View Single Post
Old 04-21-2004, 03:13 AM
Crimson Spider's Avatar
Crimson Spider Offline
Experienced Trainer
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Vegas Baby Yeah!
Posts: 132
Default Re: George W. Bush: What do you think?

Well, I'm back, and in a political mood.

Originally Posted by Alakazam
Reason #1: He was appointed by the US Supreme Court Back in November of 2000, the presidential election in the US was VERY close, closer than anyone thought possible. So close that the problems with punch-card ballots in a single state (Florida) were discussed endlessly because it could tip the results. Once all of the ballots had been counted (I'll note that the Florida ballots were counted at least three times for accuracy), Gore had recieveed more votes than Bush. However, Bush insisted that a group of a few hundred ballots were flawed, and that the voters had intented to vote for him. So, he took his case to the Supreme Court and won. Thus, Geroge W. Bush was not elected democratically, he was appointed by the Supreme Court (which was full of Republicans appointed by George Sr.).
That is the complete and utter opposite of what I heard and remember. I remember Bush winning Florida back before the rest of the states had their votes polled, and it was Al Gore that had wanted the recount. Specifically calling on a media report with the relative title of "Bush to still be in the lead?" having a picture of florida painted red. First a news website.
along with

Reason #2: George W. Bush is a fool I hope everyone who's reading this realizes that I will of course back this statment up extensively with facts. It's easy to say "[insert name here of person you hate] is stupid.", but I say so about Bush with confidence and sources. Please read the following qutoes made by the current US president:
So you mean to point out a few speach errors by speaches that aren't even his own while the general idea is still being passed effectively proves that someone is an idiot. Some of the smartest men in the world couldn't speak "effectively". Atleast he's not some fake polition who uses fancy words to make himself sound smart, but rather a more down-to-earth guy.

"The question is rarely asked - Is our children learning?"
I don't find how this is dumb. Whether your community or not has this issue may affect your opinion, but this is an issue at my place. You see, no one really cares in Nevada. You take a test, you pass or fail, you move on.

"It's your money, you paid for it."
That is taken out of context like no tomarrow.

"It must be a budget, it's got lots of numbers."
Jockularity I guess doesn't run in your evalutaion of a person I guess. And second, was he just further pressing a point with a semi-serious statement? Context.

"Teach a child to read and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test."
I once again don't see what's wrong here. Unless you are going to point out the use of the word "ain't".

"More Muslims have died at the hands of killers than—I say more Muslims—a lot of Muslims have died—I don't know the exact count—at Istanbul. Look at these different places around the world where there's been tremendous death and destruction because killers kill."
Are these little dashes pauses or skipping parts of a quote? I once again don't see what is wrong with this statement. Please clarify your problem here.

"My views are one that speaks to freedom."
Oh wow a slight misuse of a word. Ever call someone by the wrong name.

"The illiteracy level of our children are appalling."
I don't see what is wrong with this statement, again. The definition of appalling is used correctly here, that is Causing consternation or dismay; frightful

"The ambassador and the general were briefing me on the—the vast majority of Iraqis want to live in a peaceful, free world. And we will find these people and we will bring them to justice."
Once again taken out of context. It is very obvious that he was referancing to those who were violating the peacefulness of the Iraqis, and was referring to the violaters mentioned previously in the speach, or what the whole speach section was about.

"See, free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't attack each other. Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction." (NOTE: *apologizes for interrupting* The US has more nukes than any other country on Earth.)
That was in perspective of right now. We are NOT manufacturing nuclear weapons right now. Before, we were dumber. We know better now.

"I glance at the headlines just to kind of get a flavor for what's moving. I rarely read the stories, and get briefed by people who are probably read the news themselves."
Simply put: he sees headlines in his very busy schedual only to be told them by the same people who make the headlines or the headlines are about, and skips the crap and moves onto the important stuff.

"I think war is a dangerous place."
Once again an improper use of a word taken out of context disregarding the whole notion of the statement. Little reality check: when speaking to the nation, the rights words don't always come at the right time.

"We spent a lot of time talking about Africa, as we should. Africa is a nation that suffers from incredible disease."
First of all, taken out of context failing to see the whole picture of what he is saying.

"The great thing about America is everybody should vote."
I have commented on the "wrong word under pressure" thing before.

"I understand small business growth. I was one."
He means he was in a small business. I commented on the pressure thing before.

"I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family."
Families plate is probably what he meant. But once again, sometimes someone stammers when under pressure.

George W. Bush makes grammer errors that any fourth-grader could easily correct. To me, that speaks volumes about his intelligence...or more accurately, a lack thereof. In my opinion, a man who has great trouble speaking his native tounge couldn't possibly have the competence to be in politics, let alone lead the United States of America. His lack of intelligence also shines through in his actions, as I will depict later.
Excuse me while I laugh.
*heh heh heh ha ha ha*
Now let me ask you: what kind of invalid cheap underhanded ploy is this? The speach mistakes that a person makes while under pressure and taken out of context doesn't demean his ability to govern a country. He isn't spelling things out. Often times, he's saying stuff on-spot. Unless you can go up to your entire school, give a perfect speach with no grammatical multiple times over a period of 4 years with people asking questions both on the spot and through the mail because you are required of it, then you have no room to speak. I already said this, but some people aren't as much of a fluent speaker under pressure as others. Let me know once you can comprehend the different abilities of a person to speak.

Either Bush had a really bad printer or his handwriting sucks ass.
Oh wow a persons motor skills and finess in a mass-written paper determins how good of a president he should be. Ever meet a doctor?

Bush lies all the time and the no-child-left-behind-act is a total fake.
Exuse me while I laugh.

*heh heh heh heh ha ha ha ha!*
I am doing a report on the No child left behind act. Let me tell you: it's not fake. Do me a favor, and read this
This is the legal document of the No child left behind act. Trust me: he's not lying in ANYTHING he says, and I dare you to try to prove me wrong.

Thousands of kids everywhere who can't read will be passing this year and Bush made that statement to get elected again.
WRONGO! The Elementary and Secondary Education act was issued in 1965. In this act, it required a regular overhall of it's texts every 5-7 years, which the most recent overhall was called the no child left behind act. So unless he traveled back in time and made that president write that up so he can say that, your wrong. A kids ability to pass a grade does NOT invoid the No child left behind act, which (from what I've read from the whole frikken thing) mentions nothing about holding a child back. Don't associate stuff with the act until you know it.

Bush stutters all the time like he doesn't even know his own speeches
Do me a favor and give me all the 386 pokemon in order. Right now, without going to any website.
and if he thinks war is so dangerous why doesn't he call the troops back?
I fail to see intellectual comprehension of this statement. He doesn't call the troops back because firstly he promised that he would liberate Iraq of terrorrism. Pulling the troops back would make him a liar. Second, the troops are in their not only for the Iraqis safety, but for America's safety aswell. It's like putting stricter rules on a school to prevent them from getting hurt.
America has done enough harm and should let them rebuild on their own foundation.
America has done far more good than harm, and they can't rebuild their foundation on their own.
And Iraqi's weren't the ones who really bombed the world trade center. If I remember right it was the packistan's not the Iraqi's.
I guess you are amongst the most who can't seem to seperate the idea of the liberation of Iraq along the the true nature with the war on terrorrism and the fight in Afghanistan. We KNOW that Iraq didn't bomb us.

Sup, Dog? Check this out.
Reply With Quote