What's the Problem With George Bush?

[maldirth]

I know this thread could easily desend into personal attacks - some will even see it as such from the outset but that's not my intention.

So about George Bush, what do you think is actually wrong with him?

He recently gave a very high profile speech to launch his new initiative to solve the middle east problem and all he had to do was say the names of 2 leaders, 'Olmert’ and ‘Mahmoud' they're not actually that hard to pronounce. Now the folks on the 'wacky ultra liberal media' are having a great laugh at this but we've heard speeches by bush from some years ago, at one point he was actually quite a skilled orator. Now some of his mispronunciations are quite deliberate I think, 'nukular' for example. I think he probably said that a few times accidentally and observed how educated lefty people derided him for it, thus alienating the average republican voter To be ridiculed by an perceived intellectual elite for sounding stupid is a gift in his position . But we've moved beyond that now. Bush rarely appears to get to the end of any sentence these days without either mangling some easy word or just completely losing his train of thought.

Clearly in a speech as important as that last one, a speech he perhaps hopes to hang his legacy on, we would take 30 seconds to learn those names. But he couldn't do it. Conclusion, does he have some kind of neurological impairment? What could it be? Is it getting worse? What's he going to be like in 1 year?

Now again.. I can't pretend I don't enjoy a bit of Bush bashing but that's not the intention of this thread. It is a serious question. Do you think the leader of the free world is sick?

[The Visioneer]

This is not really a debate, is it. Your making an assuption with no real evidence, other than "I'm sure he used to make better speeches". Do you really think he writes his own speeches? Or that any political leader does? I don't knwo what you are trying to achieve with this thread, but it clearly isn't a debate.

[Darkscull]

I think that he has had a not a very balanced upbringing or life so far, and quite honestly doesn't care/doesn't know what people think about him, and thinks (possibly quite rightly) that it doesn't matter, and that people will vote for whichever party they've always voted for apart from the tiny amount of swing voters, who all jump at the word 'terrer' anyway.

edit: but yeah, as the visioneer said, this isn't really a debate, but it might constitute serious business... it depends what happens over the thread i suppose.

[Smokey]

Didn't an interlligence test put him at just above mentally handicapped or is that an urban legend?

Either way, he's made many mistakes in past speeches (just type Bushisms into Google) so this isn't exactly surprising.

[Darkscull]

Didn't an interlligence test put him at just above mentally handicapped or is that an urban legend?

some people looked at various things from his public behaviour and speeches (assuming he wrote his speeches, which i think is 20 assumptions too many), and calculated his IQ from some formula they pulled out of the air (like the formulae for 'happiest day of the year' and such).

so it's not an urban legend, but it is bollocks.

[Smokey]

Thought as much. Also, just noticed that I spelt the word intelligence wrong.

[Boyinabox]

The man managed to become president of the richest country on the planet.

Love him or loath him, he's not a moron if he can achieve that.

[gembird]

As much as I think Bush is ignorant and controlled by others, it does bother me that the world's problems are all blamed on him. Hell, our leaders aren't exactly wonderful people, the same as the leaders from most other countries. You have to be a certain type of person to get into power, and that isn't necessarily someone nice.

Regarding the issue of his mental health, I just think he isn't that good at public speaking. We all have good and bad days, but Jesus, that man is known for the bad days because there are so many of them. If you haven't written the speech yourself, it's probably going to make it evenharder- and let's face it, it isn't likely that he's sitting in the Oval Office every day refining his words to the USA is it?

[katt]

i have a feeling people watching in britain might think bush talks worse than he actually does cause he prolly has a bit of a texas twang. americans are never gonna sound british. (i have a fairly strong southern accent and i like it but i don't sound like I am speaking the queens english and the one time i tried to do a british accent impression i was told it sounded australian in parts so i obviously am not good at it)

don't get me wrong he is not a fantastic orator. although i really don't care what the president sounds like as long as he is not some tax happy, overly controlling, morally lax loopy person

where would the world be without bush? without his demonic and sinister presence to blame its troubles on

[Mr Peanut]

The Visioneer,

Search you tube for bush dementia, you'll find a video called Bush 10 years ago...

pretty big difference, dontcha think?

[woody_tng]

Big difference indeed. That may be due to the fact that he was running for the seat of Texas and now he's the President. That will add a lot of stress and strain on him. that could quite easily explain his slips.

[Sloth]

bush is a dickwad who just about ignored every domestic reform his promised during the 04 election...

