Forgot to say this also. Anyone who is anti-Bush is automatically called “left winger” or some shit. Couldn’t be farther from the truth. The last thing I am is left winger. I think the Dems are a bunch of gutless bafoons. They’ve been played like a fiddle by the Repubs cuz Rove and company know what gutless bafoons they are. I didn’t vote “for Kerry” I voted against Bush. It’s sad when you have to pick “less of a loser” over “more of a loser” but that’s the state of our country.
This is hillarious. A bunch of intellectual anomolies here for sure.
[quote]Jeff_with_a_G wrote:
Devil0351Dog wrote:
You all are a bunch of “Armchair Presidents”. So quick to criticize when you couldn’t do a better job yourself. Which one of you idiots has got the magical plan to bring about world peace? I’m all ears.
DD
No one’s asking G.W. to bring about world peace. Just leave the country a little safer and a little more prosperous than when he started. He started with about 300 billion in surplus now he’s 450 billion in debt. Iraq wasn’t a terrorist haven 3 years ago. Now it is. After 9/11 and Afghanistan there were people in Iran having moments of silence for fallen Americans! Now the entire world hates us and burns our flag in the street. Why? Because Bush couldn’t stay in Afghanistan and keep looking for UBL. He had to have his little war with Iraq.
I was a lowly Sgt 3 years ago sitting in a dark room in Georgia looking at a computer screen. I said then that going into Iraq was a big mistake, that we would be seen as invaders and that the country would eventually dissolve into civil war when American troops finally left. Can I do a better job than him? You watch the news and tell me… [/quote]
Yeah…I’m gonna side with Bush on this one. I’ve been there and have seen the progress firsthand. Also, if you were watching CNN yesturday morning you would have seen two more Marine Cpls who agree with me (different city, and different unit 3/25). Oh, and after 9/11 the news that I saw showed people in the streets of Iraq etc. cheering and burning American flags. And if that’s not enough:
One of the guys in my platoon found a zippo-style lighter in an Iraqi house that had a picture of the WTC with planes crashing into them, a picture of Osama and 9/11 written on it. Yeah, and they didn’t support terrorism my ass.
I don’t know about all the economics and shit, but I do know that under Clinton there were at least 4 terrorist attacks on the US (USS Cole, WTC, 2 Embassies). We had one big one and so far haven’t had anouther.
Maybe Bush isn’t the greatest president ever. But he’s not the worst. At least he has the BALLS TO STICK WITH SOMETHING HE BELIEVES IN. For that, I commend him. And because of that I trust him to see us through these next few years.
DD
[quote]Jeff_with_a_G wrote:
Forgot to say this also. Anyone who is anti-Bush is automatically called “left winger” or some shit. Couldn’t be farther from the truth. The last thing I am is left winger. I think the Dems are a bunch of gutless bafoons. They’ve been played like a fiddle by the Repubs cuz Rove and company know what gutless bafoons they are. I didn’t vote “for Kerry” I voted against Bush. It’s sad when you have to pick “less of a loser” over “more of a loser” but that’s the state of our country.[/quote]
I think anyone that admits to voting for Kerry, and can’t give a halfway decent reason for why he thinks Bush is a moron, pretty much fits the label of lefty.
And please spare me the ‘I think for myself’ bullshit. You have done nothing but spew MoveOn.org talking points on this thread.
[quote]thabigdon24 wrote:
RJ : you should be a GWB cheerleader. Yes you are correct that merely spending a lot doesnt make you stupid…but spending a lot on stupid things , that will make it more expensive down the line, and will hurt americans down the line b/c our budget/belt will have to be tight as heck in the future. Educational spending ,environmental, science , milatary , all these nice things that governments do will have to take a cut in the future. How hard is that for you to get?[/quote]
I voted for him 4 times. I like him. DO I think he is perfect? Absolutely not. But that does not mean I think he is a moron. Nor do I think he is stupid.
I totally agree that unless we reduce spending - we are headed for a trainwreck.
I don’t think increasing taxes will do a damn thing except stall out the economy. If politicians have more money to spend - that’s exactly what they will do. They won’t cut anything. They will do just the opposite - spend more.
The Republican Study Committee has recommended over 1/2 trillion dollars in cuts. But no one in the Senate wants to hear that.
