This is probably old news to most of you, but I haven't seen it before: link (http://68.102.164.224:8080/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=455)

I wasn't sure whether I should put it here or in Whatnots, as I can't really predict what kind of discussion it will spark (if any). I just found the whole thing an interesting read. Probably a bit over the top in some points, but horrifyingly true in most. In my opinion, of course. Fire away with your own comments! ;)

And You wonder Mr Bush why a terrorist attacks your country.
But really the violation of international laws, set out by the world as a whole on the environment and human rights (including the geneva convention) really does worry me.

[ April 27, 2004, 14:42: Message edited by: Defspeal ]

It is the liberal equivalent of Prager's (http://www.sorcerers.net/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=20;t=000795) column, except with a significantly higher degree of error and innacuracy propogation, almost to the point of farce.

Those of you who expressed such outrage over Prager's take on history, should be expressing similar outrage over this distortion of history.

Or is it too easy to sit back and nod because you're having your ears tickled?

This should be fun!

I attacked and overtook two countries. Two countries that were supporting terrorism and had ruthless evil regimes.

I spent the U.S. surplus and effectively bankrupted the U.S. Treasury. There was never a surplus; those who supported Clinton concocted it. The US Treasury is in no worse position than it was under Clinton. That said, Bush has spent far too much on entitlements.

I shattered the record for the largest annual deficit in U.S. history.
As measured how? The only meaningful way is as a percentage of GDP, and he didn't even get close. False statement.

I presided over an economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any 12 month period. Except who was President at the beginning of the recession? Clinton. When did companies start the poor accounting practices that lead to their downfall? During the Clinton administration. Who managed to pull the economy out of a recession that had the potential to be the worst since the Great Depression? Bush.

I presided over the all-time record for the biggest drop in the history of the U.S. stock market.
Again as measured how? As a percentage of the value, the only measure that has any meaning - hardly the largest.

My record for environmental issues is the least of my concerns.
There is no proof, and many theories on both sides of the issue, as to the damage we have allegedly done to the environment. The fact is that if Bush followed the doctrine demanded by the nature-fakers we would still be in a recession, and Bush would be bashed for not getting us out of the recession.

I am the first president in U.S. history to enter office with a criminal record.
Kerry admittedly committed war crimes. We all have skeletons...

I set the the all-time record for most days on vacation in any one year period. Does repeating “the” have a purpose? The President never gets a vacation. He gets to travel away from Washington where instead of 12 to 16 hour days he only works 8 to 10 hours a day on average. And yes that went for Clinton's vacations as well. In today's world of communications, well, lets just say it wouldn't be like a President from 20 years ago being gone from Washington.

In my first year in office over 2 million Americans lost their jobs, that trend continues every month.
See comments above regarding bankruptcies. This should also be deleted as we as a nation have gained jobs the last 3 months, one of them being a US record.

I presided over the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12 month period.
I have a hangnail, that must be the Presidents fault too. How is it Bush's fault that people over leveraged themselves and got caught in a bad economy that was created by the previous administration? :rolleyes:

I appointed more convicted criminals to administration than any president in U.S.history.
Actually the people of the US have appointed a greater collection of criminals to office than the President. Take a look at the number of criminals in Congress, far exceeds the average Presidential appointment.

I set the record for least amount of press conferences than any president since the advent of television.
So what, he knows he is a poor speaker. What is the point?

God this is a long resume, couple more highlights and I have to get back to work...

I presided over the highest gasoline prices in U.S. history and refused to use national reserves as past presidents have done. As measured in absolute $'s. When adjusted for inflation prices are the lower than they were in the 1960's, and much lower than they were in the 70's. :rolleyes:

I set the all-time record for biggest annual budget spending increases, more than any president in history. Again, as measured how? In inflation adjusted $'s or % of GDP, wrong either way.

I was AWOL from the National Guard. That borders on slander. There is no proof of this.

The majority of the rest of the wild claims made by this individual are suppositions, unsupportable, opinions, standard practices for government operations, or bold faced lies.

The word for something like this is "propaganda".

Those that already hate Bush will love this, those that support him will discount it, and those in the middle will be little swayed either way.

That really wasn’t fun after all. :(

[ April 27, 2004, 17:21: Message edited by: Darkwolf ]

It is the liberal equivalent of Prager's column, except with a significantly higher degree of error and innacuracy propogation, almost to the point of farce. The difference is that this is a farce while Prager's article wasn't.

