why people use the term "could care less" but i guess it's never stopped me from using it either....
 

---

Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
 

quote:

---

as we have grown up through the list, behaviors that were once considered benevolent and more moral are now barbaric.

---

Amka. Kind of makes you wonder what future civilizations will think of the glories of America in the 21st century, huh?

Would I go back and change it, elektron? Beats me. I have enough problems deciding what to have for dinner, much less changing human history. I guess it comes down to whether it's better to live on your knees or die on your feet. You never know till you get in a life-or-death situation what you can live with.
 

---

Posted by Sweet William (Member # 5212) on :
 
I know. I should stop harping about it, but it's fingernails on a chalkboard to me.

I also really dislike on this particular forum when people say things such as "your argument is just stupid" and "I'd refute you point by point, but instead I'll let you go do some studying because I'm too lazy to forge a coherent argument right now."

But, that's just me.
 

---

Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
 
Tom is an old fogey and he is allowed to act that way.
 

---

Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
 

quote:

---

I also really dislike on this particular forum when people say things such as "your argument is just stupid" and "I'd refute you point by point, but instead I'll let you go do some studying because I'm too lazy to forge a coherent argument right now."

---

WIlliam- did you consider that maybe their usage of "I could care less" is just a variation on the same theme as the above? Probably what they would type if they weren't so lazy is: "I could care less about your argument, but really I can't be bothered to summon up the energy to care less. Your argument is so foolish that I am just a step below apathetic; which is to say that I care very slightly about your arguent only because it isn't worth the bother required to care less".
 

---

Posted by Sweet William (Member # 5212) on :
 
Thanks, Amka. As usual, I am completely uninformed.

Jacare. Of course! You have made me feel so much better! Now, instead of all five fingernails on the board, it's just one exceptionally grating fingernail on an unusually rough board. Thanks again.

[ September 05, 2003, 12:09 PM: Message edited by: Sweet William ]
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
*grin* Basically, Sweet William, the reason I'm not going point by point through eleKtron's posts is that I've said it all before. DOZENS of times. With literally dozens of caustic newbies of this sort, all of whom tend to behave exactly the same way when they first show up.

I COULD just let OTHER people make the same arguments, but that would probably wind up just as tiresome. So I'm referring eleKtron to threads that he might not only find interesting but actually edifying, to make it possible for him to bring something NEW to this topic that we haven't already considered.

(BTW, how do you feel about "flammable?")
 

---

Posted by Sweet William (Member # 5212) on :
 
Could it be possible that the caustic nature of the original post made eleKtron feel a tad put out, and he felt the need to respond in kind?

And then, instead of addressing his points with intelligence and wit, we flame back with "you're stupid;" "you need to study more;" and you don't spell/capitalize very well, and if you want to enjoy the fragrant flatulence of Hatrack you simply must spell well, unless you happen to post things which are joyous to the ear of liberals."

Just wondering if, from time to time, we aren't all just a bit condescending.

BTW, I couldn't care less about "flammable."
 

---

Posted by Pod (Member # 941) on :
 
See, elektron the thing is, that calling people ignorant when your own arguments are vague, fairly incoherent, and horribly mispelt just lends absolutely no credibility to the things you claim.

Also, the juvenile and assinine tone you've taken in this thread makes me wish i could swat you with a rolled up newspaper.

As for you 1000 years ago, whole nations were wiped out argument is crap. Wiped out where? The most common modus operandi of warfare was not mutual annihilation, but subjugation. It's -really- hard to embark on widespread killing when you have to individually stab, cut, burn, or drown entire communities.

Sold into slavery, thats a different matter.

This isn't a matter of "intellectual superiority" this is about making sense, and not abusing others when they point out that you don't.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
SW, I don't recall our resident Grammar Nazis ever saying that he only had to spell well if he were a conservative. IIRC, liberals don't get a free pass from those girls, either -- although they DO tend to swarm like sharks when they smell the blood of newbies. *wry laugh*
 

---

Posted by Toni (Member # 5620) on :
 
Whacha-

Hey! I like newbies. They're future fanboys.
 

