Bush earns brownie points with me
- Thread starter BurlyShirley
- Start date
Well his nuts won't matter if the economy continues south while the deficit balloons to incomprehensible proportions. 
I bet $5.oo on the Brownie to take him in 2 rounds
I can't wait for his term to be over--he's gonna be a one termer just like his daddy.
So, if we're going to admit people to university on merit alone, I guess he's going to give back his MBA from Harvard, right?
Admitting people on the basis of their last name is no different than admitting them on basis of race. I can't figure out the angle here....why he would do something like this now.
Maybe one of his daughters wants to go to law school?
Admitting people on the basis of their last name is no different than admitting them on basis of race. I can't figure out the angle here....why he would do something like this now.
Maybe one of his daughters wants to go to law school?
I agree--and surprisingly enough, Dubya didnt address the other categories that were in Michigan's "point system," like being an athlete, socioeconomic need, residency, or what is known as "legacy." Dubya is an idiot, plain and simple--I cant wait for 2004.
ok, legacy is stupid, as is athletic scholarships. what would you all say to eliminating race, legacy, athletics, and the "provost's discretion" from a proposed application? (residency makes perfect sense for state schools.) as an over-represented yet minority asian, i would be ecstatic to see such an application...
That was what I was trying to point out--if you are going to address one, you should address them all.
I'd be 100% okay with it, IF we could improve that state of our poorest public elementary, middle, and high schools. Then we might actually have equal opportunity.
IMO, the fact that we need affirmative action at the college level to even up demographics is a sign that we're F-ing up at the earlier levels. College is too late to decide we're going to "help" the underpriveleged.
edit: I watched Bush's speach on C-SPAN last night. He is a HUGE JACKASS.
but what if it really is a social issue? as in asian parents really are more demanding of their kids, and thus their kids just plain try harder? (the "asian mom" stereotype DOES exist for a reason, believe me
)how can the government fix THAT? and is that its responsibility?
note that i am not studying for my final in an hour and a half. probably 'cause my asian mother isn't here nagging me
I see a lot of people saying this same thing on this board. I could care less about how smart he is, hell he got the presidency so how stupid could he really be. But, a lot of you think he is rich assh@le who only cares about himself, and other rich people, which I agree with. But I see a lot of poeple think it's just him. Give me a break people, no politician, especially any President gives a sh@t about me or you. Unless you are in the "Millionaire's Club" , you just don't matter.
You think Clinton was better? Give me a break, they are all evil, greedy, and kniving Presidents. ALL OF THEM. I can't think of a politician who didn't have some kind of scandel (except Jesse Ventura). ALL ARE BAD, NOT JUST SOME OF THEM. Democrats or Republicans? BOTH EVIL!!!!!!!!!
Wake up damnit!
Actually, he won by electoral votes--Gore got the popular vote, and Florida's votes were mysteriously flawed--a state who's governor is Dubya's brother. Hmmmmm, smell something?
Well that doesnt really change the fact that he's the president. I dont think anyone who is "stupid" could make it into the whitehouse. Greedy? yes...Evil?maybe...Stupid?No.
I have heard a lot of Democrats come up with this argument before. Seems you want to change the rules in the middle of the game.
I think that the electoral college is out-dated, and we could do a popular vote without too much of a hassle, but why do you want to change the laws when you don't like the outcome?
Sounds like a spoiled brat to me.
I've never liked the notion of the electoral college--it was created by our government because the leaders basically thought that the American public were nothing but uneducated dolts that couldnt handle electing the correct person for president. Shame on you for calling me a name when you dont even know how I feel and just assume that I'm changing my tune because something happened I didnt like. I'm a spoiled brat, huh? Well you are a doo doo head :angry:
nonono, as i learned it the concept was to keep the big states (population-wise) from overrunning the small ones. the electoral college gives the small states a disproportionate voice. which is GOOD, no matter what becomes of it (i don't like bush either).
AAAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAAAAAAHAHAHAhahaaaaaaaa
ha.
That's funny stuff. Of course he's a moron. Dude ran a C- at Yale. Do you know HOW stupid you have to be to run a C- in GOVERNMENT. It's the easiest major on Earth.
I'm all for the electoral college. Unfortunately, Bush actually lost by electoral votes also. Read the first chapter of Stupid White Men. It gives the whole account much better than I could.
Anyway, back to the issue. Toshi, your scenario is fine with me. Demanding parents with performing kids should be rewarded. I think we'd find, however, that if traditionally poor-performing demographics had access to decent developmental schooling, they would become much more demanding of themselves, and much beter performing, within a generation or so. Why would you demand your kids work hard in a system you have no respect for, or even a hatred of?