[Splush]

I've heard it suggested that a lot of what might seem to us as embarrassingly inarticulate is indeed engineered specifically to appeal to certain demographics, which sounds plausible to me. I think he gets a lot of mileage from his "ordinary man of the people" image (despite inherently not being an ordinary man of the people) so it makes sense that he'd try to push it in his speech. Although, like you say, if his inarticulate mannerisms really were intentional you'd think he could tone them down for really important speeches.

This thread is rather silly because I don't know how a bunch of internet people are going to diagnose something that people who work with him every day apparently haven't.

bush is a dickwad who just about ignored every domestic reform his promised during the 04 election...
Way to not even bother reading the first post because you're so busy frothing at the mouth with bush-related anger!

[katt]

all politicians are a bit blah.

my strategy is vote for the one i think is less likely to strap a meter to everyone's chest and tax for every gasp sigh and breath.

for instance : hillary clinton. appears to be a DEFININTE gasp taxing sort.

[Darkscull]

what's the american version of the daily mail? I want to tell katt to stop reading it :p


adding to my point about people just voting for whoever they've always voted for:

people (especially, it seems, in america, but then possibly it's just coincidence that those are the people i see from there) seem to have preconceived ideas about what 'the other side' (politically) want/do/want to do, and vote according to that, rather than looking at both sides policies and trying to assess how likely someone is to follow through on the good ones.

for example, what katt has said implies that she doesn't care what policies the person she votes for has, as long as they aren't 'one of them'.
in this context 'one of them' refers to "tax happy, overly controlling, morally lax loopy" people, which i'm going to take a short leap and assume katt calls them 'liberals' for short, usually with some sort of not nice adjective in front.

[El Fisho]

And of course when you begin to assess the difference between the two options you notice how little difference there actually is.

[katt]

what's the american version of the daily mail? I want to tell katt to stop reading it :p

sigh why do left wing people sometimes assume that right wing people automatically are incapable of forming their own opinions of the world without the help of some particular brand of news.

I form my own opinions (although the tax thing mostly comes from reading a philsopher ayn rand which is a bit different than a newspaper) and I do not watch television news

I read all sorts of british papers online (and yes the daily mail is one of them :P but its not the only one i read. And i read the yahoo news headlines and the www.drudgereport.com site. no opinion colums usually



for example, what katt has said implies that she doesn't care what policies the person she votes for has, as long as they aren't 'one of them'.
in this context 'one of them' refers to "tax happy, overly controlling, morally lax loopy" people, which i'm going to take a short leap and assume katt calls them 'liberals' for short, usually with some sort of not nice adjective in front.

well be fair. you wouldn't vote for some conservative person. And I am sure you could think of a few unpleasant adjectives why

and morally lax is ambiguous. there are morally lax people on both sides of the spectrum..and i suppose overly controlling too.

but liberals are tax happy!

[Darkscull]

well be fair. you wouldn't vote for some conservative person. And I am sure you could think of a few unpleasant adjectives why

with emphasis on the small case c, yes i wouldn't vote for a conservative person, because conservative with a small c describes their political beliefs and intentions.

liberal with a small l is the same, and since i am liberal with a small l, i would vote for someone who i felt to be liberal with a small l.

however when most people say 'liberal' or 'conservative' or whatever, they should really use capital letters, because they are referring to a construct of what they think those people are, and from what i've seen it's usually based on party loyalties rather than political beliefs.

but liberals are tax happy!

for starters, no one is 'tax happy' in the sense that they like tax and tax for the sake of it. if you think that some people do then you're more ignorant than i thought. also, i think that that should really be a capital l, because i feel you're referring to what you think of a group of people that you call (or that call themselves) Liberal, rather than people who follow liberal ideas.

liberals tend to support more tax than conservatives (note the lower case letters) because they want more and better public services, and the main way to pay for that is through tax, and so if more money is needed (and the extra amount is seen to be justified) then taxes are increased.

conservatives tend to support less tax than liberals because they feel it is up to the individual and private enterprise (which is the extension of the individual) to sort things out (if possible, most accept that it's not always possible, which is why there are some state benefits under conservative governments), and so not only is less tax needed (because less money is spent on public services), but people need more of their income left to them in order to pay for what the government isn't.

I emphasise again the lower case letters, because that is a broad description of the political/economic ideas that are usually grouped under that headings 'liberal' and 'conservative'. whether or not groups claiming to be one or the other follow those ideas through is another argument.

