[quote]Jeff_with_a_G wrote:
I love to hear people scream about liberal bias in the media. [/quote]
Who’s screaming? I was just refering to the Mirror. “Media” as a whole wasn’t the issue. I was asked what I thought about that one outlet. See? No screaming!
[quote]derek wrote:
Jeff_with_a_G wrote:
My issue is this…Kerry, at the very least, volunteered to go to Vietnam and actually got shot at. Bush used Daddy’s political pull to join the Air Guard and then couldn’t manage to do his time without asking for exemption after exemption.
After Bush’s second race for the Senate, President Nixon appointed him U.S. delegate to the United Nations and he later became Republican National Committee chairman. He headed the U.S. liaison office in Beijing before becoming Director of Central Intelligence.
I believe as the Diector of the CIA, G.W. would not be allowed to be overseas during any conflict because the riskes were too great. If he were captured, it would certainly give the enemy a distinct advantage… just imagine the consequences.
I’d like to see what you have to say about this possible twist in your logic.
[/quote]
So , you’re saying that no one is government can have a child overseas serving in the military because it’s a risk to national security?
And if that were even a consideration, which is was and is not, someone in the Bush camp would’ve brought that up during the campaign to bolster his image as not being a wartime slacker. And they didn’t. Sorry, try again.
[quote]derek wrote:
Jeff_with_a_G wrote:
I love to hear people scream about liberal bias in the media.
Who’s screaming? I was just refering to the Mirror. “Media” as a whole wasn’t the issue. I was asked what I thought about that one outlet. See? No screaming!
[/quote]
Gotcha. And I agree — most British papers and mags are definitely leaning to the left. I’m definitely not waving the flag in support of the British media, although I believe they’re a bit more “well rounded” in their coverage than the U.S. media. They report on a lot of things that never even get mentioned in our media. Interesting.
[quote]Jeff_with_a_G wrote:
derek wrote:
Jeff_with_a_G wrote:
My issue is this…Kerry, at the very least, volunteered to go to Vietnam and actually got shot at. Bush used Daddy’s political pull to join the Air Guard and then couldn’t manage to do his time without asking for exemption after exemption.
After Bush’s second race for the Senate, President Nixon appointed him U.S. delegate to the United Nations and he later became Republican National Committee chairman. He headed the U.S. liaison office in Beijing before becoming Director of Central Intelligence.
I believe as the Diector of the CIA, G.W. would not be allowed to be overseas during any conflict because the riskes were too great. If he were captured, it would certainly give the enemy a distinct advantage… just imagine the consequences.
I’d like to see what you have to say about this possible twist in your logic.
So , you’re saying that no one is government can have a child overseas serving in the military because it’s a risk to national security?
And if that were even a consideration, which is was and is not, someone in the Bush camp would’ve brought that up during the campaign to bolster his image as not being a wartime slacker. And they didn’t. Sorry, try again.[/quote]
Very few senators, congressman, ambassadors, cabinet officials, etc. have children serving in the military, and it has absolutely nothing to do with national security concerns.
[quote]Jeff_with_a_G wrote:
derek wrote:
Jeff_with_a_G wrote:
My issue is this…Kerry, at the very least, volunteered to go to Vietnam and actually got shot at. Bush used Daddy’s political pull to join the Air Guard and then couldn’t manage to do his time without asking for exemption after exemption.
After Bush’s second race for the Senate, President Nixon appointed him U.S. delegate to the United Nations and he later became Republican National Committee chairman. He headed the U.S. liaison office in Beijing before becoming Director of Central Intelligence.
I believe as the Diector of the CIA, G.W. would not be allowed to be overseas during any conflict because the riskes were too great. If he were captured, it would certainly give the enemy a distinct advantage… just imagine the consequences.
I’d like to see what you have to say about this possible twist in your logic.
So , you’re saying that no one is government can have a child overseas serving in the military because it’s a risk to national security?
And if that were even a consideration, which is was and is not, someone in the Bush camp would’ve brought that up during the campaign to bolster his image as not being a wartime slacker. And they didn’t. Sorry, try again.[/quote]
That’s true. That no doubt is not the policy. If it was, the administration would’ve mentioned it. If it was true, no one could’ve faulted Bush at all.
[quote]fahd wrote:
Bush isn’t the cleverest guy around, but I somewhat like the guy (and hate the republican administration).
Personally I think he would be a rather fun-loving and genuine guy; someone who’s fun to hang around with.
I am by no means a neocon,
Fahd[/quote]
I don’t care if he’s a fun loving guy or not. I think someone who’s president of one of the world’s most powerful countries should understand his responsibilities to the rest of the planet. This is something he obviously hasn’t done, as he’s not a strong enough leader to take a stance on issues that could make him unpopular.