[quote]LBRTRN wrote:
Jeff_with_a_G wrote:
derek wrote:
Jeff_with_a_G wrote:
After the 2004 election, the London Daily Mirror ran a headline titled “How can 58 million people be so stupid?” I wonder the same thing myself.
Not only did you READ this publication, but you committed it to memory? How utterly wasteful.
Well at least there’s solace in knowing that you are among the minority.
Actually, I saw the headline posted on a blog. But, yes, I am proud to say that I’m not one of the 58 million morons.
Im assuming you voted for Kerry, right? What makes him so different than Bush? The electorate essentially had a choice between two douche bags. When faced with the coice, I think most people vote for the douche bag who they disagree with the least…and Bush was that man.
However, I dont think that makes them morons. Now if only people would start voting for third parties more often…
[/quote]
Somehow, we are on opposites sides of the spectrum and feel exactly the same way. I doubt that I will vote Democrat anymore- I’m going to the Green Party. The Dems are as corrupt and corporation run as the Republicans.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Jeff_with_a_G wrote:
Let’s not forget that the last two times Greenspan has testified before Congress he’s said, in effect, “The economy is growing BUT…”
He always has a but when he testifies.
What comes after the “but” is very important. Greenspan is worried, very worried, because ALL of the growth of the last few years has been due to debt financing. Absolutely all of it. Housing market anyone? And Greenspan knows that growth based on debt financing cannot possibly last for long.
How is Bush to blame for this? How does the fact that people are in massive personal debt make GWB a moron?
WWII was financed on war bonds, and the entire economy grew at well over 10% for years. Vietnam wasn’t financed on war bonds (someone correct me if I’m wrong), but the defense industry was so overwhelmed by defense orders that they had to ask other private industries to help — which further boosted the natonal economy.
10%? You really want to stick with that number? I’d like to see something to back that up. But even if it is true -0 the econmy grew so fast because we were coming out of the worst depression in the history of our nation.
And if you think for a second that FDR didn’t run up massive deficits to fund his programs - well you are delusional.
The problem with Iraq is that only a few chosen companies are benefitting — Halliburton and its subsidiaries and a half dozen private defense firms. So, the contracts to supply the military aren’t benefitting the national economy, the contracts to rebuild Iraq are only benefitting a few companies, and the entire war was financed by deficit spending on top of tax cuts.
Will you lefties ever realize that Haliburton and KBR are the only companies in the nation capable of handling the logistical nightmare over there? We didn’t have private industry do any of the reparaion work in WWII - we used our money and European labor.
I find it comical that you think getting KBR, or Haliburton to handle things is destroying our economy. That is just a fucking crock. You hate Haliburton. You hate Bush. Your logic is so screwed up that you can’t even make a valid piont.
Add all that up and you get a war that, in the long run, is going to drive our economy right into the toilet. My point was that “real” wars (I’m not really sure what to call this one) didn’t just help the economy but boosted the economy through the roof for years.
Viet Nam boosted our economy for years? Are you fucking kidding me? Were you alive in the 70’s? How about the early 80’s? You are full of shit if you can divine anything that was booming in the 70’s other than the unemployment rates and interest rates. Remember “WIN” buttons? You are fucking clueless in your hatred, sparky
One last thing. If you truly think that our economy is in “good shape” consider this. Gold went over $500 an ounce yesterday. The last time gold was this high was in the late 70’s and early 80’s when the country was looking at double digit inflation. The guys on the CNBC morning show this week didn’t seem too encouraged by the recent buying of gold. It worries them cuz they know what it means.
Gold spikes in times of war and in times of runaway inflation. These are uncertain times - gold should be on the rise. but is still nearly half the value it was 25 - 30 years ago.
The economy is expanding at 4%. Unemployment can’t get much lower. People are making more than they spend for the first time in a long time. Things are good. In fact things are better than they have been in a while And you want to try and tell me that, because Greenspan has concerns, and some dill holes on CNBC are worried about $500 gold, the economy is in the crapper?
Once again - how does this prove Bush is a moron? I think it just proves how much you hate Bush, and how badly you want the country to suffer so that you and the rest of the lefties can feel justified in your hatred. [/quote]
How can you blame Bush? Well, he and his team like to say that the economy is rolling right along (“we’re doin’ it good”) when it’s all an illusion thanks to debt financing. Can’t blame them, but then they can’t take credit either.