Most people ARE idiots, incapable of seeing beyond the prow of their own interests long enough to consider the greater good. Single issue voting, trend chasing, political party membership, voting coalitions, etc. all strive to dull the thoughtful evaluation of candidates in favor of an ordered lemming march.
Yup. If everyone's beloved Clinton had his way, he would have sold us to China by now. At least Bush has the balls to do something about the terrorists attacks. He may be too agressive to a degree, but Damn!!! Clinton didn't do sh!t. As far as I'm concerned, Clinton set up 9/11. U.S.S. Cole is attacked. At this point he declared Iraq was responsible, and that he would do something about it. He was given congressional authority to take care of the situation. He did nothing about it! He vowed to find the perpatraters and bring them to justice.... He did nothing! also an American embassy was attacked. Again he vowed to find out who did it and bring them to justice. Did he? Of course not! All this did was send a message to the terrorists that America was weak and they could do what ever thay wanted to us. Hence 9/11. There's much more. Nuff said. :angry: Daschel was one of the biggest senetors to give Clinton the go ahead for handling Iraq, yet he didn't. Now Daschel is opposing Bush! Go figure????
Strange coincidence that the whole Monica Lewinski stuff was going on. Great chance for a coverup.
What a putz. You guys scare me if you think Clinton had our best interests in mind. That dude is warped.
Sold the US to China, yeh okOriginally posted by zibbler
Yup. If everyone's beloved Clinton had his way, he would have sold us to China by now. At least Bush has the balls to do something about the terrorists attacks. He may be too agressive to a degree, but Damn!!! Clinton didn't do sh!t. As far as I'm concerned, Clinton set up 9/11. U.S.S. Cole is attacked. At this point he declared Iraq was responsible, and that he would do something about it. He was given congressional authority to take care of the situation. He did nothing about it! He vowed to find the perpatraters and bring them to justice.... He did nothing! also an American embassy was attacked. Again he vowed to find out who did it and bring them to justice. Did he? Of course not! All this did was send a message to the terrorists that America was weak and they could do what ever thay wanted to us. Hence 9/11. There's much more. Nuff said. :angry: Daschel was one of the biggest senetors to give Clinton the go ahead for handling Iraq, yet he didn't. Now Daschel is opposing Bush! Go figure????
Strange coincidence that the whole Monica Lewinski stuff was going on. Great chance for a coverup.
What has Bush done about the terrorist attacks, nothing, apart from saying these people are evil:devil: and sending the troops to Afghanistan to no avail. If you think sending troops to Iraq is doing something about terrorism then you're wrong almost everyone knows it's for OIL.
America is not weak in fact it is the most feared country, no one wants to take on the US. Remember America has the most weapons of Mass Destruction
Unless I've missed something the UN still have not found any evidence of weapons. Doesn't matter, if Dubya wants to go to war, he will.
Sure Clinton may have been bad or whatever but he was much more entertaining than the bonehead cowboy Dubya everytime i see him on T.V talking ****, I feel like kicking his ass.:angry:
True dat...don't even look at it as a race or color issue...look at economics. Poor families simply don't have the time to "push" their kids....whether its the choice of putting food on the table and paying the rent vs. being there 24/7 for your kid. It just so happens that a larger proportion of blacks are poor vs. the proportion of Asian families that are poor. Don't count on that cuz of cultural your mom pushed you...EVERY parent wants their kid to be better than they. Poor kids perform less well at schools which in turn get less funding from the government. Those kids that are in the top percentage of those schools still won't stack up to better schools in testing scores (don't get me started on how flawed our national testing systems are). Toshi..you are a Harvard student and I'm sure that you and your parents busted chops to get you where your at. But if you lived in the projects, had to deal with gang violence day in and day out, despite the goal of going to college...you got a lot more stacked against you than some middle class kid living in the suburbs and going to a good public or private school.
Spoiled Brat!
Your right, I shouldn't have gone there. I apologize.
It was a state soveignty issue more than anything...when the system was implimented, you'll recall that the country hadn't really forged itself yet...people still looked upon a union of states as a sketchy thing. The idea of the USA as we know it now wasn't around back then.
Ok considering the options of who we could have actually put into the White House ole george is a hell of a lot better than Gore. If Gore had actually won the presidential election there would probably be alot more innocent american civilians dead from terrorist attacks but the evil from rock and roll music would be exorcised
How would there be more dead American's if Gore won???Originally posted by Broken
Ok considering the options of who we could have actually put into the White House ole george is a hell of a lot better than Gore. If Gore had actually won the presidential election there would probably be alot more innocent american civilians dead from terrorist attacks but the evil from rock and roll music would be exorcised
Reason:???Because Gore is a puss! He would have not even attempted to go after terrorists or interupt their flow of money. So they would be able to bomb more buildings, crash more planes and generally create an even more ****ty world than the one I am living in now.
