• Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, the built environment, planning adjacent topics, and anything else that comes to mind. No ads, no spam, and it's free (as in "free beer"). It's easy to join in!

What is Bush?

What is Bush?

  • A really cool guy.

    Votes: 9 19.6%
  • A moron, plain and simple.

    Votes: 30 65.2%
  • who is Bush?

    Votes: 1 2.2%
  • other- please explain.

    Votes: 6 13.0%

  • Total voters
    46
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.

El Feo

Cyburbian
Messages
674
Points
19
Re: Rense

Seabishop said:
How quickly do critics think it should take to completely overhaul a fascist government into a democracy representing several ethnic groups while restoring infrastructure and fighting off guerillas? This isn't an episode of Law and Order - things take some time. As for the WMD's Saddam had a good 12 years to hide/bury the things.

But, but, but...things aren't instantly better!!!

QUAGMIRE!!!!
 

Budgie

Cyburbian
Messages
5,262
Points
30
OBEY or be shunned

Bow to the Phantom Lord Bush !!!! Sorry, that's a picture of Thulsa Doom.
 

Jessie-J

Cyburbian
Messages
384
Points
12
Re: Re: What is Bush?

prudence said:
"Dumber" is NOT a word. The correct use is more and more dumb.

Not every title used in a movie is correct syntax. If you are going to criticize the intelligence and decision making of others, be certain your own house is in order.

chill baby.
 

RealistPlnr

Member
Messages
7
Points
0
I must add my two sense (get it???):

Facts:

1) Bush is not the most articulate person
2) Bush screws up speeches, names of world leaders etc..
3) Bush admitted to having a drinking problem in the past...and maybe more chemical dependencies (rumored)
4) Bush relied on bad facts in his speech before Congress regarding uranium purchases by Hussein

5) I don't care about 1,2,3...they prove he is human..and for 4, I'm still glad we went after an evil dictator who has openly threatened my life, the lives of my family and all Americans, who doesn't use any sort of "checks and balances" in his use of capital punishment, who poisoned the Kurds (remember them...well you might not, because thanks to good ol' Saddam, there aren't too many left), whose overthrow (work in progress) now has Iran and North Korea scared, who failed to share their nation's wealth with his own starving and impoverished, who jailed those with differing ideologies (remember why America was founded????)

Also, I loved Bush's second album and can't wait until Gavin & Gwen have kids!!!!
 

iamme

Cyburbian
Messages
484
Points
14
I don't know if Bush is a moron or if he is cunning. Think about it. Many things he does are really, really stupid, but, they are politically intelligent. Earlier with the steel tariffs, he knew they'd be found illegal by previous trade agreements but he enacted them anyway. He makes himself look good to the people that vote, while having little to no effect on the real-world situation. Same situation with the gay marriage controversy, he appeases his constituency by opposeing this even though he knows that his views will eventually be struck down by the supreme court. He puts on a ruse of an idiot for peoples' guard to come down, while they talk about how he mispronounces words, he slashes taxes (and corresponding domestic spending) and feeds the military. When a weak spot comes through, hey, its time for a war.

- On a side note, what Nader did was very selfish in the last election, the only reason he stayed in the race was he was trying to get the minimum amount of votes necessary for federal dollars. Our democracy doesn't operate on proportionality, it's winner take all.

-I'll go back to lurking now
 

Budgie

Cyburbian
Messages
5,262
Points
30
I've been drinking and looking for Bush.

This is all very interesting, but let's talk about a man with real POWER, THULSA DOOM !!!! Is he a bad mutha or what?
 

otterpop

Cyburbian
Messages
6,655
Points
28
Well, I don't make any bones about it -- I do not like Dubya. I don't like his domestic or foreign policies. As governor of Texas he regularly rubber-stamped execution orders without any semblance of review. He invaded Iraq on faulty intelligence (gee, who would have thought Bush would suffer from faulty intelligence?). He gave Halliburton a lucrative and largely secretive contract to extinguish oil fires in Iraq (which interestingly Halliburton has no experience doing and just happens to be Cheney's former company which he still has stock in). Bush trumpets the "Healthy Forests Initiative", which is an example of how special interests like to call something what it is not. The Healthy Forest Initiative is a guise to permit greater freedom logging our national forests and restrict review or protest of said same.