Issues like global warming, poverty. exploitation by multinational corporations; like Nike and Cocacola. He could make the world a much better place by addressing these issues rather than waging war.
Oh but shit, i forgot, doing those things would be potentially damaging to the U.S economy, and would involve raising taxes and aboloshing the disgraceful farming subsidies. He’s a man who does what the American people want which is not always the right thing.
[quote]Jeff_with_a_G wrote:
Very few senators, congressman, ambassadors, cabinet officials, etc. have children serving in the military, and it has absolutely nothing to do with national security concerns.[/quote]
Agreed. But I don’t fault them for it-on either side of the political spectrum. The fact that you don’t want your child to risk their life does not mean you don’t think a cause is valid.
[quote]Jeff_with_a_G wrote:
So , you’re saying that no one is government can have a child overseas serving in the military because it’s a risk to national security?
[/quote]
Did I SAY that? Again, I was refering to the Director of the CIA. I did not even come close to making a blanket statement about “no one in government”.
I need to look this up but I’d have to think the Director of the CIA may be an exception.
Note: “Director of the CIA” ONLY. Please do not extend my reply to places it was not intended. It confuses the issue.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Jeff_with_a_G wrote:
derek wrote:
Jeff_with_a_G wrote:
My issue is this…Kerry, at the very least, volunteered to go to Vietnam and actually got shot at. Bush used Daddy’s political pull to join the Air Guard and then couldn’t manage to do his time without asking for exemption after exemption.
After Bush’s second race for the Senate, President Nixon appointed him U.S. delegate to the United Nations and he later became Republican National Committee chairman. He headed the U.S. liaison office in Beijing before becoming Director of Central Intelligence.
I believe as the Diector of the CIA, G.W. would not be allowed to be overseas during any conflict because the riskes were too great. If he were captured, it would certainly give the enemy a distinct advantage… just imagine the consequences.
I’d like to see what you have to say about this possible twist in your logic.
So , you’re saying that no one is government can have a child overseas serving in the military because it’s a risk to national security?
And if that were even a consideration, which is was and is not, someone in the Bush camp would’ve brought that up during the campaign to bolster his image as not being a wartime slacker. And they didn’t. Sorry, try again.
That’s true. That no doubt is not the policy. If it was, the administration would’ve mentioned it. If it was true, no one could’ve faulted Bush at all.[/quote]
As an aside to this issue — John McCain’s father was a high-ranking Admiral when McCain was captured and sent to the Hanoi Hilton. His dad’s high rank was actually one of the reasons the North Vietnamese offered to let him go as early as they did. McCain, of course, refused and spent another year or two in captivity.
But the point is, his Dad being an Admiral actually helped his chances rather than it being seen as a big national security snafoo.
[quote]alstan90 wrote:
fahd wrote:
Bush isn’t the cleverest guy around, but I somewhat like the guy (and hate the republican administration).
Personally I think he would be a rather fun-loving and genuine guy; someone who’s fun to hang around with.
I am by no means a neocon,
Fahd
I don’t care if he’s a fun loving guy or not. I think someone who’s president of one of the world’s most powerful countries should understand his responsibilities to the rest of the planet. This is something he obviously hasn’t done, as he’s not a strong enough leader to take a stance on issues that could make him unpopular.
Issues like global warming, poverty. exploitation by multinational corporations; like Nike and Cocacola. He could make the world a much better place by addressing these issues rather than waging war.
Oh but shit, i forgot, doing those things would be potentially damaging to the U.S economy, and would involve raising taxes and aboloshing the disgraceful farming subsidies. He’s a man who does what the American people want which is not always the right thing. [/quote]
And no one mentions the fact that this “war” is the only one in our history that didn’t create an economic boom. It’s actually destroying our economy. Or the way it’s being handled is destroying our economy. Either way — I think it’s an interesting point. All other wars brought us out of a recession, and this “war” prolonged one.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Doubtful that anyone in this country is going to vote for third parties much. That’s just not how our system’s set up. But it would be nice if their were some quality candidates in either party; quality candidates that were backed by the central leadership, that is.[/quote]
Lets not forget that at one point, the Republican Party was a third party. I realize that it was a unique situation but it can happen. Aside form that, if enough people voted for third parties, it might knock a little sense into the Dems and Repubs…well, I like to think so anyways…
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
That’s true. That no doubt is not the policy. [/quote]
Any facts to back this up? I don’t say this to antagonize. And I wasn’t stating fact when I suggested it… just a thought I had. You however seem to know this is untrue for a fact. Please elaborate with the facts if you will.