[katt]

with emphasis on the small case c, yes i wouldn't vote for a conservative person, because conservative with a small c describes their political beliefs and intentions.

liberal with a small l is the same, and since i am liberal with a small l, i would vote for someone who i felt to be liberal with a small l.

however when most people say 'liberal' or 'conservative' or whatever, they should really use capital letters, because they are referring to a construct of what they think those people are, and from what i've seen it's usually based on party loyalties rather than political beliefs.

first of all i usually don't bother to all the letters that should be capitalized in my posts. so stop being a twit

you were the one who brought up the conservative liberal thing. I just said i did not want to vote for a morally lax, overly controlling person or someone who taxes high.

and oh you always vote liberal! maybe you need to disassociate yourself from whatever mind-warping cultural phenomenon is causing you to think liberals are always right. because the only way someone can become liberal is through being brainwashed by a left-wing culture that produces a passel of brats who think that the only people who are not 'ignorant' are the people who are on the left side of the political spectrum [/end parody..i don't actually believe that]





for starters, no one is 'tax happy' in the sense that they like tax and tax for the sake of it. if you think that some people do then you're more ignorant than i thought.

heh if you believe that is always true you are the ignorant one! throughout history people have abused taxes.



liberals tend to support more tax than conservatives (note the lower case letters) because they want more and better public services, and the main way to pay for that is through tax, and so if more money is needed (and the extra amount is seen to be justified) then taxes are increased.

conservatives tend to support less tax than liberals because they feel it is up to the individual and private enterprise (which is the extension of the individual) to sort things out (if possible, most accept that it's not always possible, which is why there are some state benefits under conservative governments), and so not only is less tax needed (because less money is spent on public services), but people need more of their income left to them in order to pay for what the government isn't.



no really sherlock! wow that is some fascinating new insight on the issue

[Splush]

The word liberal just makes me angry now, it's meaning has become so twisted, and twisted in different ways in the UK and the US. I like the classical meaning of liberal, meaning valuing both social and economic freedoms. It seems like in the American media liberal is now just a vague insult that people on the right wing use to label people on the left wing, and nobody really uses to describe themselves, and I hate the way that's creeping into the British media. It seemed like just 10 years ago being liberal would be something that all British parties would be happy to claim. America's super-polarised political landscape is a shitty situation and I hate any sign of British politics going that way.

I know a couple of former "Young Conservatives" and it was a sad day when I heard one of them bitching about "liberals". (he didn't mean the LDs specifically, just a vague ideological group of people who hate freedom and prosperity or whatever)

[katt]

well when i say liberal i refer to someone on the left. It is a kind way to call someone a socialist I suppose.

edit : to me 'liberals' are a bit farther left than the average person on the left of the spectrum

[Darkscull]

katt, I don't think you understood the point i was getting across at all.

in fact you seem to have ignored most of what i was saying.


first of all i usually don't bother to all the letters that should be capitalized in my posts. so stop being a twit

...

and oh you always vote liberal! maybe you need to disassociate yourself from whatever mind-warping cultural phenomenon is causing you to think liberals are always right.

I was pointing out the difference between a noun and an adjective.

I use the terms liberal and conservative to refer to someone's political ideas.

as in, i see what they say and appear to think, and then describe them based on those observations. I know that that's a foreign concept to you katt, but try to see how it works.

so yes, i agree with liberal ideas, that is because i have those same ideas. if someone doesn't have those ideas, they aren't a liberal, because the definition of a liberal is someone who has those ideas!

however there are times when people are referred to as Liberals, using the word as a noun.
this says nothing about their ideas, or moral stance or anything, it's a name.
many parties have the name Liberal in, but are far right wing. some right wing people use the term Liberal to describe anyone that disagrees with them, same with some left wing people, although they have a variety of terms, which makes it harder to spot when someones doing it.

you seem to think i was saying Liberals and referring to the collective of people that are on the left side of the political spectrum (or define themselves as being there, regardless of actuality), i wasn't. if you read what i said, you'd know that.

heh if you believe that is always true you are the ignorant one! throughout history people have abused taxes.

however nowadays, where money from taxes goes into government funds, which are separate from those of particular members of the government, it is easier to spot when money from taxes goes into the pockets of government officials (when it's not their salaries), and therefore happens less often, and is called fraud.

no really sherlock! wow that is some fascinating new insight on the issue

I was showing the reasons why liberal people tend to tax more.

you didn't appear to know them, since you thought they taxed because they liked it

[Splush]

well when i say liberal i refer to someone on the left. It is a kind way to call someone a socialist I suppose.

edit : to me 'liberals' are a bit farther left than the average person on the left of the spectrum
But surely you see the way it's used in the media as a derogatory label, you hear the venomous way that people say it? That sort of thing just encourages an "us vs. them" mentality which might work for the parties and the media but it can't be in the citizens' interests.

