Soap Opera Discussion Groups and Forums

ATWT Discussion Group

Topic: If George W. Bush.........


Topic Posted by: Lyrica
Date Posted: Fri Oct 30 9:44:26 2009
Additional Comments: If George Bush was an idiot. . . .
>
>   If George W.  Bush had been the first President to need a teleprompter
>   installed to be  able to get through a press conference, would you have
>   laughed and said  this is more proof of how he inept he is on his own and is
>   really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?
>
>   If  George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of  dollars to take Laura
>   Bush to a play in NYC, would you have  approved?
>
>   If  George W. Bush had reduced your retirement  plan's holdings of GM stock
>   by  90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved?
>
>   If  George W.  Bush had made a joke at the expense  of the  Special
>   Olympics, would you have approved?
>
>   If George W. Bush had given Gordon  Brown a set of inexpensive and
>   incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful
>   and  historically significant gift, would you  have approved?
>
>   If  George W. Bush had given the Queen of England
>   an  iPod containing videos of  his speeches, would you
>   have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and  tacky?
>
>   If  George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi
>   Arabia , would you  have approved?
>
>   If  George W. Bush had visited  Austri a
>   and made  reference to the non-existent "Austrian
>   language," would you  have brushed it off as a minor slip?
>
>   If  George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle  of advisers  with
>   people who cannot seem to keep current in their income taxes,
>   would you have approved?
>
>   If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as  to  refer to "Cinco de
>   Cuatro" in front of the Mexican ambassador when it  was the 5th of May
>   (Cinco de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he  tried again, would you
>   have winced in  embarrassment?
>
>   If George W.  Bush had mis-spelled the word "advice" would you have hammered
>   him for it for years like Dan Quayle and potatoe as proof of what a dunce he is?
>
>   If George W.  Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel  to go plant a
>   single tree on Earth Day, would you have concluded he's a hypocrite?
>
>   If George W.  Bush's administration had okayed Air  Force One flying low
>   over millions of  people followed  by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan
>   causing widespread  panic, would you have wondered whether  they actually
>   get what happened  on 9-11?
>
>   If George W.  Bush had failed to send relief aid to  flood victims
>   throughout  the Midwest  with more people killed or  made
>   homeless than in New Orleans ,  would you want it made into a major
>   ongoing political issue with claims of  racism and  incompetence?< BR>>
>   If George W. Bush had created the position of 32 Czars who report
>   directly to him, bypassing the House and Senate
>   on much of what is happening in America, would you have approved.
>
>   If  George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO  of a  major
>   corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority  to  do so,
>   would you have  approved?
>
>   If  George W Bush  had proposed to double the national debt, which had taken
>   more than  two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you  have approved?
>
>   If  George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10
>   years, would you have approved?
>
>   So, tell  me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant and
>   impressive?



Add a MessageGuidelinesTopics ListHomeOther SoapsJava ChatRegistration
Posted by: claire
Date posted: Wed Nov 4 22:54:04 2009
Message:
okay...now you can go back to listening to your idol Rush Limbaugh, or watching those angry commentators Sean Hannity or Glen Beck.

Replies: (list all replies)

  • Don't you just love people who post nonsense like this and then are struck dumb when the slightest discussion arises? eom/D

    Respond to this message


    Posted by: Mrs. B. Harris
    Date posted: Wed Nov 4 17:07:25 2009
    Message:

    While you're busy posting conservative stupidity, don't forget the Clinton's murdered Vince Foster.

    Others below have already countered this silliness, so I won't bother. Of course, I also don't expect to see any kind of a response from you.

    Replies: (list all replies)

  • Hmnm, let me see. There was a special prosecutor who investigated Bill Clinton's sexual behavior. Wonder why Clinton's enemies could not dig up the proof that he and Hillary murdered Vincent Foster. Probably because there wasn't any. This rumor is on a par with rumors that President Obama is a Muslim and all the other silly stuff./mm
  • I have always believed that when Foster killed himself early in the Clinton administration and the conservatives concococted the nasty lie that they'd killed him, it was the real beginning of this open warfare among Democrats and Republicans. As far as I'm concerned they started the viciousness that passes for politics with that hateful lie. (Mrs. B. H.)
  • Yes, the evidence indicates that Foster killed himself. HOw much the Clintons were culpable were in his death is open to speculation. I do not feel they deliberately did anything to cause his death. But they were careless with this sensitive man./mm
  • Mrs. B.H. You are right on!