[quote]Jeff_with_a_G wrote:
But the point is, his Dad being an Admiral actually helped his chances rather than it being seen as a big national security snafoo.[/quote]
Good point.
SNAFU, though. Situation Normal… All F&*%^ed Up.
[quote]Jeff_with_a_G wrote:
alstan90 wrote:
fahd wrote:
Bush isn’t the cleverest guy around, but I somewhat like the guy (and hate the republican administration).
Personally I think he would be a rather fun-loving and genuine guy; someone who’s fun to hang around with.
I am by no means a neocon,
Fahd
I don’t care if he’s a fun loving guy or not. I think someone who’s president of one of the world’s most powerful countries should understand his responsibilities to the rest of the planet. This is something he obviously hasn’t done, as he’s not a strong enough leader to take a stance on issues that could make him unpopular.
Issues like global warming, poverty. exploitation by multinational corporations; like Nike and Cocacola. He could make the world a much better place by addressing these issues rather than waging war.
Oh but shit, i forgot, doing those things would be potentially damaging to the U.S economy, and would involve raising taxes and aboloshing the disgraceful farming subsidies. He’s a man who does what the American people want which is not always the right thing.
And no one mentions the fact that this “war” is the only one in our history that didn’t create an economic boom. It’s actually destroying our economy. Or the way it’s being handled is destroying our economy. Either way — I think it’s an interesting point. All other wars brought us out of a recession, and this “war” prolonged one.[/quote]
First, we arent in a recession any more and we havent been for some time. Second, all economic indicators are fantastic right now. Third, there was no military build up for this war so there is no reason for it to have had a positive economic impact.
[quote]Jeff_with_a_G wrote:
And no one mentions the fact that this “war” is the only one in our history that didn’t create an economic boom. It’s actually destroying our economy. Or the way it’s being handled is destroying our economy. Either way — I think it’s an interesting point. All other wars brought us out of a recession, and this “war” prolonged one.[/quote]
We have had 10 straight quarters with GDP growth of at least 3% in each quarter. The last report that came out just this week has us at 4% growth. 210,000 jods were added to the economy last quarter and the national unemployment rate is at 5% - which, if you have taken an economic class, is statistical full employment. Real wages are up - and exceeding personal spending.
So there might be a pretty damn good reason no one is saying that things are bad. It’s a fucking lie.
But to answer your previous question - I tend to think that a guy with a BA from Princeton, and a Harvard MBA is above average in the intelligence area. Especially one that was elected to the Texas Governor’s Mansion twice, and the Whitehouse twice. Plus Bush knows what a weight room looks like and is in bettershape than any President we have had since Kennedy. Yep - what a moron.
Kerry? Tell me what he has done in his life besides marry money, and run for public office. He is a moron because he, like most of the current dem leadership in D.C., have no message. They have no plan other than to be against everything that Bush is for. For getting paid the big bucks - you’d think they could come up with something better than “ABB”.
Now tell me why Bush is a moron.
--------EDIT--------
Bush got a BA from Yale - not Princeton. I forgot which Ivy League school he attended.
If it wasn’t for his daddy’s buddies, theres no way someone like Bush could’ve gotten in Harvard.
Wahahah…thanks for the laugh! 
[quote]fahd wrote:
If it wasn’t for his daddy’s buddies, theres no way someone like Bush could’ve gotten in Harvard.[/quote]
I hate to break this to you, but just about every single person who attends Harvard does it with the help of some alumni…
Who helped him at Yale?
Who helped him get elected Governor of Texas TWICE?
Who helped him get elected to the Presidency TWICE?
[quote]fahd wrote:
If it wasn’t for his daddy’s buddies, theres no way someone like Bush could’ve gotten in Harvard.[/quote]
Prove it. I don’t think you can.
[quote]LBRTRN wrote:
First, we arent in a recession any more and we havent been for some time. Second, all economic indicators are fantastic right now. Third, there was no military build up for this war so there is no reason for it to have had a positive economic impact.
[/quote]
Stop trying to confuse people with facts.
I didn’t read all the posts in this thread, but whats with the Carter bashing? Carter was probably the single most intelligent president we ever had. He was a Nuclear physicist or something.
Let the men that got better than c’s in an Ivy League school, cast the first stones at Bush. Yeah I did better than c’s, but you know what a degree from University of SC, will never be on the same level as one from Yale. When history looks back on Bush, his main failing will be the border, not Iraq. Despite what cowards want to beleive this war is necessary for the future. Just because you dont understand whats going on, or are to scared to fight for freedom yourself, doesn’t make Bush stupid.
I wager the most stupid President in history will probably go down as being Grant. Of course that would require looking back objectively and not staining your judgement with your own ideological prejeducies.