Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
ABOTU

Bush

298 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Nxt2Hvn
Your damned if you do and damned if you don't. original.gif

Only when you are the U.S. hmm.gifmad.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Talon
We donate more to the world than any other country.

You also have more money than anyone else. Its like saying the million is more generious for donating £100 than the homeless man who gives £10. Anyway aren’t you currently third behind Australia and Japan?

After it is all said and done between all the tax money we are sending, along with all the individual fund raising that is going on in this country that most of you probably don't even know about

What’s your point lots of countries have raised public funds, the UK has made £100 million in public donations alone.

the US will send more money once again to the countries that currently need it

Most likely, I wouldn't be surprised if they US gives billions by the end of it, but so will other countries so your not alone in making donations.

At the same time we are doing that we are still putting up most of the money to fight the war against terrorism.

Yet seem rather bogged down in Iraq right, which wasn’t a supporter of Osama and all that. But now Iraq’s a breading ground for it.

What else do you want from us?

Less gun-ho ‘America’s the greatest’ tactics and honesty over reasons for war. I mean that’s the main criticism, not the removal of a dictator but the dies surrounded by it.

We cannot help that we are the richest country. I guess you can thank all of the immigration over the past few hundred years from countries all over the world and what they brought with them that made us into the nation that myself and others are living in today.

That, or the natural resources.

Get over it. Bush is our President and I will stand behind him and all of the crap he is going through right now.

No, because as the most powerful man in the world his actions also effect us, and so you get to vote for him, but we have the right to criticism him.

I just wish some other countries could have stepped in and helped us in our time of need (and I am not talking about 9/11).

If not 9/11 what? Florida? That was nothing on scale of this, and unlike these South Asian nations the US does have economy to sort itself out. What did you want Shi ? You forget their Third World nations which already own the west billions, any more money they gave would be right out of the mouths of their people.

But no, the US is rich, they can take care of themselves.

Far richer than us. You have the economy of Western Europe and Japan combined.

I wonder what would happen if we would just stop. Just stop all the trade. Stop all of the donations. Stop protecting other countries. Stop giving away money. I guess we would get more complaints.

Did you not read my earlier post on how suicidal isolation is? There is no way any sane US government would stick to it. Remember WW2, and the American people wanted to stay out of it and didn’t care how many millions of people were murdered or enslaved by fascism? But the US government was desperate to get in cause they knew that if they US stood back and let the rest of the world fall it would be one day facing that foe, and the rest of the world’s resources at its exposal, alone. And yes, if the US retreated into itself will all that wealth you have will 70% of the rest of the world lives in poverty, you’d get more criticism than you’d know what to do with.

Your damned if you do and damned if you don't. 

Oh please, drop the world’s against me rubbish, lots of countries get criticised as well as praise. The US gets its fair share because it’s a world power and has its hands in everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stellar
Nooo…. Because despite what your saying, just because you believe he’s out to remove all dictators does not mean the argument he’s not is wrong. Ever assumed you might be the one who’s wrong? You shouldn’t be so narrow minded.

Im sorry but before calling me narrow minded, you should at least understand what I'm saying. I never said I actually think that Bush is simply out to rid dictators. I am not saying your argument is wrong. I have never said I'm right (Even though Im pretty much on your side). I said *some* people believe he is out to rid the world of dictators, and your argument really doesnt work against those people.

I’ll spell it out. US puts fascist states into power to kill communists in country. Fascists like Pol Pot end up killing everyone in country. Why does US not remove them?

Oh, well, yeah, I think the US should take out those first, and at least free the people that it hurt first... but others dont think that way.

And the fact he has oil and tried to kill Bush’s dad was just a coincidence?

What is up with you? I just agreed with you and said that if they're capable of going for one and simply to rid the dictator, they should go to the one that has the right balance between being doable and the most needy. I dont think oil and the assassination attempt on Bush's dad was a coincidence at all...