And calling anybody in mainstream american politics a socialist just seems insane but I suppose socialism can have a pretty loose definition. I wouldn't even call somewhere like Sweden a socialist country, as much as people like to.

I find all the labelling kind of offensive in general. I hate the fact that based on an opinion on one issue people will pigeonhole me and assume what all my other opinions are based on that. I don't mean you here, just generally.

[katt]

katt, I don't think you understood the point i was getting across at all.

in fact you seem to have ignored most of what i was saying.

I was pointing out the difference between a noun and an adjective.

I use the terms liberal and conservative to refer to someone's political ideas.

as in, i see what they say and appear to think, and then describe them based on those observations. I know that that's a foreign concept to you katt, but try to see how it works.

so yes, i agree with liberal ideas, that is because i have those same ideas. if someone doesn't have those ideas, they aren't a liberal, because the definition of a liberal is someone who has those ideas!

more fascinating insight that has never seen the light of day before! wow!

however there are times when people are referred to as Liberals, using the word as a noun.
this says nothing about their ideas, or moral stance or anything, it's a name.
many parties have the name Liberal in, but are far right wing. some right wing people use the term Liberal to describe anyone that disagrees with them, same with some left wing people, although they have a variety of terms, which makes it harder to spot when someones doing it.

The american definition of a liberal is someone who allies themselves with socialist thought. among other things. You should have figured out I was never referring to a political party that happens to have the word in its name.

A 'liberal' to us is someone (could be from many different parties although the main party liberals support is the democratic party) who has ''liberal ideas" or "far left wing ideas"; usually those of socialism (among other things they typically have in common )





however nowadays, where money from taxes goes into government funds, which are separate from those of particular members of the government, it is easier to spot when money from taxes goes into the pockets of government officials (when it's not their salaries), and therefore happens less often, and is called fraud.

tax money is still wasted on things that are not fraud; the more tax money they have the more things they can come up with to spend it on and not all of it is necessary. at least those are my conservative (heh) views on the issue.

[El Fisho]

well when i say liberal i refer to someone on the left. It is a kind way to call someone a socialist I suppose.

edit : to me 'liberals' are a bit farther left than the average person on the left of the spectrum

From a purely academic perspective I feel the need to correct your use of the term liberal.

Both the USA and UK are Liberal democracies, Liberal in the traditional sense is associated with freedom of expression, the right to vote and of equality of opportunity not outcome. Liberal is actually most of the things you seem to hold true, including that the state should only provide a safety net (nothing more), and crucially is opposed to "over controlling" governments.

Liberals are on the center of the political spectrum, and both Republicans and Democrats draw their common ground from Liberal ideology, it is the foundation of the current political culture.

If you are refering to socialists, say socialists.

[katt]

But surely you see the way it's used in the media as a derogatory label, you hear the venomous way that people say it? That sort of thing just encourages an "us vs. them" mentality which might work for the parties and the media but it can't be in the citizens' interests.

And calling anybody in mainstream american politics a socialist just seems insane but I suppose socialism can have a pretty loose definition. I wouldn't even call somewhere like Sweden a socialist country, as much as people like to.

I find all the labelling kind of offensive in general. I hate the fact that based on an opinion on one issue people will pigeonhole me and assume what all my other opinions are based on that. I don't mean you here, just generally.


I think there is a slight cultural gap..the whole democrat/republican liberal/conservative thing. I have the feeling that people in europe never really understand what all the fuss is about that ...but to us it is a fundamental battle of socialism vs the principles of low taxation the country was founded on. :P

Socialism is for more government control of the economy and where the money goes and if you have people clamoring for higher taxes and more state control it seems as if they are, at least in part, socialists (although that term may be undergoing a slight shift in meaning itself)

In america people that we view as 'liberals' will happily call themselves liberals. it is not just an insult!

Yes the conservatives sneer at 'liberals' but its not like the liberals don't sneer back at 'conservatives'

[Splush]

I think there is a slight cultural gap..the whole democrat/republican liberal/conservative thing. I have the feeling that people in europe never really understand what all the fuss is about that ...but to us it is a fundamental battle of socialism vs the principles of low taxation the country was founded on. :P
Fair enough, I suppose that goes some way to explaining why people so willingly divide themselves into "us" and "them", although I still don't approve of it. And it's not that we in Britain don't understand the debate, we too have a Conservative government who are in favour of lower taxes and smaller government, it isn't as much at the forefront of popular debate as it is in the states, but it's still the fundamental political divide.