    Respond to this message


    Posted by: Roxie
    Date posted: Tue Nov 3 23:41:55 2009
    Message:
    I don't think there is a thing in this email forward that is surprising or shocking. We are aware of it all.

    Replies: (list all replies)

  • Are you suggesting that this email forward has merit? Surely not. It has been eloquently refuted below. eom/silver

    Respond to this message


    Posted by: dandyfop
    Date posted: Tue Nov 3 17:25:04 2009
    Message:

    Posting a worn out email and disappearing is extremely weak.


    Respond to this message


    Posted by: Oakdale Oldtimer
    Date posted: Mon Nov 2 10:39:18 2009
    Message:

    This list of supposed sins pales in comparison to what GWB actually did. 

    He started two wars, one of which he promptly ignored in favor of the other, which was waged against a country that never attacked us and did not have weapons of mass destruction--something he could have known if he hadn't pulled weapon inspectors out of Iraq in order to begin the war.  Over 4200 of our military have died and over 30,000 have been wounded in this war based on lies.

    He censored the information provided by respected scientists to fit his own political agenda.  James Hansen, the head of NASA's top institute studying climate change and one of the world's leading researchers on global warming, said, "I find a willingness to listen only to those portions of scientific results that fit predetermined inflexible positions. This, I believe, is a recipe for environmental disaster."

    Bush gutted environmental laws in order to protect the profits of polluters.  Examples:  Removed key sections of the Clean Water and Clean Air acts, laws which have usually had bipartisan support.  Crippled the Superfund program, which works to clean up millions of pounds of toxic industrial waste (arsenic, lead, mercury, vinyl chloride) in over 1,000 neighborhoods in 48 states  Tried to cut the EPA's enforcement division to its lowest level on record; fines for environmental violations dropped by nearly two thirds in the administration's first two years, and criminal prosecutions dropped by nearly one third as the Bush administration refused to pursue blatant cases of corporate pollution  Became the first administration not to voluntarily add a single species to the endangered species list.  Opened millions of acres of wilderness to logging, mining, and oil and gas drilling.

    Turned the record-breaking surplus left to him by President Clinton into a record-breaking deficit.

    Left his successor the worst economy since the great depression.

    Authorized the torture of prisoners of war in violation of domestic and international law.  Authorized unwarranted wiretapping in violation of the Constitution.

    And furthermore, despite his mantra, he did not keep us safe.  Let me repeat that.  He did not keep us safe.   9/11 happened on his watch.  He ignored warnings from counter-terrorism official Richard Clarke (a registered Republican, by the way) that Al Quaeda posed a greater threat to the country than did Iraq, he ignored a memo entitled "Bin Laden determined to strike in U.S.,", and when the attacks occurred, he sat with that stunned hamster look on his face while he continued to read "My Pet Goat" to schoolchildren and waited for someone to tell him what to do. 

    What a leader.  And you're fretting because Obama took his wife on a date?  How much money did it cost for Bush to fly to Crawford, TX, all the time, as he took more vacation days than any previous president?

    Is Obama a perfect president?  Of course not.  No president is.  But bear in mind that much of what has occupied Obama's time and effort is simply cleaning up the BIG FAT STINKING MESS left to him by Bush.  The one thing Bush has always been good at is creating problems that have no good solution.  Call me a Bush hater if you wish, but I think there are many good reasons to hate the man and what he has done.

    It's almost as if Bush was determined to be known as the worst president we've ever had.  If that's the case--Mission Accomplished.