Again, I say ‘I think’, 'unlikely' etc but your pulling the 'I think differently so you must be wrong' arguement. Ever considered your wrong?

Are you saying I'm wrong, because I'm on your side... I wasnt pulling the 'I think differently so you must be wrong' argument, I'm pointing out that your argument is as useless to the opposition as someone telling a conspiracy theorist that if the government says what happened in Roswell in 1947 was Project Mogul, its true. The conspiracy theorist already believes the government lies about it and he's convinced that he's right, so the government saying its project mogul wont convince him.

Well at least we agree on one thing

You seem to have a bit of a problem seeing that we agree on more than one thing...

What is wrong with you people? Yes the US is the richest country in the world. We donate more to the world than any other country.

Oh please. Canada is donating a bigger % than the US, and the US is so much richer. Canada at the moment is pledging a minimum of 80 million, thats 2.66 $ per person. The US is pledging 350 million, which is less than 1.50 $ per person.

I wonder what would happen if we would just stop. Just stop all the trade. Stop all of the donations. Stop protecting other countries. Stop giving away money. I guess we would get more complaints. Your damned if you do and damned if you don't.

And I wonder what would happen if the rest of the world did that to the US...

Hmm, maybe Canada should resign from being the USs ally and start putting military pressure on the US. We'd still have the world on our side, the US wouldnt have any reason to invade Canada and the UN would side with us in the event that you did invade. However, you'll have to have an armed presence on our huge border, effectively taking a toll out of your military capability abroad until you institute a draft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wcturnersr

Talon, yes you are right when I was talking about help for Florida in which we had probably already spent close to a billion dollars on that out of our own relief fund and still spending. Now we are sending more money out of our relief fund once again before the relief fund can fill back up. Your country hasn't had any major catastrophes lately, has it?

And yes, we do get criticized on everything we do. And we also get criticized if we criticize someone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Talon
Im sorry but before calling me narrow minded, you should at least understand what I'm saying. I never said I actually think that Bush is simply out to rid dictators. I am not saying your argument is wrong. I have never said I'm right (Even though Im pretty much on your side). I said *some* people believe he is out to rid the world of dictators, and your argument really doesnt work against those people.

Thats because I'm putting forward an opinion, as are they. What do you propose, we don't state opinions anymore because others might not agree with them. I'm well aware thankyou that others don't agree with me, its why this convo is still going on after -what? - 3,4 pages?

Oh, well, yeah, I think the US should take out those first, and at least free the people that it hurt first... but others dont think that way.

I fail to see how is was assumed I believed otherwise since I asked it in the form of a question, therefore asking for an opinion.

What is up with you? I just agreed with you and said that if they're capable of going for one and simply to rid the dictator, they should go to the one that has the right balance between being doable and the most needy. I dont think oil and the assassination attempt on Bush's dad was a coincidence at all...

What do you mean ‘What is up with you?’ I was thus asking if you felt it was a coincidence that the dictator they felt would be right for this balance was the one with oil and family-revenge to boot. You say it isn't. Couldn’t you have just said ‘no’ rather saying it like I’m trying to provoke you.

Are you saying I'm wrong, because I'm on your side... I wasnt pulling the 'I think differently so you must be wrong' argument, I'm pointing out that your argument is as useless to the opposition as someone telling a conspiracy theorist that if the government says what happened in Roswell in 1947 was Project Mogul, its true. The conspiracy theorist already believes the government lies about it and he's convinced that he's right, so the government saying its project mogul wont convince him.

Yes, I'm well aware thankyou that others don't agree with me, its why this convo is still going on after -what? - 3,4 pages? But why tell this to me… as they same equally applies to all of you as well.

You seem to have a bit of a problem seeing that we agree on more than one thing...

No I can see other things, I even PMed you to ask if you wanted to just call it quites on the issues we didn’t agree on before you posted this post. I’m just commenting on these issues where you seem to believe that I’m unable to tell that my view is not the only view and took objection to my asking clarification on your stance of the oil and family history.