Well, as much as I hate to admit it :p , I have to agree with H.S.

What pains me even more is that, other than his very first comment re invasions, and the last one re National Guard (jury's still out), I also agree with..with...with Darkwolf!

God, that hurt. :p :D

Edit: BOC, I don't think the author intended it as a farce; it just comes across that way.

Just as the claims in that article doesnt have any supportive facts neither does Darkwolf's disclaiming of them. I for one would love to see either a credible support for the things in that list or a credible refuting of them. Especially since much of this is used quite extensively by Bush bashers.

As Bush being AWOL being slander I find strange, I have kept myself quite up to date on that issue and even though the media has tried to ignore it as much as possible what little facts are known seems to atleast support Bush not finishing his tour in the civil guard.

While I will admit that all the arguments in the article are presented in an unsupported method, there is a difference between this and Prager's own "take". In this case the person is attacking Bush personally and not attacking the office of president or the U.S way of life. It is about a man. Whereas prager was labelling large groups of people. Saying ALL Europeans were nazis etc. That to me is a crucial difference.

Here is an article on gas prices:
http://www.cato.org/dailys/09-06-03.html

High gas prices in the US are not a factor of high oil prices, but more a factor of high taxes and lack of refining capacity. The last gas refinery built in the US was completed in 1976. If you want to protect the environment, you have to pay the price.


Deficit as a percentage of GDP:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2003/sheets/hist01z3.xls

Factual numbers for 2003 do not exist yet, but in terms of deficit, the -1.5 for 2002 do not even come close to the Reagan era or even the first 3 years of the Clinton Presidency. By the way, these numbers are admittedly skewed by the fact that borrowing from the Social Security system is not addressed. When that is factored in, there never was a surplus, but Uncle Sam doesn't give us a nice neat webpage to show us that, they probably don't want us to realize it.

DJIA factoid:

http://www.mdleasing.com/djia.htm

From Sep 3, 1929 to Jul 8, 1932 the DJIA dropped 89.19%

On Black Monday (Oct 19, 1987) the DJIA dropped 22.6% in one day.

Comparatively between Jan 14, 2000 and Oct 9, 2002 the DJIA dropped 38%. Admittedly a large decline.

However as I currently check, the DJIA is at 10,500, 1,200 points off of its all time high, but pretty good considering it took over 2 years to originally climb from 7,200 to 10,500.

As far as criminals in Congress:

http://www.wwco.com/~dda/criminals.php

http://www.renaissancemag.com/thought/default.asp?article=0300b
117: bankrupted at least two businesses WOW, Bush is behind the curve on that one.

Finally, Bush was AWOL.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,110956,00.html
Bush on Sunday authorized the release of his Guard records. McClellan said the latest material apparently is all of Bush's records. Now, where is the evidence of him being AWOL?

This article doesn't say he was AWOL, just that he skipped out on a his required physical and months worth of training, then got permission to leave early.

http://www.iht.com/articles/129416.html

Perhaps the "AWOL" label getting bandied about is too much. When I see him in his flight suit, though, he really seems like a big faker.

Salon has another general article on GWB's Guard record.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/04/27/bush_guard/index.html

[ April 28, 2004, 09:29: Message edited by: Rubel ]

Democracy a way of governing a country in which the people elect representatives to form a government on their behalf a country with such a government the idea that everyone in a country has equal rights.
George Bush, invades other countries, on the pretext of bring such a democracy.
- I refused to allow inspectors access to U.S. "prisoners of war" (detainees) and thereby have refused to abide by the Geneva Convention.
Yet, it seams that the US does not even follow democracy on its own soil.
How can it expect other countries to?

[ April 28, 2004, 13:13: Message edited by: Defspeal ]

The last gas refinery built in the US was completed in 1976. If you want to protect the environment, you have to pay the price.
If you want to believe that is the reason, then there is no one stopping you. But it is not surprising that a corporation can charge a higher price for a product with less capital investment and then blame someone else. Exxon is considered one of the richest companies in the world right now. They could build a refinery pretty much anywhere. But it makes conservatives feel better to blame environmentalists for higher prices. We know that companies would never profit over such a situation? :rolleyes:

In fact, Prince Bandar was on MtP this last Sunday saying that his government would even invest their own dollars to get the oil companies to increase the refinery output. But why should the big oil companies bother? They can just charge more with less investment. Nice try though, Darkwolf.