---

Posted by Sweet William (Member # 5212) on :
 
Please. Tom, check out page two.

From Bob the Lawyer:

Granted, porcelein girl doesn't use caps either. But there's a difference between the two of you. She's nice. You're being a wanker.

Why the double standard?

Thor regularly gets to post the most incendiary anti-Bush stuff I've ever seen, most of it approaching the infantile level of eleKtron's posts. But Thor never gets the "Little Condescending Talking To From Ralphie."

God, you're all so self-satsfied I can't believe it.
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 

quote:

---

182.. William J. Clinton (D)

---

If this is what being smart gets you, give me a dumb president anyday!
 

---

Posted by Toni (Member # 5620) on :
 
SW - Thor has never gotten a condescending little talk down to from Ralphie because he was around before me. But I have pestered and teased and made fun of and lectured him numerous times.

And he sort of swatted at me like an annoying bug. Much like what just happened. I'm down with that. Once I state my peace, I'm coo'. But I feel the need to at least try and be nice, especially when the tendency is to dog-pile. I'm sorry you think I'm being condescending. I try really hard not to be. I haven't slept in a while today, and I fear it may be affecting my diplomacy. :/

But, ultimately, the thing is that this is a really unique place for most of us. I belong to three forums, and lurk at one, and this is the only place I call home. I think people tend to get REALLY protective of it, because we view it as potentially fragile considering all the crap other forums have.

We're not better, but where we're at FITS, and so we're afraid of losing it to many of the cookie-cutter standard forum dynamics of flames and difficult-to-read english so we stamp that bad boy down before it can emerge.

And, really, if you stick around and find your nitch people are going to be more forgiving you, because they understand you better through time. But you can't come in with both barrels at a place that values peace and not get some kinda smack-down.

edit: "You" as in the collective, not as in Sweet William.

[ September 05, 2003, 01:15 PM: Message edited by: Toni ]
 

---

Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
 
PSI, I'd rather have a brilliant philanderer like Clinton or Kennedy than a 91 IQ Republican.

Bush is an empty figure-head, propped up by his smarter advisors, like Reagan.
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
That's funny! I guess that means that brains are more important than decency. That's where we differ.

<-----Brains AND decency
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Thor is part of the club. Firstly, we have some insight into what makes Thor tick, and more importantly, we've seen his pain.

Plus, IIRC people did try to deal with him, and found it was throughly pointless (wrt political topics), so he's mostly ignored whne he goes all political (we love ya thor, but sometimes you get a little fanatical).

For instance, in this very thread he's being pretty thoroughly ignored.

People did respond to his first posts with cogent counterpoints, despite their relative nonsensicality but ^eleKtron chose to insult instead of debate.

What facts he did include aren't particularly cohesive, and almost all woefully distorted.

I think the spelling and grammar tangent was more a way for some people to release some of the tensions and redirect them from the personal attacks ^eleKtron was making.

While I try to keep my spelling and grammar relatively clean, I don't mind a mistake here and there in my own discourses. In others, I'm generally tolerant.

^eleKtron, I don't mind your spelling and grammar, though I will say I would have an easier time following your points were your arguments structured more coherently, on both a macro (logical) and micro (grammar/spelling) level.

You are not bringing anything revolutionary to the field of political discourse; in fact, your debating style is best described as tired polemics. I don't bring anything revolutionary to the field either, nothing wrong with that. If we did, we'd have some books on the shelves. What I do not bring to the table are vicious and baseless personal attacks.

You've said some pretty insulting things, things which you shouldn't say to anybody, much less a group of people you just met.

If you're going to stay around, please clean up your act. Be polite.

While you have gotten off on the wrong foot, that doesn't mean you won't fit in pretty well. just ask Ryan Hart .
 

---

Posted by Erik Slaine (Member # 5583) on :
 
And, if not, start inserting some cute little smilies!
 

---

Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
 
Sweet William, it seems like I've very often seen you expressing distaste or disgust for the general conduct at Hatrack. I'm curious, if it really bothers you so much, why do you keep coming back?
 

---

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 

quote:

---

I guess that means that brains are more important than decency.