Oh please. Canada is donating a bigger % than the US, and the US is so much richer. Canada at the moment is pledging a minimum of 80 million, thats 2.66 $ per person. The US is pledging 350 million, which is less than 1.50 $ per person.

Agreed for its wealth the US is donating less than per head than many other nations, which is where most of the criticisms of the US is coming from. To be fair the US will probably give me eventually, its just that for now it seems a cheap showing for the richest kidon the block.

And I wonder what would happen if the rest of the world did that to the US...

The US probably has enough resources to survive by itself for a long time, but it wouldn’t be permanent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Talon
Talon, yes you are right when I was talking about help for Florida in which we had probably already spent close to a billion dollars on that out of our own relief fund and still spending. Now we are sending more money out of our relief fund once again before the relief fund can fill back up. Your country hasn't had any major catastrophes lately, has it?

Well there is a 300 year catastrophe still happening. Anyway, my country isn't a super power. However despite our economy being tiny Scotland has still provided £12 ($24) million in public donations and 10 million in government donations. Doesn't sound like much, but thats $3.84 per head to the US's $1.50.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wcturnersr

What catastrophe are you talking about?? mellow.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Talon

The united Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wcturnersr

I guess I really need to read up on that. I know I had posted a reply the other day about the article that was written on the number of people in Ireland versus Britain or something like that. What is really going on? If you want you can e-mail a link if you know of any. Don't want to discuss it here and go off topic.

wcturnersr@yahoo.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ABOTU

I thought I asked opinions on Bush not the U.S.A.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Talon
What is really going on?

Well its not long term thing, so an email on it to go for ages. But basically in 1707 our government sold our country to England for a sack of gold and for the last 300 years Westminter (a government in another country) dictates our policies etc to us and only recently with Devolution are we limited controls over our own country. Scotland is oil rich, but Westminster takes it, then we have to buy it back. Same with coal, water (we have tons of water resovires, and England suffers a lot of droaghts so we have to give it to them free of charge). We're also the only UK nation whose agriculture can actually support our own population (probably cause we have such a small population after the ethnic cleansing of the Scottish highlands in the 19th century which made millions flee to Canada... we never really recover from that). We're the only country in the world which produces its own produce, gives it to someone else, then buys it back. Unlike other UK countries where taxes stay and are spent in that area, Scottish taxes go straight to London, which then decides what its going to keep and what it'll give back. After WW1 they feared we were going to revolt and break off like Ireland, so they put the Scottish army under house arrest in their barracks and moved English and Welsh troops into Glasgow armed with machine guns to use against the crowds (a shot wasn’t fired though, the sight of the guns was enough).

In war we are usually the first in and last out, and we make up 10% of the population but 15% of the army. Scotland suffers the highest levels of poverty and health problems than the rest of the UK.

Under the Conservatives our industries have been continually hit (if England needs jobs, standard practice is to pay the company to move from Scotland to England, like Nestle’s firms in the 1980s).

During Thatcher’s era an extra tax (The tartan tax) was placed upon Scots which the other UK countries didn’t get. Under Thatcher 250,000 Scottish jobs were moved to England and our unemployment rates reached the highest since the 1930s.

Nuclear waste is dumped in Scotland, nowhere else in the UK. Most annoyingly near towns.

Plus we have to constantly put up with demanding racism on the tv (British soaps etc love brining in Scottish villains or have the Scot as a stereotype which an oh-so-fake ascent). God, I hate how when you see someone on tv they talk of the UK or Britain as England as if Scotland doesn't exist. And if I have to hear the word ‘Jock’ one more time….

The list goes on. It’s a continual long term suffering as opposed to a single event.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Talon
I thought I asked opinions on Bush not the U.S.A.