Yes, praise Bush for his brave interruption of terrorist money. It probably was difficult for him to go against his oil interests and allow the FBI to investigate the Bin Laden family--- A brave act indeed.
It's probably worth pointing out here that everytime the foreign supply of oil (from Saudi Arabia and South America mostly) pinches (due to diplomatic/political issues, not actual supply problems) the value of oil (including Texan and Alaskan oil) shoots up... pumping that much more cash for each barrel into the pockets of Bush's family and former business partners.
Well, doesnt that just destroy your little theories about Bush invading iraq for oil?
Nope. All the US oil companies make money by IMPORTING oil also.
But everytime they have an excuse to mess with oil prices, it is to their benefit. The prices aren't going up because if ACTUAL supply and demand. They are going up because PERCIEVED supply allows suppliers to charge more. Demand is inelastic over the short term, so oil barons can grab oodles of cash with brief price inflation without effecting the demand prospects for their motherlode once it comes in.
Does that answer your question?
You talk about coverup but did you ever wonder about the timing of the beginning of the latest Iraq "crisis". Here was the Enron tidal wave bearing down on the Bush administration and all of a sudden Iraq becomes an issue again. I'm not saying that Bush's call to attack Iraq is strictly a slight of hand to distract the American public from the growing number of corporate accounting scandals and an economy that couldn't have ground down quicker from Clinton to Bush. But at minimum, the looming war with Iraq presents the opportunity for Bush to duck the corporate scandals and reframe the national debate. If you think I'm full of it try and find the last time, Bush, Chenney, or any of the main administration officials said the word Enron.Originally posted by zibbler
Strange coincidence that the whole Monica Lewinski stuff was going on. Great chance for a coverup.
On the other hand, Saddam has certainly not made a very good case to avoid conflict and in the end is letting Bush off the hook. He has systematically decieved the world in regards to weapons of mass destruction. Only when world opinion was really turning to allow military action go forward did he come up with this "new" list of cooperation points appear. But this list looks a lot like other lists he has released and promised action on but Saddam never follows thru.If he didn't have anything to hide.....
Unfortunately for Saddam this latest list was too late, Bush released his tax cut and economic reform package and he needs the distraction to get it passed. Additionally, his approval ratings have been slumping especially in respect to domestic policy. So the easiest way to get approval points is bomb someone. But whatever Saddam gets in the end he deserves.
Clinton was an ass, Bush is an ass, the next president will probably be an ass as well. Look they are all con artists capable of practically anything except having our best interests at heart.
ikoolkeg said it best
That's about as clear as someone can make it.
Dude... put the bong dowwwwn!
N8, it's true presidents do actually do this stuff to avert attention from themselves.....so you put the bong down.
It's so funny how Democrats love to make Clinton out to be such an angel. He was Chinas bitch:
Quote from Clinton when he was a candidate:
Bill Clinton, The candidate:
``We should not reward China with improved trade status when it has failed to make sufficient progress on human rights since the Tiananmen Square.
As President he delinks "most favored nation" trade status from human rights.
I guess it was all those millions he was pocketing from the Chinese. I wonder how many room in the White House they got to use for that kind of money?
Quote from Clinton when he was a candidate:
Bill Clinton, The candidate:
``We should not reward China with improved trade status when it has failed to make sufficient progress on human rights since the Tiananmen Square.
As President he delinks "most favored nation" trade status from human rights.
I guess it was all those millions he was pocketing from the Chinese. I wonder how many room in the White House they got to use for that kind of money?
What is funny is that folks forget that George W. Bush supported the removal all conditions on most favored nation status for China and its admission to the World Trade Organization.
"In short, this will be among the most serious decisions our government will make this year. I am here to urge all members of Congress, both Republicans & Democrats, to join together in making China a normal trading partner of the United States" George W. Bush 5/17/00 in a speech ironically titled "Renewing America's Purpose.
When pushed to defend his difference in dealing with China and Cuba..... in a presidential debate with Gary Bauer in Michigan Jan 10, 2000
BUSH [to Bauer]: Capital that goes into Cuba will be used by the Castro government to prop itself up. Dollars invested will end up supporting this totalitarian regime.. Its in our best interest to keep the pressure on Castro until he allows free elections, free press & free the prisoners.
BAUER: You just made the case for withdrawing MFN status from China. Everything that you just said about Cuba applies to China.
BUSH: There is a huge difference between trading with an entrepreneurial class like that which is growing in China and allowing a Castro government to skim capital monies off the top of capital investment.
BAUER: Tell the people rotting in the prisons of China that theres any difference between Castros Cuba & Communist China. There is none.
BUSH: If we turn our back on the entrepreneurial class that is taking wing in China, were making a huge mistake.