     

    Replies: (list all replies)

  • Well done!! / Sammie
  • Excellent overview of a catastrophic eight years. eom/D
  • Wonderful!!! I have only one addition. George W. Bush claimed to have no idea that a major U.S. city had drowned (he didn't watch the news and obviously couldn't read newspapers) and commended the a-hole in charge of emergency assistance for job well done. (Mrs. B. H.)
  • O.O....you said it all...and very well, I might add!
  • Well researched, well written. Quite an indictment./mm

    Respond to this message


    Posted by: silver
    Date posted: Sat Oct 31 14:08:44 2009
    Message:
    This is circulating the web so it was probably not necessary to cut & paste here.  In fact, I have gotten this twice, both times from acquaintences who are ultra conservative Republicans who are racists.  That's the sort attracted by this garbage.  PS, just in case the OP has any doubt, Obama was born in Hawaii and Hawaii was a state when he was born.

    Replies: (list all replies)

  • Why did you feel the need to point out that your ultra conservative Republican aquaintances happen to be *racists* as well? Roxie
  • Maybe it's because the two often go hand-in-hand. (Mrs. B. H.)
  • Both my ultra conservative Republican acquaintances are racists. They are also former Southern Democrats who became Republicans because they opposed the Civil Rights & Voting legislation of 1964. They have raised their children with the same toxic attitudes. eom/silver
  • Isn't it fairly safe to say that if you scratch a racist, you rarely find a Democrat? That's not to say that all Republicans are racist, of course, but I suspect that the most vociferous Obama critics - the ones who have to rely on outright lies - are inspired at least in part by racism. eom/D
  • My parents were life long Democrats and life long racists./mm
  • The country and the world used to be a different place. I believe people who feel and vote as your parents did would be in a small minority these days. eom/D

    Respond to this message


    Posted by: dolphina
    Date posted: Sat Oct 31 12:17:12 2009
    Message:
    Sorry, I just can't leave this unchallenged. This is just one more example of why it's really dumb to believe everything that someone puts into an email and circulates around the 'net. This thing is not particularly "eye-opening." Most of these "points" don't even require any research for a response.


    > If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a teleprompter > installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have > laughed and said this is more proof of how he inept he is on his own and is > really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?


    Obama isn't the first President to use a teleprompter. That would be Ronald Reagan. The teleprompter was also his preferred form of reference for his speeches. George W. Bush liked index cards. So what? Either way, it's reading from notes. Every President does it. See how stupid this brilliant "gotcha" point is?


    > If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take Laura > Bush to a play in NYC, would you have approved?


    Why not? We all had to approve when he traveled back and forth on Air Force One to Crawford - with a full security complement in place every time - for more vacation days than any other President in recent memory.


    > If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan's holdings of GM stock > by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved?


    Probably not. Especially if GM stock had been part of his brilliant plan to privatize Social Security. What a raging success THAT would have been for America's retirees, in view of the havoc his administration rained down on our economy.


    > If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England > an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you > have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky?


    Yes. But that's not what was on the iPod Obama gave Queen Elizabeth. In addition to American classic musical theater music, there was video footage of her 2007 visit to the U.S. You know... the last visit she made while Bush was in office. Oh, there was also a rare songbook signed by composer Richard Rodgers. In return, Queen Elizabeth presented the Obamas with a silver-framed photograph of herself and Prince Philip.


    > If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi > Arabia , would you have approved?


    Sure, it was protocol. Just like when President Bush was photographed kissing and holding hands with him. It's correct to show deference to foreign royalty, just like it's correct to honor a foreign visitor's customs.


    > If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with > people who cannot seem to keep current in their income taxes, > would you have approved?


    "FILLED"? Give us a break.


    > If George W. Bush had created the position of 32 Czars who report > directly to him, bypassing the House and Senate > on much of what is happening in America, would you have approved.


    First of all, there are no such positions as "Czars." These people are special advisers, envoys, directors, etc. and "Czar" is an appellation given to them by the media. Of Obama's 32 "Czars," only eight are Obama-appointed, unconfirmed, brand new czars. Bush, by the way, had 35 "Czar" positions in his administration. That's right - 35. Again, the majority of these positions were not created by him.


    > If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major > corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, > would you have approved?