As for wartime growth, I broke out my Econ text: 1939-8%, 1940-10%, 1941-17%, 1942-16%,1943-15%, 1944-6%,etc. Didn’t go negative until 1946 when everyone came home and industry had to readjust to peacetime. 1950-9%, 1951-10%, 1952-11%, etc. Went negative in 1954. 1962-6%, 1963-3%, 1964-6%, went negative from '68-'71, went up to 5% until the drawdown/pullout in '74-'75. Now the Iraq war…2003-3%, 2004-4%, 2005-4%. By the way 3% is the average rate of growth for last 100 years, so the last two years are nothing to brag about. Vietnam wasn’t a great boom like WWII, but it wasn’t quite on the same scale, either.
The economy of the late-70’s and early-80’s was for shit. Just like every post-war period in history. Ford and Carter were such great presidents that they racked up double digit inflation and double digit unemployment on top of an energy crisis (really pays to piss off them Arabs doesn’t it?).
Uncertain times? Things have been uncertain since 9/11. People have only started buying gold in the last few weeks. Why? The debt financing bubble is starting to trash the dollar and investors are diving for cover.
As for unemployment figures…OMG! Do you know that when someone has been out of work so long that they say “fuck it” and stop looking for work that the government doesn’t count them as unemployed any longer? They don’t have a friggin job, but they’re not “unemployed.” All of those poor bastards are NOT part of that wonderful 5% figure you’re talking about. Did you know that the agency that puts out those figures is NOT independent? They crunch the numbers any old way the current admistration wants them to. If you base the strength of the economy on unemployment figures you’re barking up the wrong tree.
[quote]Jeff_with_a_G wrote:
Because Bush couldn’t stay in Afghanistan and keep looking for UBL. He had to have his little war with Iraq.[/quote]
Thats kind of insulting to the fighting men we still have in Afghanistan.
Ahh there is your malfunction. You use the news as your primary information source. Assuming you were a lowly Sgt on one of the major bases in GA (Stewart, Benning), why dont you try contacting people who are there on the ground and getting the real scoop. Everybody I chat with that is there or have came back from there, says the same things. We are winning, and the Iraqis love there new sense of freedom. 50k dead terrorists can’t be a bad thing…ever.
[quote]Devil0351Dog wrote:
Jeff_with_a_G wrote:
Devil0351Dog wrote:
You all are a bunch of “Armchair Presidents”. So quick to criticize when you couldn’t do a better job yourself. Which one of you idiots has got the magical plan to bring about world peace? I’m all ears.
DD
No one’s asking G.W. to bring about world peace. Just leave the country a little safer and a little more prosperous than when he started. He started with about 300 billion in surplus now he’s 450 billion in debt. Iraq wasn’t a terrorist haven 3 years ago. Now it is. After 9/11 and Afghanistan there were people in Iran having moments of silence for fallen Americans! Now the entire world hates us and burns our flag in the street. Why? Because Bush couldn’t stay in Afghanistan and keep looking for UBL. He had to have his little war with Iraq.
I was a lowly Sgt 3 years ago sitting in a dark room in Georgia looking at a computer screen. I said then that going into Iraq was a big mistake, that we would be seen as invaders and that the country would eventually dissolve into civil war when American troops finally left. Can I do a better job than him? You watch the news and tell me…
Yeah…I’m gonna side with Bush on this one. I’ve been there and have seen the progress firsthand. Also, if you were watching CNN yesturday morning you would have seen two more Marine Cpls who agree with me (different city, and different unit 3/25). Oh, and after 9/11 the news that I saw showed people in the streets of Iraq etc. cheering and burning American flags. And if that’s not enough:
One of the guys in my platoon found a zippo-style lighter in an Iraqi house that had a picture of the WTC with planes crashing into them, a picture of Osama and 9/11 written on it. Yeah, and they didn’t support terrorism my ass.
I don’t know about all the economics and shit, but I do know that under Clinton there were at least 4 terrorist attacks on the US (USS Cole, WTC, 2 Embassies). We had one big one and so far haven’t had anouther.
Maybe Bush isn’t the greatest president ever. But he’s not the worst. At least he has the BALLS TO STICK WITH SOMETHING HE BELIEVES IN. For that, I commend him. And because of that I trust him to see us through these next few years.
DD[/quote]
Ooh rah Dog. I guess we just see this thing from different sides. When what I was seeing on TV (back in '02 and '03) didn’t mesh with what we were seeing from the intel I started getting bad vibes from this administration. I just couldn’t swallow my SecDef lying his ass off on national television with a straight face. It’s the reason I got out.
