"You know I don't spend a lot of time thinking about why I do things." — Bush (6/4/2003)
Bush says our health care system needs to use computers to lower health costs. He is right. It was Kerry's idea during the election, of course. Bush, on the other hand, believes computers use the "internets". So this is the guy that is going to implement the necessary reforms? Of course not.
UPSIDE DOWN GEORGE! Forget computers, he doesn't even know how to use books.
UPSIDE DOWN GEORGE! Forget computers, he doesn't even know how to use books.
By Chuck - 1/28/2005
24 Comments:
Chuck,
What an absolute joke this guy is. He has the nerve to rip Kerry's plan for healthcare during the campaign, and is now taking his ideas. What a hypocrite this guy is.
When is it going to stop? When will this country wake up and realize that they shouldnt have someone in the whitehouse you want to have a beer with? When will they realize that the "average" american should not relate and talk like the president?
IT IS ONE BIG JOKE. I will wake up from this nightmare, at least i hope so. It is not a matter of democrats vs republicans, it is a matter of having an idiot for a president surrounded by a bunch of morons advising him.
I suppose I could post the picture of bill clinton at the DMZ in 1994 looking through his binocluars with the lens caps on for minutes......even though he couldnt see he wouldnt take the caps off and ruin the photo op. so i am sure we can find pictures like this for all presidents.
it is not about the pictures, that is the problem with you and the rest of the republicans. It is about what he has or should i say has not done for the good of the country.
Now if you want to talk about what clinton did for the good if his country in compared to YOUR president. Maybe I shouldnt even waste my time with that arguement.
just like Bush is your president, Clinton was mine. I didnt vote for Clinton, you didnt vote for Bush, but as as Americans, they are our presidents. whoever is elected in 2008 will be my president and your president - no matter who we vote for.
how did i know you would avoid the clinton vs bush arguement
Charleton Heston is my President
i think bush is a better president at this point than clinton. history will judge who was better. but yeah i think Bush is better. I am not going to avoid that argument.
Ben,
you are a nice guy but man does someone need to smack you upside the head with a 2x4.
I will start by saying that bush is the only president in his first term to lose points in the stock market. EVER, even during the depression it still rose over a 4 year period, so dont give me the 9/11 bullshit excuse.
like i said, nice guy you are, but man you dont have much upstairs. but hey that is why you voted for YOUR guy bush
oh, also look at the polls, clinton was something like 8pts higher on his approval rating after his first term. even some of you (to quote chuck) "SICK" republicans loved clinton.
well justin i didnt really want a comparison of numbers like approval - i could say Bush had a 90% approval rating after sept 11, but that is meaningless now. but if clinton was so beloved by sick republicans why did he only get 49% of the vote in 1996 when Bush got 51% in 2004? Maybe some sick Democrats voted for him. Or maybe there has been a politcal reallignment and there are more Republicans now than 8 years ago. I really dont know. Numbers like this dont tell us who is better. After all John F Kennedy is always rated by people as one of the best all time Presidents, though he accomplished little in his abbrevaiated term. It is just how people think of him. Harry Truman had bad approval ratings, but looking back he was a great president.
I am willing to have this argument, I just dont think that it can be done with poll numbers, etc.
Also thank you for your compliments of me being a nice guy.
i for one don't think bush is an idiot. if he believes the stuff he says i would think he was an idiot. alot of the things he has said about iraq are obviosly not in line with reality. but bush's problem is that he's a ceo. we've all had a job where we know if the owner of the company would walk in our shoes for a day his mind would be changed about the way he does certain things. bush doesn't have that perspective. he was a well off kid given companies to run, even if he had done a good job at it, he still wouldn't think like your average american.....
tim,
the sick part is, i am begining to think that he is not lying and the things he is doing is what he really believes in. That is not only sick to me but very scary as well.
can someone answer this question for me, in all seriousness... Why are there political parties? Why dont we just vote for the person who shares the same views that we have? I know that most democratic views are the same and vise versa for republicans, but why the parties?
Thanks in advance
well i would hope that bush or any president believes in what they are doing
i would say we have parties just because of the fact of funding and ballot access. w/o them its tough to get on the ballot or get the money / recognition you need
ben
I kind of find that to be disturbing do you?