[ April 28, 2004, 16:32: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

The reason no new refineries have been built is not the reluctance of industry to build them - they are being built outside the US. Local, state and federal government restrictions have severely limited permitting sites to locate new refineries in the US. Often these have been politically inspired by narrowly focused environmental groups or local concerns. http://www.okmoga.com/pr-june07-01.html

Nice try though, Chandos

The "Wolf" is right. I work in an industry that is closely tied to the California refining industry. Over the last 30 years all of the small independent refiners have gradually closed down, leaving 2 in operation (and one only operates on spot production). The independent refiners and the independent fuel stations they supported did help to keep prices down at the pump...we've heard about the famous "gas wars, but the independents were not put out of business by the Exxon-Mobils or Chevron-Texacos...they were put under by the insane pollution control requirements that the State, and particularly the South Coast Air Quality Division, placed upon them.

If you are a small 20,000 barrel per day refiner, who makes .25 dollars per barrel through-put profit after paying your operating costs and overhead (which includes unionized labor), and are told that in order to keep operating you need to install 10 million dollars worth of air treatment scrubbers and monitors...what are you gonna do but go under.

Of course, these refiners quit making gasoline some time ago (the real profit centers) because the were forced to sell the light ends off to another refiner as feed stock, because they couldn't afford the hydrotreaters to make the legislated "California Clean Fuel".

Even the big boys don't have it made. Simple exercise...compare the price at the pump to the price per barrel today and ten years ago...there should be no doubt who is getting rich.

How come that none of these Bush-defenders explain the "- I refused to allow inspectors access to U.S. "prisoners of war" (detainees) and thereby have refused to abide by the Geneva Convention." comment.

I always knew Bush was a complete and utter idiot, and a poor example of the better population of America, but I had never see all of his... shall we say 'deficiencies' listed. This is when I put my head in my hands with shame.


May I leave the country now?

Another point in the gas prices question is how our prices compare to those around the globe. Aren't they much, much higher in Europe? Maybe we Americans are luckier than we think.

As for the enviromental restrictions, I think they've got some merit. Southern California's smog has lessened greatly in the past few years, but it's still bad. I moved down from San Francisco to LA a little over a year ago. Shortly after moving, my snot turned grey, and I've been coughing up unpleasant substances ever since. Cleaner it may be, but it's really unhealthy. I worry about kids growing up around here.

My point is just that since 1) using oil is hard on people and 2) the stuff is running out, we're going to see some crazy shakeups in the next few decades; I hope our leaders can deal with the long-term problems.

Why can't we just drill for oil in Anwar and other places in America and oh that's right we have a bunch of snot nosed Environmentalists.

We need to stick all of the environmentalists in a 'Concentration Camp.' I'm not mean tempered. We can make the concentration camp a 'Paradise' of Environmental Friendly things. People can live there naked and happy and roam around like animals in a forest. (watch out for the snakes).

The Rest of America can gas, smoke, pollute, maim, destroy, obliterate whatever the heck we wish without anymore complaining.

Fair?

American Optimist - LMAO

That's one of the best laughs that this board has ever given me...

Anyhow: The article, unless designed as satirical in nature (and thusly intrinsically false) is flawed. I'm no Bush supporter, but such blatantly obvious propaganda sort of gets on my nerves.... that's all, really.

Caleb: The Chosen

Quote:
-------------------------------------------------
How come that none of these Bush-defenders explain the "- I refused to allow inspectors access to U.S. "prisoners of war" (detainees) and thereby have refused to abide by the Geneva Convention." comment.
--------------------------------------------------

What's to explain? United Nations Inspectors come from the United Nations. The United Nations consists of vile dictatorships, socialists, communists, kook countries of which some control the 'Humanitarian department' of the UN.

Europeans don't care about America. They spend their time playing Poker with a deck of 'American Infidels' while coming up with as many ways to SPITE and ATTACK and PISS OFF America as they can. (Which U.S. Resolution should we VETO next?) (Which U.S. demand should we ignore next?)

With the United Nations OIL for FOOD scam going on I don't think I would trust the United Nations to pick up the pencil I just dropped... Let along visit the terrorist scum in Guantanamo Bay.