Bush is the leader of the US, they're an interconected subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
The Caspian Hare
Because, like I said that wouldn’t stop it being at the whim of Saddam would it. Plus invasion will place that oil permanently (or rather for the foreseeable future in the US’ hands) and as someone said begin a stockpile without touching US oil reserves. Also can you imagine the press if Bush signed a deal with the guy who tried to kill his dad.

1. First of all, the oil isn't exactly in our hands now. We haven't confiscated it, and we're not pumping the country dry and storing their oil in a secret facility somewhere that I'm aware of. When Iraqi oil hits the market we are going to pay for it, like everyone else. Second, the other oil producing countries make enough to compensate for Iraq. We didn't need Iraqi oil. With regard to our oil supply we have gained nothing directly from control of Iraq, other than the removal of the threat Saddam posed to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. If we needed the oil, the easy thing to do would be to buy it. And now that we have it "in our hands" it hasn't exactly benefited us greatly.

2. The press has come down far harder on Bush for going to war than it ever would have for lifting the sanction regime. In fact, there were noises that the administration was considering doing just that before 9-11. The war was and is far more controversial than a program to adjust or eliminate the sanctions would have been. We have often made deals with people as bad as Saddam in the past, as you like to point out, and administrations have profited as a result, not suffered.

Unlikely, the press would hammer him for making a deal with murders and his dad’s arch enemy.

Where do you get this idea from? No, the press would not have hammered him. The lifting of the economic sanctions would have been an easy sell here, given that the war was over for 10 years and many Americans don't pay as much attention to world affairs as they should. There was a very good humanitarian argument for lifting sanctions, and it could have been very easily made. The press has not hammered Bush for his nascent reconciliation with a certain other dictator in Libya.

Yes I can, because GW2 was not the same war as GW1, and the this time it isn’t about saving the Kuwaiti people. Had that war been finished then the Arab world would have loved us, now they see it all as western colonialism.

1. That's just flat out wrong. Occupying Iraq then would have cost us the support of just about every other country in the coalition except yours. The UN authorized the coalition to expel Iraq from Kuwait, not occupy Iraq or overthrow their government. That was the extent of the UN authorization.

2. The Arab/Muslim world hates in part because we set foot on Saudi Arabia. Finishing the war then would have had the same result as you are seeing right now - except it would have spared Iraqis years under the economic sanctions. Occupying Iraq then would have been just as "imperialist" a policy. There would have been the same chaos and the same civil strife.

So your admitting now its about oil. And the US the right to attack any other nation and take its resources if its in the US’s interests? I see…… you know Hitler believed that the German’s had the right to occupy Europe and Asia for that same reason.

The Hitler card - come on, you can do better than that. Warfare is an accepted part of the international system. Not every country that initiates war is comparable to the Nazis.

And yes, of course it's partly about oil - not the theft of it from the Iraqis, but the continued flow of oil from Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. But it's not just about oil.

And when its in your interests it justifies putting dictators into power?…. Ic…. And you still claim you’re the land of the ‘free and the brave’ and pinnacle of democracy?

What dictator have we installed in Iraq?

BTW I will be gone until Monday and will not be able to read any response until then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc
GW2 was not the same war as GW1, and the this time it isn’t about saving the Kuwaiti people. Had that war been finished then the Arab world would have loved us, now they see it all as western colonialism.

Sorry to interrupt this lovely discussion of how big, bad, unmerciful, and imperialistic the Great Satan of the United States is, but:

Are you living in a fantasy world Talon? Really. dontgetit.gif The Arab world would have loved us if we had removed Sadaam in the first Gulf war?! You have got to be either kidding or seriously delusional. The only people that loved us or would have loved us were the Kuwaities. The Palestinians would still hate us, the Iranians would still hate us. Most of the Middle East would still hate us. The only way to get rid of the hate Talon is to get rid of the haters. And that is what we are doing over there. Getting rid of the haters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stellar
Thats because I'm putting forward an opinion, as are they. What do you propose, we don't state opinions anymore because others might not agree with them. I'm well aware thankyou that others don't agree with me, its why this convo is still going on after -what? - 3,4 pages?