I do appreciate why Americans have a soft spot for the free market because of its role in building the country up (not that socialism hasn't been equally, or more, effective in building superpowers) but I think that perhaps becomes irrelevant when you find yourself in the position of being the richest country in the world. I mean Britain became a superpower by acting like a bully going around abusing half the world, but we aren't all clamouring for a return to the days of the empire. Not that America's rise was similar to Britain's, just that what a developing country needs is not necessarily what it needs once it's developed.

Socialism is for more government control of the economy and where the money goes and if you have people clamoring for higher taxes and more state control it seems as if they are, at least in part, socialists.
This is just a semantic issue so let's just forget it, but be aware that people outside of America will think you're a lunatic if you describe the Democrats as socialists.

In america people who we view as 'liberals' will happily call themselves liberals. it is not just an insult!

Yes the conservatives sneer at 'liberals' but its not like the liberals don't sneer back at 'conservatives'
I think "two wrongs don't make a right" is the relevant lesson here. Obviously you need both sides to be complicit in creating that "us and them" political landscape, but that doesn't make it healthy and I wish private citizens who have no reason to support the system would stop adding to it.

[katt]

. I mean Britain became a superpower by acting like a bully going around abusing half the world, but we aren't all clamouring for a return to the days of the empire. Not that America's rise was similar to Britain's, just that what a developing country needs is not necessarily what it needs once it's developed.

Well low domestic tax rates cannot be compared to storming around the world like a bully. :P

I think more economic freedoms help keep a country strong and fun to live in (and i would say that the UK is a fairly conservative place).


This is just a semantic issue so let's just forget it, but be aware that people outside of America will think you're a lunatic if you describe the Democrats as socialists.

Maybe "socialistic viewpoints that strongly deviate from the ideas the founding fathers had" is a better way to describe it



I think "two wrongs don't make a right" is the relevant lesson here. Obviously you need both sides to be complicit in creating that "us and them" political landscape, but that doesn't make it healthy and I wish private citizens who have no reason to support the system would stop adding to it.

Well I would agree that tempers do rise too high here on the issue. Which is part of the reason I find you so refreshing because i completely disagree with most everything you believe politically and yet you can talk calmly and rationally about it without going off on an ironically pompous rant about a small semantic issue.

[Sloth]

Way to not even bother reading the first post because you're so busy frothing at the mouth with bush-related anger! You would to if you voted for somebody and he totally ignored just about everything you voted him in for...

i mean hell, i could be buying more cigars, but noooooooo i have to keeping paying in to Social Secruity... and really cigars are a much better investment because if i don't smoke them i will get my money back or maybe more....

[Shiyiya]

Be that as it may Sloth it's a bit offtopic. Anyway, katt, you seem to me like a fairly stereotypical American. Splush gets major props for staying logical and rational.

Katt, thing is, taxes pay for governmental services. Most of Europe has high taxes, they also have state-sponsored healthcare. Which would be an incredible thing to have here. YOu want low taxes? Have you SEEN the national deficeit? And most of the tax cuts go to the rich bastards who can afford to pay more anyway. Fucked up system.

Also, America was not founded on low taxes. It was 'No taxation without representation', meaning that the Brits taxing them with the colonists having no say in the British gov't was not okay. The point was not low taxes, the point was taxes that they had no say in.

Anyway, the subject was George Bush. If inability to speak makes him appeal to anybody, I'd like to meet this faction. I don't know what his problem is, besides being a moron who was never acutally legally elected.

[Pilk Man]

The man's a clueless dick head, that's what's wrong with him.



Apologies, just had to get that out there.

[Shiyiya]

The man's a clueless dick head, that's what's wrong with him.



Apologies, just had to get that out there.

He is that.

[woobi]

He's dyslexic. It's why he makes mistakes in speeches.

Other than that, he is a prat, spending $50,000,000,000 on Americas Persian Gulf oil reserve, when the estimated amount for the crude oil is only $19,000,000,000.

I thank Jello Biafra for that bit of information.

[Weevl]

There are two problems with George.

The first being that he appears to not give a damn about what he is saying.

The second being that I don't believe a word of what he's saying.

It might be due to the sort of lifestyle where his dad can give him an oil company, which would later go on to be funded (in part) by members of the Bin Laden family.

Or the sort of pure blind ignorance where as govenor of Texas be completely unaware that the Taliban were hosted by Unocal (A Texas Oil company) to discuss a oil pipeline through Turkmenistan, Taliban controlled Afghanistan and onto Pakistan.

Just seems too good to be true.

Lets put it this way, if you were to end your presidency millions of dollars better off, would you give a shit about how you pronounced Nuclear?