    Maybe he should have. Like his buddy Ken Lay of Enron, for example. But then, Enron wasn't "owned" by the American taxpayers.


    > If George W Bush had proposed to double the national debt, which had taken > more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have approved?


    But George W Bush DID double the national debt, and he STILL left us with a historic deficit. We got nothing for it, either.... except for thousands of dead American soldiers, a military force in tatters, approximately a million dead Iraqi civilians (by some reliable estimates) and an economy in ruins. Besides, the statement "which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate" is marginally truthful at best. The only accurate measure of the national debt is its relationship to GDP, considering the changing value of our currency. This relationship was far worse following WWII than it is now, or will be according to Obama's projections.


    So, while I'm sure the OP thought this was a very clever anti-Obama salvo to post here, for the most part it's ignorant rubbish. Please don't be taken in by something so transparently misleading. Obama isn't perfect; no one is. Bush was record-breakingly imperfect. The over-riding theme of that piece seems to be to point out how unfairly Bush was judged, while Obama gets a free pass. Nonsense. Bush got a free pass from the American media and electorate for YEARS.


    Replies: (list all replies)

  • I really don't recall GWB getting a free pass from the media. David Letterman was (hilariously) relentless when it came to his Hail to the Chief snippets. Bush rode a bit on his 9/11 laurels, but at that time, the media seemed to make sure they didn't report anything negative about America for a brief period of time. But they really came down on him for Katrina and his
  • Whoops--- I must have done quotes...and his ''Brownie Czar''...you know, the guy who was in charge of FEMA who only had a background in horse racing, I believe. So of course the media gave him a hard time throughout most of his office.
  • Hurricane Katrina was four and a half years into Bush's presidency. You don't think that's a pretty decent period of gentle handling from the press? David Letterman isn't the press, by the way. eom/D
  • Well, the word ''media'' was used. I consider all of television media, including David Letterman. I wasn't talking about just press. And you're right. He wasn't criticized much during his first term. Why? Because things were going along pretty well. He wasn't in office for a year before 9/11 and at the time, the country seemed to think he handled himself well. He invaded Iraq swiftly, the statues toppled down, initially there were very little problems there, the stock market was great, AARP backed his work to offer a prescription plan to seniors, he instituted NCLB along with Ted Kennedy. These things were all viewed as good. In the second 4 years, things went to hell in a handbasket pretty quickly so the criticism came. My point is, he didn't get crucified in the first four years/didnt get a ''free ride'', because Americans were generally happy with his Presidency. At one point, in 2001, his approval rating was 90%. It wasn't until that second term that Americans perceived his weaknesses, errors in judgement and plain stupidity.
  • My position on that is things APPEARED to be going along pretty well during Bush's first term BECAUSE the mainstream media/press wasn't doing its job. It's not as though the information wasn't out there, crying out to be heard. The chief UN weapons inspector made no secret of his findings that Iraq had no weapons program. Joe Wilson tried to tell the country that his report debunking administration claims of an Iraqi purchase of uranium from Niger was covered up by the administration, eager to invade Iraq whether it was justified or not. There are dozens of similar examples. Where were the checks and balances then? The media, for the most part, was in lock-step with an administration relying on fear-mongering to advance their agenda. Unfortunately, David Letterman's *Great Moments in Presidential Speeches* weren't enough expose Bush and Cheney for the liars they really were, and Bush hadn't yet finished recklessly spending his way through the surplus he inherited. While Obama is indeed popular with the media for the most part, it's just not credible to claim that Bush never got any media consideration. eom/D
  • You've made your point loud and clear. I will not/cannot argue my opinion any more. Your hatred for GWB is just too apparent.
  • My hatred of GWB is irrelevent to the point, which was that he did receive plenty of support from both the media and the electorate, contrary to what the original post strongly implies. More so than what you apparently thought, since at first you seemed to be under the impression that Hurricane Katrina occured after a *brief period* shortly into his presidency. My own opinion of Bush has nothing to do with when Katrina actually occured. In your own words, it wasn't until his second term that the public began to see the flaws. Doesn't that mean the flaws were there, but were overlooked? I don't understand your inconsistent comments, and I certainly don't understand what my own hatred of Bush has to do with that. For the record, I was taken in by him too at first. Right up to the point when he started making a case for war against Iraq with insufficient evidence to justify it. There was no question in my mind it was a pack of lies, for reasons I'm sure you're not really interested in. Not lies about getting blowjobs in the Oval Office, or hiking the Appallachian Trail, either - lies about killing thousands upon thousands of people. My disappointment in the mainstream media for failing to expose these lies in time to prevent the carnage in Iraq is profound. We're not talking about whether or not I hate Bush; we're talking about whether or not he was unfairly picked on by the media and the general population. IMO the opposite is true. eom/D
  • IMO, it's all fair game. GWB was fairly picked on because he deserved it. He wasn't picked on after 9/11 because the media sensed that it was not the time in history to crucify the country's leader. As time went on, he earned whatever criticism he got. In the same mode, Obama earns his own criticism as well. That's all I'm saying.
  • Thanks D!! Everytime I see something as lame as the OP's little salvo I just count the untruths, half-truths and out right lies. Also, Tosca, David Letterman is a comedian. He is no more the media than a game show host. And George W. Bush got a pass from the mainstream media for YEARS. (Mrs. B. H.)
  • Question: Is Jon Stewart a comedian or a member of the media? Or something else?/mm
  • From what I've read, no one is more surprised than Stewart himself that many of his viewers actually rely on his show as a news source. I don't think he meant to be anything other than a thought-provoking comedian. eom/D
  • Sorry, but in my dictionary, the word ''media'' is not defined as ''hard news''. Here's the definition...''the means of communication, as radio and television, newspapers, and magazines, that reach or influence people widely. This certainly includes entertainment and comedians. Leno, Maher, Stewart, and back in the day 'That was the week that was', 'The Smothers Brothers' and even 'Laugh-In' were part of the media that touched on political issues. So I do consider the Letterman show part of the media.
  • You're right, Tosca. There should be a differentiation made between *media* and *news media.* I can only speak for myself, but when I incorrectly used *media* I meant *news media.* eom/D
  • As for why Obama isn't getting the same kind of merciless treatment from the entertainment media that Bush did, that's simple. Obama simply isn't the same kind of preposterous figure as Bush. Even before Obama took office, comedians were lamenting the loss of a buffoon president. The extraordinarily inarticulate Bush made such an easy target. He began making a fool of himself very early on the campaign trail before he was elected the first time. eom/D
  • I personally think President Obama (please notice I do the honor of giving him his title. If I didn't I would be flayed.) gets the same treatment as former presidents./mm