You seem to think I'm your enemy and am opposed to your beliefs though. I was just pointing out that your argument simply doesnt work against the true believer. Simply that.

I fail to see how is was assumed I believed otherwise since I asked it in the form of a question, therefore asking for an opinion.

Who assumed otherwise?

What do you mean ‘What is up with you?’ I was thus asking if you felt it was a coincidence that the dictator they felt would be right for this balance was the one with oil and family-revenge to boot. You say it isn't. Couldn’t you have just said ‘no’ rather saying it like I’m trying to provoke you.

What do I mean "What is up with you?"? You're here telling me that I'm narrow minded and that I consider you wrong and myself infallible, which is not true. Hell, I'm on your side. You're acting as if I believed that Bush actually did it for the sole purpose or helping the Iraqi people, which I dont.

But why tell this to me… as they same equally applies to all of you as well.

"All of you"? Not "All of us"? Which "You" do you consider me a part of?

No I can see other things, I even PMed you to ask if you wanted to just call it quites on the issues we didn’t agree on before you posted this post.

But thats the thing, you seem to think that we dont agree on the issues, and I'm here agreeing with you!

I’m just commenting on these issues where you seem to believe that I’m unable to tell that my view is not the only view and took objection to my asking clarification on your stance of the oil and family history.

I didnt take objection to your question, I took objection when you seemed to imply that I'm on the "Bush is God" side, which I'm not. I'm on your side and dont think that its a coincidence.

The US probably has enough resources to survive by itself for a long time, but it wouldn’t be permanent.

They'd have to tap into their reserved stockpiles within a couple of years, and their capability to fight in another world war would be hurt by it... Not to mention all their companies in China...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bathory
Again Bathory, your not worth taking seriously because your bigoted attitudes to the left are so obvious and thus your theories will so obviously be bias. Get back on a value free answer like an adult and I’ll treat your posts like that of one.

boohoo no.gif

i've seen plenty of arguements regarding the US imposed sanctions killing the Iraqi people, and its not as though such sanctions were harming Saddam in the first place (oil for food, how i love thee), the US would also have gained a potent ally in the War on Terror, Saddam was no friend of Al Queda right?

really, if you think the media shitstorm would have been allot worse than it is now, you are living a dreamworld. It would have been easy to spin the removal of sanctions and decent relations with Saddam into a positive thing, and would have cost a hell of allot less than going to war has.

"Saddam, if you let inspectors back in, we'll drop sanctions and stop bothering you if you give us preferential treatment *nudge nudge, wink wink, say no more*" - Georgey W Bush

I mean the Inspectors would never have found anything right? because Bush was making it up, so Saddam would have been jumping for joy at the thought of sanction removals, why else do you think he was bribing French/Chinese/Russian/German officials. Hell, good relations with Saddam didn't seem to hurt the French in the medias eyes.

Oh right, sorry, i forgot, i'm being a child:(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Droogie
1. First of all, the oil isn't exactly in our hands now. We haven't confiscated it, and we're not pumping the country dry and storing their oil in a secret facility somewhere that I'm aware of.
Well, we did sell all the oil fields to americian corporations as part of "rebuilding" Iraq.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bathory

no they didn't

they gave out contracts to repair the oil fields (just like they did with the kuwaiti fields in Gulf War 1) any and all oil pumped belongs 100% to Iraq, whats with the lies?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Talon
2. The press has come down far harder on Bush for going to war than it ever would have for lifting the sanction regime. In fact, there were noises that the administration was considering doing just that before 9-11. The war was and is far more controversial than a program to adjust or eliminate the sanctions would have been. We have often made deals with people as bad as Saddam in the past, as you like to point out, and administrations have profited as a result, not suffered.

Please, Bush is sitting on the committe of like hlf those companies commissioned to rebuild Iraq. Bush is going to walk out of this war as a billionaire, I doubt he cares what the press think.

and many Americans don't pay as much attention to world affairs as they should.