I mean that it is all about the money and access to the ballot.
well sure i do. but thats the way both parties want it. its gay
we are going to need some sort of referee for ben and justin. good to see strong debate.
to justins last point. you just have to have the party system. there needs to be reforms, but that is a ways away. And i really believe the greatest reform possible, which would increase people's everyones knowledge is computer-generated districts, every 10 years. make the congressmen fight for their jobs and we might be able to define the 2 parties beyond the 2 presidential candidates.
Ben, that Clinton picture, you mean this one?
http://www-pnp.physics.ox.ac.uk/~azfar/bush.jpg
And either way, Bush said internets. and he meant it. you cannot be too smart to say internets. it doesnt automatically make you dumb, but it eliminates any chance of being smart
and i would agree the debate over bush/clinton should not be poll numbers. although, obviously you know Perot running was the reason clinton only had 49%.
and i think you do have to wait for the iraq thing to finally judge Bush. but he is kinda like the 3-7 Browns vying for the playoffs....a bit behind right now.
But domestically there is no question. and i will personally show up at anyones workplace and fight anyone that disagrees (even if that means the powder blue gund arena, so be it).
however, if bush makes the world safer, maybe he'll have a claim. but as the above post explains, thusfar, bus is making the world less safe.....day after day.
and the two party system is nearly impossible to break. take ralph nader or the green party for example. if they started to become more popular - say maybe %10 %15 - the democrats would add enough of the greens platform and take most of those voters. it happened with the populists early last century. the same thing would happen on the right, think if the facist party started to gain popularity - the republicans would shift just enough....you know, i'm kinda joking but the point is made.
No chuck that isnt the picture I meant. I had never seen it before, and if it is real, and it probably is, then i would like to get some background on it, like if he took the caps off 1 second after that. either way, he looks stupid in the picture. Clinton left the caps on for minutes while pointing at things he was "seeing". neither here nor there. also your example about 1996 proves my point about you cant really use numbers to judge - perot got about 8%...most would have gone to dole, some to clinton, some would have never voted, but we will never know. i suspect clinton would have ended up with around 51, 52%. most people ended up voting perot because they knew dole had no chance so they didnt care to vote party line.
i also have agreed with you in the past about your computer thing for districts. it is serioulsy stupid when you have 435 house races every 2 years and only about 20-25 are even considered competeive. thats bad for everyone except the incumbent congressman.
anyways you cant get to me at the gund you need a thumbprint now to get into the building. so also i like bush domesticaly, but that is no surprise.
You can like Bush domestically all you want. But the numbers Clinton put up are uncomparable (job growth, poverty falling, crime falling, etc). And when Bush people like to talk about Bush inheriting a recession (which is untrue, didnt start until march 2000), remember the early 90's was the worst economy, maybe since the great depression.....and Bill got it done in record numbers.
Also, i think JFK is greatly accomplished. as much as anyone i can think of just for civil rights and cuba and i am sure there is more. additonally, his short term isnt that important, because reagan did nothing his last 3 years and you guys still claim him great. By the way, it was Kennedy that came into office and cut the top tax bracket from 90% to 60%....then it was reagan that went nuts and cut it from 60% to 30%.
And when republicans complain about taxes, i just wish they understood that the rich used to pay 90% in taxes. but clinton was the devil for putting them at 40%.
1. I would still dispute Kennedy was a great President. I dont say he was bad, but he isnt an all time great. I am just saying perception isnt always true.
and
2. If you meant the recession started in March 2000, Clinton was still president, as Bush did not take over until Jan 2001. If you meant it started in March 2001 then ok.
perspective isn't always true. i would agree that kennedy is overated. the two main things he is remembered for is the cuban missile crisis and civil rights. i would say lbj and nixon both did more for civil rights than kennedy. and if we step back and look, the reason the russians were trying to put missiles in cuba is becuase we had put missiles in turkey pointed right at them. the soviets were responding to OUR move. kennedy was a great speaker, wich often gets someone remembered at being a great president. look at reagan, a terrible president, but remembered as being great because he made good speaches.
This is actually photoshoped. See http://www.snopes.com/photos/bushbook.asp
photoshopped*
Post a Comment
<< Home