    Respond to this message


    Posted by: dolphina
    Date posted: Fri Oct 30 18:50:10 2009
    Message:
    That's quite a nice collection of half-truths and incomplete statements someone has assembled. It kind of reminds me of the old question: When did you stop beating your wife?


    Respond to this message


    Posted by: Tosca
    Date posted: Fri Oct 30 12:54:22 2009
    Message:
    While I agree with maggiemae below - he's our President and we need to stand behind him, I found this list to be rather eye opening.  Already I've forgotten about the many gaffes BO has had, and how many things he's done that should have appalled Americans the same some of GWB's actions did.  For some reason, BO is getting away with less criticism.  Maybe people will be more outspoken in time.  As Americans, we should be as critical of Obama as we have been of any past President.  Each leader should be called on their mistakes, abuse of power or downright stupidity.

    Respond to this message


    Posted by: maggiae
    Date posted: Fri Oct 30 11:35:20 2009
    Message:

    This looks to me like something cut and pasted from an email the OP got. I think it is ridiculous to ciriticize our President for every picky little thing. True, there are some things I don't like that have been done (like taking over GM), but I can certainly see that President Obama inherited the financial mess and whatever he did would be subject to criticism. One thing I do think he is doing well, is negotiating with those who oppose us around the world. This, IMO is a much better tactic than taking a hawk like position. I'm tired of us being seen as bullies around the world.

    We had an election. I voted for JOhn McCain, but President Obama won. I think we need to support him now.