Yeah, I'd like to emphasis that point.

There was a very good humanitarian argument for lifting sanctions, and it could have been very easily made. The press has not hammered Bush for his nascent reconciliation with a certain other dictator in Libya.

Libya doesn't come close to Saddam on that list of US-enemies, Lockerby to many isn't comparable with the Gulf War.

1. That's just flat out wrong. Occupying Iraq then would have cost us the support of just about every other country in the coalition except yours. The UN authorized the coalition to expel Iraq from Kuwait, not occupy Iraq or overthrow their government. That was the extent of the UN authorization.

Since when has the US listened to the UN?

2. The Arab/Muslim world hates in part because we set foot on Saudi Arabia. Finishing the war then would have had the same result as you are seeing right now - except it would have spared Iraqis years under the economic sanctions. Occupying Iraq then would have been just as "imperialist" a policy. There would have been the same chaos and the same civil strife.

No, cause the defence of Kuwait could always be linked back to the cause of the war.

The Hitler card - come on, you can do better than that. Warfare is an accepted part of the international system. Not every country that initiates war is comparable to the Nazis.

Hey don't blame me, its you Bushists who said that the US is justified to attack any nation it wants if it needs their resources. Not my fault Hilter beleived the same argument.

And yes, of course it's partly about oil - not the theft of it from the Iraqis, but the continued flow of oil from Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. But it's not just about oil.

Well at least your admits Oil does play its part. Oh and I agree with you, oil wasn't everything, money had a lot to do with this too.

What dictator have we installed in Iraq?

Aren't both the Afganistan and Iraqi presidents former committe members of companies Bush is a boardmember of?

Anyway, go look up a history book, there have been tons of US -freindly dictators. It was the US who put in power; Pol Pot in Camboda (who salughtered 2/3 of his population, then the US/UK b****ed when Vietnam took him out); Fulgencio Batista in Cuba (then Washington b****ed when Castro led a revolution against him); put Anastasio Somoza into powe in Nicaragua; put Francois “Papa Doc” Duvalier in power in Haiti (1934).

Are you living in a fantasy world Talon? Really.  The Arab world would have loved us if we had removed Sadaam in the first Gulf war?! You have got to be either kidding or seriously delusional. The only people that loved us or would have loved us were the Kuwaities. The Palestinians would still hate us, the Iranians would still hate us. Most of the Middle East would still hate us. The only way to get rid of the hate Talon is to get rid of the haters. And that is what we are doing over there. Getting rid of the haters.

You do know the Kuwaites are Arabs right? Anyway, how can you says your getting rid of the 'haters' (lovely termonology, what happened the word 'terrorist' get over used?) when Iraq is now a breading ground of anti-US ideologies. People are now jumping up and down on burned US jeeps when a few years ago they were singing the Coalitions praises.

You seem to think I'm your enemy and am opposed to your beliefs though. I was just pointing out that your argument simply doesnt work against the true believer. Simply that.

But your arguement applies to everyone. Thats what I'm saying. Why are you singling me out as the only case it does and not realising it applies equally everyone currently posting; you, me, them. Unless what you were trying to say is that I'm wasting my time trying to talk sense to them? If that was the case then I'm sorry but I totally missed that, and you'd be quite right.

What do I mean "What is up with you?"? You're here telling me that I'm narrow minded and that I consider you wrong and myself infallible, which is not true. Hell, I'm on your side. You're acting as if I believed that Bush actually did it for the sole purpose or helping the Iraqi people, which I dont.

Actually I called you narrow minded as your giving me the 'but thats you opinion' speach but not giving it to anyone else, it wan't meant to be an insult. And I never said anything about the your beleifs on the Iraqi people, I asked a question to clear up an issue.

"All of you"? Not "All of us"? Which "You" do you consider me a part of?