I totally agree with you about Clinton, though. I was in all through the 90’s, and Willy trashed the military big time. He made everyone think that this country was a bunch of pussies who would never fight back. Look what it got us.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Jeff_with_a_G wrote:
Forgot to say this also. Anyone who is anti-Bush is automatically called “left winger” or some shit. Couldn’t be farther from the truth. The last thing I am is left winger. I think the Dems are a bunch of gutless bafoons. They’ve been played like a fiddle by the Repubs cuz Rove and company know what gutless bafoons they are. I didn’t vote “for Kerry” I voted against Bush. It’s sad when you have to pick “less of a loser” over “more of a loser” but that’s the state of our country.
I think anyone that admits to voting for Kerry, and can’t give a halfway decent reason for why he thinks Bush is a moron, pretty much fits the label of lefty.
And please spare me the ‘I think for myself’ bullshit. You have done nothing but spew MoveOn.org talking points on this thread. [/quote]
You must have missed my previous post. Look for it. Like I said, if you want any more reasons why G.W. is a moron let me know. I have a laundry list. If you’re listening that is.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
LBRTRN wrote:
Jeff_with_a_G wrote:
derek wrote:
Jeff_with_a_G wrote:
After the 2004 election, the London Daily Mirror ran a headline titled “How can 58 million people be so stupid?” I wonder the same thing myself.
Not only did you READ this publication, but you committed it to memory? How utterly wasteful.
Well at least there’s solace in knowing that you are among the minority.
Actually, I saw the headline posted on a blog. But, yes, I am proud to say that I’m not one of the 58 million morons.
Im assuming you voted for Kerry, right? What makes him so different than Bush? The electorate essentially had a choice between two douche bags. When faced with the coice, I think most people vote for the douche bag who they disagree with the least…and Bush was that man.
However, I dont think that makes them morons. Now if only people would start voting for third parties more often…
Somehow, we are on opposites sides of the spectrum and feel exactly the same way. I doubt that I will vote Democrat anymore- I’m going to the Green Party. The Dems are as corrupt and corporation run as the Republicans.[/quote]
Agreed. There’s nowhere to run any more. Something drastic better happen before '08. We need a legitimate third party candidate, badly.
[quote]Jeff_with_a_G wrote:
Okay. Let’s see. Masters in Business Administration. What did Bush learn in business school? First of all, he took $300,000 of his Dad’s friends’ money (mostly Saudi businessmen) and put it into Arbusto Energy. Drilled nothing but dry holes. At least two more ventures (on other people’s money) that I know of. All went bust. Looks to me like he learned how to piss away other people’s money real well. Go Harvard.[/quote]
Wildcatters in oil business often dug dry wells - it was/is a high risk venture. Not succeeding in oil wildcatting does not mean you are dumb.
Second, if Bush’s idiocy was so obvious, why would they give him money? Texas oilmen aren’t exactly known for their sensitivity and generosity, they don’t hand out ‘feel good’ money - if they thought Bush was an idiot, Bush wouldn’t have seen a dime.
And Texas oilmen know about the wildcatting industry - and from the looks of it, you know very little. I’ll go with the Texas oilmen on this one.
Irrelevant.
There was no Clinton surplus. The surplus, Jeff With A G, is a projection based on current tax takes. The Clinton surplus was based on capital gains of the raging equities market. The only way that surplus materializes is if the revenue avalanche from the 1990s go-go stock market keeps going.
It didn’t, of course, so no surplus. And you can’t squander a surplus that was never a surplus.
I don’t think Bush is some kind of genius - but the ‘dumb’ charge is, in the context, well, dumb.
[quote]Celticwolf wrote:
Jeff_with_a_G wrote:
Because Bush couldn’t stay in Afghanistan and keep looking for UBL. He had to have his little war with Iraq.
Thats kind of insulting to the fighting men we still have in Afghanistan.
I was a lowly Sgt 3 years ago sitting in a dark room in Georgia looking at a computer screen. I said then that going into Iraq was a big mistake, that we would be seen as invaders and that the country would eventually dissolve into civil war when American troops finally left. Can I do a better job than him? You watch the news and tell me…
Ahh there is your malfunction. You use the news as your primary information source. Assuming you were a lowly Sgt on one of the major bases in GA (Stewart, Benning), why dont you try contacting people who are there on the ground and getting the real scoop. Everybody I chat with that is there or have came back from there, says the same things. We are winning, and the Iraqis love there new sense of freedom. 50k dead terrorists can’t be a bad thing…ever.