---

No, I think where we differ is whether or not to use the word decency when describe a man who is willing to lie to the congress, UN, and american people in order to start a war that will make his friends rich. Whether it is decent to imprison and torture hundreds in Guantanamo in violation of both US and international law. Whether or not it is decent to cut support for veterans, schools, and the poor so that you can give big tax breaks to the rich. Whether or not its decent to allow corporations to poison our air and water.

In my book, Bush's ethics are the worst of any president in the last century.
 

---

Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
 
Wow, at this point i believe this thread has given up all pretense of being a decent debate between sentient people.
From now on, youre all only allowed to point and yell 'poop head'


Just thought I'd pop in and say BAH! You're all wrong! And bad grammar abounds!

and.. and...

poop head.



carry on with the regularly scheduled bickering

 

---

Posted by Toni (Member # 5620) on :
 
Thanks, Dave. Very helpful, as usual.
 

---

Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
 
I try to lend a helping hand whenver possible.
Just want a little lightness. This therad was getting heavy. I needed a spotter just to get in.

 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
I got a tax break too! And I'm poor! Woo hoo!

Seriously Rabbit, I agreed with some of that, but most of it still seems attributed to lack of brains (i.e. Guantanamo and environment).
 

---

Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
 
:points at PSI, juts chin out:
What Rabbit posted, poop head!

My point is that I couldn't care less if a president cheats on his wife. I know plenty of people feel different.

[paragraph cut because I was taken in by that bogus pres. IQ study.]

Say what you like about Nixon, or Clinton. Nixon was a very creepy guy, and Clinton had his share of faults. But at least they had brains, and hopefully tried to use them to advance the interests of America.

[ September 06, 2003, 04:58 AM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
 

---

Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
 
hey, just curious, who got rich off the war?

I want names, cause im gonna ask them for lunch money tomorrow.
 

---

Posted by ^eleKtron (Member # 5619) on :
 
lol funny stuff....
 

---

Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
 

 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
SW, do you really not realize that people WERE, in fact, remarkably hostile and dismissive towards Thor's political ranting, back in the day? Heck, it's not like anyone takes Thor's political posts seriously NOW, either.
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
Morbo: I'm not a poop head, you're a poop head. You're Professor Pippy P. Poopypants!
 

---

Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
 
IT HAS BEGUN
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
When the political commentary is indistinguishable from babbling fluff, there's something seriously wrong.
 

---

Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
 
No, I'm the Pollster formerly known as P.Poopy
 

---

Posted by ^eleKtron (Member # 5619) on :
 
just wow...
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
Then I'm just going to refer to you as Poopy from now on.
 

---

Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
 
For the Record,

I think anyone that believes that either end of the polar political spectrum has a moral or idea advantage over the other side is a fool in that area.

American politicians are lazy, faggy, blowhards that eat $5000 dollar dinners, wear fancy suits, and have a clan of 35 people look over their every word.

Worst of all the PROFIT greatly off of the ills, weaknesses and diseases of society.

So everytime people get all hell bent out of shape that their politician is a "good guy" - I've now learned to just read it with a grain of salt.

Bush and his boys are rotten to the core, and it's fuggin' bloodletting laughable that Bush has done such a horrible, horrible job, but he still attracts the blind nationalists who think Jesus Christ is a stock owning, Hummer driving Capitalist.

Bush is rotten. Clinton is rotten. The whole gaggle of politicians that our parents have lined up infront of us as our countries "best men" are pathetic, weak and lame.

49% of me thinks that humanity has gone past the brink of return and GOD should wipe the human race from the face of the Earth and start over.

To see so many people blinded by a talking pile of dung is maddening.

Jesus Christ died for this?
 

---

Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
 
Wow, this is frightening. I actually agree with Thor! I wonder if the Apocalypse is next.
 

---

Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
 
I never claimed that Bush was a saint or that his intentions are pure, what I do claim is that the actions that Bush has taken in office are not those of the devil. In fact, the actions have been more than satisfactory for me. He very well could be a rotten scumbag who only went into politics because he wanted to increase his wealth, but I have little problem with the results and I consider the probable results of a Democratic term to be far worse.
 

---