How should I know? Does actually matter? I'm just saying that if your going to use that opinion argument it applies to everyone (except fo Athiest on faith related issues, cause... we're always right laugh.gif ).

But thats the thing, you seem to think that we dont agree on the issues, and I'm here agreeing with you!

Then why are you singling me out with the 'but thats you opinion' speach? If you agree with me, then give it to them too. tongue.gif

I didnt take objection to your question, I took objection when you seemed to imply that I'm on the "Bush is God" side, which I'm not. I'm on your side and dont think that its a coincidence.

Can we just call a truce then?

They'd have to tap into their reserved stockpiles within a couple of years, and their capability to fight in another world war would be hurt by it... Not to mention all their companies in China...

If it wasn't for the fact their waiting for a way to make it as expesnive as oil they could always turn to electric energy laugh.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
warden

LOTTIE i will try and reply to this once i have had 19 days to read it tongue.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
coldwhitelight

I just feel some thing need to be posted. I read post after post on George W. Bush. Some of what I read is inaccurate.

President George W. Bush

George W. Bush is a spoiled rich kid not from Texas but New Haven, Connecticut. he later moved to Texas. Bush got by in school and college on a D- average. The only reason he got into ivy league university is because of his father George Bush senior is a WWII hero and at that time the head of the C.I.A.

George W. Bush committed American troops to war but when it was time for him to serve in vietnam he went to his dad and said boo-hoo I don't want to go to war. So he joined the Texas Air National Guard but never showed up, he went awol.

As an adult George W. Bush father gave him business to run he ran a energy business. it consist of Pumping oil and selling it. The business failed and went under because they could not find any oil. Texas remade itself by selling oil. Texas is not the Middle East but there still alot of oil there.

Once the energy business failed George W. Bush assembled the group of partners who purchased the Texas Rangers baseball franchise. To make a long story short while Bush was there the franchise never made a profit and the team always had a losing record.

George W. Bush was a drunk and drunk driver until he was 30 years old. When Bush wasn't busy dodging the military draft he was in his car dodging trees while getting drunk of his a##.

George W. Bush became the first Governor in Texas history to be elected to consecutive 4-year terms. Texas has execution more people then any other American State in history.

Audio

Edited by coldwhitelight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
iaapac
I just feel some thing need to be posted. I read post after post on George W. Bush. Some of what I read is inaccurate.

George W. Bush is a spoiled rich kid not from Texas but New Haven, Connecticut. he moved to Texas. Bush got by in school and college on a D- average. The only reason he got to go to an ivy league universities is because of his WWII hero and at that time the head of the C.I.A his father George Bush senior.

George W. Bush committed American troops to war but when it was time for him to serve in vietnam he went to his dad and said boo-hoo I don't want to go to war. So he joined the Texas Air National Guard but never showed up, he went awol.

As an adult George W. Bush father gave him business to run he ran a energy business. it consist of Pumping oil and selling it. The business failed and went under because they could not find any oil. Texas remade itself by selling oil. Texas is not the Middle East but there still alot of oil there.

Once the energy business failed George W. Bush assembled the group of partners who purchased the Texas Rangers baseball franchise. To make a long story short while Bush was there the team never made a profit And the team always had a losing record.

George W. Bush was a drunk and drunk driver until he was 30 years old. When Bush wasn't busy dodging the draft he was in his car dodging trees while getting drunk of his a##.

George W. Bush became the first Governor in Texas history to be elected to consecutive 4-year terms. Texas has execution more people then any other American State in history.

Audio

800881[/snapback]

George Bush's career as the owner of the Texas Rangers was about as successful as his middle finger foreign policy. One of the first things he did was sell Sammy Sosa to the Chicago Cubs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
matthewgoad

I am a supporter of President Bush, I voted for him both times. I believe that in both instances that he was a better choice than who the democrats had running against him. I've never said that I was happy with everything he has done while in office but I believe, he's done fairly well. Looking back, I would have done the same thing without changing my vote.

W The President! thumbsup.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.