BAUER: They are using that money for a massive arms buildup that our sons will have to deal with down the road.
Source: (cross-ref to Bauer) GOP Debate in Michigan Jan 10, 2000
OF course Gary Bauer didn't have the guts to follow up with the question about the importance of the Cuban-American vote in Florida and his variation in stance. That vote turned out to be critical to the point of handing the election to Bush.
EVEN when China held members of our military hostage, his only reaction was to stop the military from automatically buying from Chinese sources. And for you to research, is that policy still in place????
Bush and Clinton are the samething. Just like the next boob that is most likely sent to the White House. I point you back to the ikoolkeg's quote. They are all out for one thing and one thing only, putting themselves in office to get the maximum amount of personal gain from it.
N8, you currently hail from Louisiana and you think that my statements are based on a bong hit??? Louisana political history is filled with examples of politicians suriving thru and profiting from monsterous scandals by redirecting the publics' attention to other "more important" matters.Originally posted by N8
Dude... put the bong dowwwwn!
If you don't think that a politican will take the government wherever they need to to avoid a scandal you aren't paying very close attention to politics on any level.
Not really cos once Bush and the government have control of the oil in iraq then it's gonna be easier for them to up the oil prices across the board. If they merly upppd the texan oil then no ones gonna buy it, but if they up it all , then everyone wins, well not the consumer but the powers that be will.
Ok, this ranks as the most retarded reply of the week on my list.
Why does everyone assume that if the US invades Iraq, we will take control of their oil? Ever heard of something called OPEC? Iraq will become an OPEC nation, we dont just get the oil when we invade. The only way Bush himself could profit...even modestly, is if some company in which he has a vested interest contracts to drill it and clean it, they;ll never own it unless they buy it.
When more oil is put into the hands of OPEC, prices may decrease or not change at all, because they regulate the prices themselves. The prices surely though, will not rise with the liberation if iraqi oil, and hence, will not help Bushes interests with American oil.
Quit assuming such nonsense.
doesn't boosh's dad work for an oil company? and didn't yo' prez have stocks with enron?
boosh wants to go with iraq for several reasons:
1. support the war economy for the big defence manufacturers
2. divert attention from the sagging US economy, domestic issues and the low global opinion of the US
3. make his daddy happy (look daddy, no hands! good for you, boy.)
winning the oil war won't make prices go down... it'll stabilise the supply and politics of the issue.
also, shouldn't gore have been prez? i remember making fun of americans cuz i was riding in DALLAS at the time of the elections. all i can say is: WAY TO GO FLORIDA!
however, kudos to boosh for his counter attack on terrorism. i don't think GORE would've faired as well. if 9/11 didn't happen, i believe boosh still would be a MORON.
boosh wants to go with iraq for several reasons:
1. support the war economy for the big defence manufacturers
2. divert attention from the sagging US economy, domestic issues and the low global opinion of the US
3. make his daddy happy (look daddy, no hands! good for you, boy.)
winning the oil war won't make prices go down... it'll stabilise the supply and politics of the issue.
also, shouldn't gore have been prez? i remember making fun of americans cuz i was riding in DALLAS at the time of the elections. all i can say is: WAY TO GO FLORIDA!
however, kudos to boosh for his counter attack on terrorism. i don't think GORE would've faired as well. if 9/11 didn't happen, i believe boosh still would be a MORON.
Oh I hate it when people don't check their facts before they spout off.
1. Iraq is already an OPEC nation. While there exports are not considered in the OPEC's quota system due to the UN restrictions and oil for food programs, they still are a member with full rights.
2. Bush, Cheney and a large number of his administration will most certainly benefit in the long run due to their ties to big oil. The fact of the matter is that while Iraq's oil reserves are believed to be second only to Saudia Arabia, their production and drilling capabilities are severely hampered. They have simply never had the capital to invest. Companies from France, Italy, Russia and China hold some contracts for oil drilling and production in Iraq but have been unable to implement them due to UN restrictions. Currently, no major American or British companies hold any contracts (for obvious reasons). However, a regime change would certainly change that. Additionally, even if US and British companies did not attempt to gain some of these contracts, it is highly likely that they would go into partnership with companies currently holding contracts.
3. All thru the 90's an American company called Halliburton was working exceptionally hard to gain access to Iraq. I am not going to go into a ton of detail but a certain VP was in charge of Halliburton during that time. During that time this person was extremely critical of sanctions on against "rouge" nations as they and I quote "are nearly always motivated by domestic political pressure, the need for Congress and/or the President to appeal to some domestic constituency." To his credit this certain VP always said that Iraq was different BUT.... the reality was Halliburton did business with Iraq thru foreign owned subsideries.
I'll say it again.... they are ALL thieves with no one's best interest at heart except their own.