[/quote]
First of all, I think that when Bush pulled 40,000 troops out of Afghanistan and sent them to Iraq, THAT was insulting to our troops. They were kicking ass in Afghanstan. Gutting the forces there for no reason was a travesty.
I actually get next to nothing from the mainstream media except giggles and laughs. Anyone who relies on CNN, MSNBC, etc. is getting about 10% of the picture. I wasn’t on the ground during this round, but I saw all the intel that they were seeing in D.C., so I’m not entirely clueless about Iraq. I knew were going to invade over a year before we actually went in.
I know people that are still in, or who just got out, consider people like me “against the troops.” Actually, I wish every one of them could come home tomorrow. I’ve been to the Middle East (in Gulf War I), and I don’t think we have any business sending our boys and girls over there unless we have no other friggin choice. Afghanistan definitely qualified. Iraq didn’t. Not one single Marine or soldier should have died in the last 2 1/2 years over Iraq. The “war on terror” is in the 'Stan, and it should have stayed there.
[quote]Jeff_with_a_G wrote:
On the same note — there are those rich kids who also happen to be smart who get a thing called a Rhodes sholarship to attend Oxford university in England. Yes, Kerry is a Rhodes scholar. Yes, he’s a piece of shit politician like all the rest, but you can’t be a moron and get a Rhodes scholarship.[/quote]
I don’t think Kerry was a Rhodes Scholar. Clinton was, Wesley Clark was, but I’m fairly certain Kerry wasn’t.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Jeff_with_a_G wrote:
Second, if Bush’s idiocy was so obvious, why would they give him money?
[/quote]
Good question. I wonder that myself.
Other than the Texas Rangers baseball team, which required nothing of G.W. other than sitting back and enjoying the game, name one successful business venture that this high-speed MBA from Harvard has undertaken. Just one. While you’re at it. Name one, successful or not, that wasn’t financed by Bush Senior’s friends. My point being, he doesn’t have to be smart with a Dad like his. He just has to do what he’s told.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Jeff_with_a_G wrote:
There was no Clinton surplus. The surplus, Jeff With A G, is a projection based on current tax takes. The Clinton surplus was based on capital gains of the raging equities market. The only way that surplus materializes is if the revenue avalanche from the 1990s go-go stock market keeps going.
It didn’t, of course, so no surplus. And you can’t squander a surplus that was never a surplus.
I don’t think Bush is some kind of genius - but the ‘dumb’ charge is, in the context, well, dumb.[/quote]
So, let me get this straight. Clinton can’t take credit for the surplus, because it’s an illusion. And Reagan and Bush can’t be blamed for deficits, because they’re…what?..illusions too? You’re trying to have it both ways. The Dems can get blasted when they have inflation and high unemployment (because those things are real), but they can’t take credit for surpluses because they’re an illusion, but Republicans can’t be blamed for deficits because they’re an illusion or they’re “irrelevant” or something.
Let me ask you this. Is there anything bad that Bush, or any Republican, can be blamed for? Or do they just get to take credit for things when they’re not so bad? Like the almighty tax cuts that were such a great economic stimulus that we’re still ticking right along at an average rate of growth even during one of the largest debt financing booms in recent memory. I know I know. Bush gets to take credit because we’re at 3-4% rather than, well, something less than that. And that makes it great.
[quote]doogie wrote:
Jeff_with_a_G wrote:
On the same note — there are those rich kids who also happen to be smart who get a thing called a Rhodes sholarship to attend Oxford university in England. Yes, Kerry is a Rhodes scholar. Yes, he’s a piece of shit politician like all the rest, but you can’t be a moron and get a Rhodes scholarship.
I don’t think Kerry was a Rhodes Scholar. Clinton was, Wesley Clark was, but I’m fairly certain Kerry wasn’t.[/quote]
You’re right. He went to Yale. It was Clinton and Clarke. I’ll use them as my examples instead. I swallow that one. Thanks for the correction.