Bush and his cronies are big on that. That is, restricting dissent. Sort of like the countries he invades or wants to invade. Bush and Ashcroft trample civil liberties under the guise of national security. And with all the qualified people to be AG, why did Bush pick Ashcroft. The man lost an election to a DEAD MAN! Ashcroft had taxpayers money spent to build a curtain so he didn't have to see the Statue of Justice's booby. Or perhaps it is more of a policy statement -- "You can only see as much justice as the Bush Administrtion deems is appropriate."

I don't like George Bush, Cheney and all of their cronies. Pretty much down the line what ever I am for, they are against and vice versa.

I did find this querstion enlightening because I was not aware so many planners were conservatives. Perhaps out West we are just a bunch of pinkos and greens.
 

iamme

Cyburbian
Messages
484
Points
14
Would just like to say that I am not a pinko, green, or democrat but a Progressive Republican.
 

The Irish One

Member
Messages
2,266
Points
25
Irish Rantzzzzzzzz

- On a side note, what Nader did was very selfish in the last election, the only reason he stayed in the race was he was trying to get the minimum amount of votes necessary for federal dollars. Our democracy doesn't operate on proportionality, it's winner take all.

And thank god for guys like Nader/ Buchanan/Keyes and McCain -those guys should be as selfish as they can! Sure Buchanan/Keyes and McCain aren't running as a third party but the guys definately rock (at least for a while) the boat and that is what Nader does. For Christ's sake I here people talking about what a Democracy we have in this country and we've only got TWO parties to choose from. Those parties have got us so hooked on their junk that the notion a third party should fight with every bone of its body to get federal funds is offensive, WHAT? People want a choice in this country -not just well this guy isn't as bad as that guy. Some voters have the guts to vote for their conscience and many have the tactical wit to know they can send a message to the two party system. It's really too bad that Nader voters wussed out and voted for Gore in the states where Gore was clearly going to win. We could of had a much better debate and election season in 2004.
I am so tired of this wishy washy I won't step on your toes if you don't step on mine debates. The major political players in this country ie. guys running for President. should roll up their sleeves and get down to good old fashioned verbal war. I want to see tempers and crude statements and sharp responses. I want to see clear examples of sharp witted piercing intellect. Those two cooks Gore and Bush were so freaking scared of any real discourse it makes you wonder just how qualified could they really be? We don't need a pampered lot running this country, we need strong, capable of complex debate, rough necks. Both of these guys pussy footed their way through the elections.

Theodoore Roosevelt would be very disappointed.

done.
 
Messages
7,628
Points
29
iamme said:
I don't know if Bush is a moron or if he is cunning. Think about it. Many things he does are really, really stupid, but, they are politically intelligent.
I am not big on politics and have read next to nothing of this thread. My husband is big on politics. So is my sister -- a 'newshound' with a degree in journalism -- who has, um, probably pretty much opposite views from hubby. So I get an earful of both sides from time to time, whether I want to know any of this or not.

My husband pointed out that Al Gore and George W. Bush both went to Ivy League schools -- and, apparently, George got better grades. Not only that , he got better grades while partying his butt off, cramming at the last minute, and hardly paying attention. Al was very devoted to his studies and hard working, etc., but couldn't equal the gpa of his besotted rival whose interested were elsewhere.

I have heard things that suggest that he sounds like 'an idiot' because he gets nervous on camera. He supposedly impressed hell out of bigwhigs in Europe in face-to-face meetings, where they were shocked to discover he was really quite articulate and intelligent -- completely the opposite of what they expected.
 

jordanb

Cyburbian
Messages
3,225
Points
25
Michele Zone said:
My husband pointed out that Al Gore and George W. Bush both went to Ivy League schools -- and, apparently, George got better grades. Not only that , he got better grades while partying his butt off, cramming at the last minute, and hardly paying attention. Al was very devoted to his studies and hard working, etc., but couldn't equal the gpa of his besotted rival whose interested were elsewhere.

From what I've heard, Bush was a C student. Generally when I hear that a kid from a wealthy family that donates heavily to an ivy league school parties hard and ends up with Cs, that says to me that he got "'gentleman's Cs". They're grades that the school gives to children of major benefactors because they're not stupid enough to flunk them and lose the windfall.
 