    Replies: (list all replies)

  • In principle, I can't fully agree with you. I believe people of conscience have a duty to protest when they believe they have good cause. But that's only after they've made the effort of inform themselves as best they can, not relying on propaganda and hype alone. It can be difficult to pick through all the information and opinions out there and determine what's closest to the truth. It takes a little effort, but if someone isn't prepared to make an effort they should probably keep it zipped. One thing for sure, emails like the one posted above, that arrive without a single reference to back up their claims, should ALWAYS be treated as unreliable. eom/D
  • D I know you are a great believer in backing up your opinions with *facts* but facts can be manipulated and there is a great deal of mendacity that goes on./mm
  • Absolutely. Case in point - the original post. Meantime, I welcome corrections to anything I post, as long as the corrections come from legitimate sources that can stand the light of day. eom/D
  • One problem I have with some of the things you've cited to support your view is from biased sources: example: Huffington Post./mm
  • Nope, you're mistaken. There's nothing I pulled from HuffPost. I haven't read HuffPost since well before Obama was elected. Regardless of where my information might have come from, do you dispute any of it? eom/D
  • D, you cited an article in Huffington Post in our discussion about the supposed slur John McCain made about his wife. I will say no more on the subject./mm
  • D, your common practice is to take a stand on something and then search the web for support of your stand. You inundate us with quotes form different sites. It is no wonder that you don't remember all the sites you use. Also, you have also stated something as fact, like saying someone did or said something. And your proof that it is a fact is that they did not deny it. And of course there is the time when I pointed out an error in fact (someone said Hitler was elected Chancellor and he was not). You just blew this off that I was too picky about what was a fact and what was not. These are examples of how ''facts'' can be manipulated to support any view./mm
  • I'm sorry, I assumed we were discussing this particular matter of the original post here. I was also under the impressions that you prefer not to harken back to previous posts that can't be verified. But please allow me to clarify - there is no material in this thread that I obtained from Huffington Post. If any of it appeared there at one time or other, that doesn't mean it wasn't also available from other sources as well. Writers for Huffington Post frequently reference other sources. In this thread, I verified the number of *Czars* in the Bush administration with FactCheck.org, because some sources are attributing an even larger number of appointments to him (when in fact they are second appointments to the same position). I verified what was on QEII's iPod with ABC News and New York Daily News. The rest - as I stated - didn't require any research. But please - don't hesitate to refute any of it if you have an objection. eom/D
  • Actually, I didn't read it and don't intend to. Reason? The reasons are because what I have stated. IMO, you play fast and loose with the facts. Pleae note the IMO. If you feel you are scrupulous in how you find the facts you state, then my opinion should be of no concern to you./mm
  • Let's just say that I'm infinitely more scrupulous about my fact-finding than the cut-and-paste job that brought us this original post. It appears you read that, though. eom/D
  • As a matter of fact, I didn't./mm
  • Of course you didn't. That explains why you were the first to post a comment about it. eom/D
  • I read the first few and then realized it was propaganda and so didn't waste my time reading the rest. Because of your ''chiding'' I went back and read the rest and your responses. Didn't really see any ''facts.'' Just your opinions. BTW, I got a little teehee out of Obama talking about the ''Austrian'' language. Didn't see a rebuttal on that one. You KNOW what would have happened if GWB had made that faux pas./mm
  • Yes, I know what would have happened if Bush had made that particular faux pas. No doubt it would have been added to some ridiculous email that everyone forwarded around, and Fox News's chief competitor would have featured it prominently the next day. eom/D
  • I'm scratching my head over that one, D./mm
  • D, you provided a link that took me directly to the Huffington Post. All I am suggesting is that you be a little more discriminating in your choice of ''proof'' for your position./mm
  • WHEN did I do that? In THIS THREAD? And where did I say that I've NEVER used Huffington Post? eom/D
  • No, not in this thread. Glad to hear you are distancing yourself from Huffington Post./mm

    Respond to this message


    Add a MessageGuidelinesTopics ListHomeOther SoapsJava ChatRegistration