[quote]Jeff_with_a_G wrote:
How can you blame Bush? Well, he and his team like to say that the economy is rolling right along (“we’re doin’ it good”) when it’s all an illusion thanks to debt financing. Can’t blame them, but then they can’t take credit either.[/quote]
Manufacturing is up. Personal income is up. Almost everything is up. This is not a paper boom like we had under Clinton. I’m not sure of the illusion you are blaming this on. The global economy is on fire. Japans index closed at a 5 year high. China is a freaking furnace, the Dow is closing in on 11,000. If this is an illusion - Bush and Co. can hardly be called stupid, or morons. Evil genius wold fit him better.
Do you not see your problem? You are accusing Bush of being a calculating, evil conspirator on one hand. And on the other you think that he is barely smart enough to get his britches buttoned of a morning. Which is it?
1939 - 1941. All government sponsored job growth. Translation? TVA, WPA, etc. were all governemt work progams designed to get people back to work. WHo was pauying these wages? Paying for the programs? Deficit spending and taxes. The gorwth was unsustainable, because it was not real growth. It was exclusively a result of the Fed spending shitloads of money.
1942 - 1945. All attributable to the war effort. Little if any domestic real growth. People were actually rationed on what they could consume. So who paid for all of this growth? One entity - the Federal government. How was it financed? Debt. But I though debt was a bad thing - that’s what you are contending about our current boom, aren’t you?
1946 - 1960. Housing boom. Manufacturing boom. Baby boom. All the soldiers came home got married, went to college, bought homes, had tons of kids, and went into gasp debt to buy their homes. Who paid for their college? The Fed. Who gave them home loans - or at the very least guaranteed them? The Fed.
I think you are being very selective in what you are blaming for slow growth. Do you not remember the horrendous tech bubble that burst sucked the life out of the stock market in 2001? That was a paper boom that caused a real bust.
You are conveniently leaving out most of the years that Greenspan has been running the Fed. He has engineered the money supply so that we will rarely top 8% growth. He seems to prefer slow, steady growth of around 4%. And in that time we have not seen anything even approaching double digit inflation either.
Are you changing your tune? You said:
Vietnam wasn’t financed on war bonds (someone correct me if I’m wrong), but the defense industry was so overwhelmed by defense orders that they had to ask other private industries to help — which further boosted the natonal economy.
Now you are saying that it was shit because of historical drops in production in post-war years.
Which is it?
That is not true. Gold is up a whopping 11.52% over the last 52 weeks. The Euro is down the exact same amount over the same period. Coincidence? I don’t know - but blaming Bush for the rise in gold prices because of debt financing is more than a little myopic.
SO the numbers mean nothing. It is your contention that things are so bad that people are just giving up and dropping off the radar? I would be willing to bet a significant amount of cash that there are more people dropping off the radar due to self-employment than there are poor out of work saps that give up and quit.
If you base the weakness of the economy on unsupported theories and twisted logic - you are the one barking up the wrong tree.
[quote]Jeff_with_a_G wrote:
So, let me get this straight. Clinton can’t take credit for the surplus, because it’s an illusion.[/quote]
I think Clinton should get credit for triangulating with the Republican Congress to balance the budget. Shrewd move, but also much easier when your revenue coffers are overflowing.
And now you have shown your ass - I never suggested that Reagan or Bush couldn’t be blamed for deficits, though I lay the blame at Congress’ feet as well. Nor did I suggest that deficits are illusions.
These are merely false conclusions you leapt to presumably because you don’t know any better.
No, I am not, because at no point have I exonerated Reagan or Bush for their decifits. You are not very bright.
When did I say Republicans couldn’t be blamed for deficits? When did I say deficits are illusions?
I personally think deficits are really, really bad.
You suck at this game.
Of course - I have a list of my own. You are a fool for leaping to the conclusion that my taking your points on means I somehow have done all these things - least of which is assert that Republicans are above scrutiny.
Pathetic.
I asked this question a while back and haven’t gotten one single response. So I’ll ask it again, because I’m being asked by you guys to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Bush isn’t a moron.
For those of you who think “Bush is smart” or “Bush is doing a good job”, I’d like to hear SPECIFIC reasons why you think so. I hear a lot of “ra ra ra” but very little substance. The only attempt was to mention that he graduated with an MBA from Harvard. That’s nice, but so what? I’ve met a lot of so-called “edumacated” people who had trouble tying their friggin’ shoes. If the fact that Bush didn’t even know what “arbusto” meant is irrelevant (when he named his company that for a very specific reason), then what the hell does a piece of paper prove?