Messages
7,628
Points
29
jordanb said:
From what I've heard, Bush was a C student. Generally when I hear that a kid from a wealthy family that donates heavily to an ivy league school parties hard and ends up with Cs, that says to me that he got "'gentleman's Cs". They're grades that the school gives to children of major benefactors because they're not stupid enough to flunk them and lose the windfall.

Trying to save me from my husband's propaganda? ;) It might be interesting to find a reliable source and verify if bush had "gentleman's C's" or good grades in spite of all that partying. Unfortunately, I generally take a yawning disinterest in politics so I am totally unmotivated to go do that kind of research.

Regardless of Bush's shortcomings, I, personally, am glad that Gore was not in office when the terrorist attacks occurred. I didn't really vote 'for' Bush. I actually voted 'against' Gore. Now, I really cannot even remember exactly why.
 

iamme

Cyburbian
Messages
484
Points
14
And thank god for guys like Nader/ Buchanan/Keyes and McCain -those guys should be as selfish as they can! Sure Buchanan/Keyes and McCain aren't running as a third party but the guys definately rock (at least for a while) the boat and that is what Nader does. For Christ's sake I here people talking about what a Democracy we have in this country and we've only got TWO parties to choose from. Those parties have got us so hooked on their junk that the notion a third party should fight with every bone of its body to get federal funds is offensive, WHAT? People want a choice in this country -not just well this guy isn't as bad as that guy. Some voters have the guts to vote for their conscience and many have the tactical wit to know they can send a message to the two party system. It's really too bad that Nader voters wussed out and voted for Gore in the states where Gore was clearly going to win. We could of had a much better debate and election season in 2004.

The bone I pick with Nader is that he doesn't understand that this is a 2 party system. The present configuration of our election system prevents it from being anything but. It comes down to the fact that on election day, if the person you voted for isn't elected, your vote is worthless. The only way to invite 3rd, 4th, or 5th parties into the presidential election would be to mandate that the winner receive 50% of the vote, which means you'd have to have a runoff election. Otherwise you're stuck voting for the person that is most electable, who the majority of people will find pleasing and generally holds your views. This is a recipe for mediocrity and little to no change but to win, these are the rules. I do not pretend to love or even like this variant of democracy we practice, but I know how to play the game.

You're right, Theodore Roosevelt would be very disappointed, but how long did his party last?
 

Wulf9

Member
Messages
922
Points
22
I see a series of very bad choices from Bush. He may have tight control of his party and the government, but I don't see much sense in his actions. Consider:

Illegally trashing the Californian economy at the start of the recession. While non-californians may feel satisfied about this, they forget that Californians buy goods from the other 49 states.

Starting a war without a coalition. And dumping on the alliances that had been our basic defense against terrrorism and our basic support in world affairs in order to start that war.

Tax cuts with the hypothesis that giving money to groups who probably won't increase spending is a way to jump start the economy.

Running up a huge deficit but not using that deficit for job creation or economic stimulus.
 

jordanb

Cyburbian
Messages
3,225
Points
25
Wulf9 said:
I see a series of very bad choices from Bush. He may have tight control of his party and the government, but I don't see much sense in his actions. Consider:

Illegally trashing the Californian economy at the start of the recession. While non-californians may feel satisfied about this, they forget that Californians buy goods from the other 49 states.

Starting a war without a coalition. And dumping on the alliances that had been our basic defense against terrrorism and our basic support in world affairs in order to start that war.

Tax cuts with the hypothesis that giving money to groups who probably won't increase spending is a way to jump start the economy.

Running up a huge deficit but not using that deficit for job creation or economic stimulus.

Every one of those actions makes absolutely perfect sense if you think about it from Bush's perspective.

What don't make sense are the offical explanations for each of those actions.
 

Runner

Cyburbian
Messages
566
Points
17
I still believe that we are better off on the international (re. anti terrorism) front with Bush over what the Gore team would have offered. However, on the domestic front (ex. transportation (other than more highways), loss of HOPE VI, environmental protection rollbacks, etc.) I think the Bush team needs to pull their head out of their butts!

I think he's likely to be a one term wonder like his dad.
 

iamme

Cyburbian
Messages
484
Points
14
I still believe that we are better off on the international (re. anti terrorism) front with Bush over what the Gore team would have offered.

If you mean Gore wouldn't create reasons to invade countries, you're probobly right.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top