America has the right to conduct their investigations of the Detainees as America sees fit. If you don't like it then too bad! Go get yourself a Violin. When we are fair and square and through with the investigations then 'PERHAPS' we will let UN Inspectors play Patty Cake with the Detainees.

It was AMERICA that got attacked on Sept. 11th 2001. 3000 of us died. We will not KowTow to the Evil United Nation's Irrelevant Debating Society, whose main Henchman is FRANCE. Jacque, 'How can I screw America,' Chirac.

[Warning for all of the above pending.] -Tal

[ April 29, 2004, 17:53: Message edited by: Taluntain ]

I never liked the "resume". I see it quite often and I agree with the sentiment - but the execution is quite disagreeable. You can't quantify failures with single sentences. You have to give context in order to validate such claims.

Sorry, Darkwolf, but nice try again. Here is the source which I used in my post. I just don't trust your industry based editorial. Prince Bandar may or may not be a credible source for you either. And you would be in your rights to discount his assertion that his government would invest in the refineries anyway. But I have no regard for your industry based source at all.
But keep trying. Perhaps we can find a source somewhere which we can both agree on (Ralph Nader?).

Of course, Bandar does not really say what the problem is, and, he and his OPEC cronies could also be close allies of the industry (as is Shrub and Cheney). Yet, they may have their own reasons for shifting the blame. Frankly, I don't trust any of them. But I don't believe for a minute that enough refineries cannot be built somewhere in this big, wide world.

Bandar puts the date at roughly 1990 that the last refinery was built here. Your industry assertion is that the federal government banned the building of refineries after that date, if I am understanding you right. I tried to track down a ban on refinery building here in the US, but could not find it. Even if there is such a ban on refineries, they could be built elsewhere. It appears that the investment capital is there. So, what's the problem? shipment? Or greed?


MR. RUSSERT: Did you, in fact, make such a promise to the president?

PRINCE BANDAR: I did not. The president talked with me for months about the high oil prices and how that could be damaging to the American economy and the world economy as it's recovering. And I informed him my government's policy, which is to maintain oil prices between $22 to $28. And we prefer $25 as sort of a medium, and that's the extent of that. There was no deal, no election--no connection to the election. And this is not the first time. In 2000, President Clinton asked us to do the same thing because the prices were getting too high, above $30.

MR. RUSSERT: But in October of 2000, crude oil was $35 a barrel, so you didn't keep your end of the deal.

PRINCE BANDAR: Well, there is a reason, because it's not a matter of crude. The reason you have high prices in the United States is the refineries are not enough to refine. There is a one-million-barrel shortage of refined products. So even if tomorrow we send you all the oil we have as crude, it will not change the facts here. Do you know, Tim, that the United States has not built a refinery for about 15 years? And like our oil minister said the other day in Dallas, we are willing to invest in refineries in the United States of America and that will be really the best route to go. We need to stick all of the environmentalists in a 'Concentration Camp.' I'm not mean tempered. We can make the concentration camp a 'Paradise' of Environmental Friendly things. Fortunately, there is the matter of The Constitution of the United States, which protects the rights of its citizens. Those of us, (who are Americans) are familiar with it. You may have heard of it. Certainly, you have not read it. It is a protection for its citizens against:

vile dictatorshipsBut some others had a similiar idea of concentration camps (see Germany, 1941). Of course, they claimed it would be a "paradise" also.

The Rest of America can gas, smoke, pollute, maim, destroy, obliterate whatever the heck we wish without anymore complaining.
Yes, but there are some of us who actually care about this country. In fact, with your approach, who needs "terrorists?"

[ April 29, 2004, 15:09: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

@American Optimist

I wonder if your real name is Dennis Prager. As far as your claims about UN are concerned, I have said my opinion in Dennis Prager' thread, so I will not repeat it here since your opinion is similar with his. Let's see some other things you wrote.

(Which U.S. Resolution should we VETO next?) (Which U.S. demand should we ignore next?) Let's just examine the UN veto history:

USSR/Russia: 120 vetoes. Only two vetoes since the collapse of the Soviet Union
US: 77 vetoes. Blocked 36 resolutions criticising Israel.
UK: 32 vetoes, 23 times with the US. All solo UK vetoes on Zimbabwe
France: 18 vetoes, 13 with the US and UK
China: 5 vetoes

Well it seems that France has just 5 vetos while US has 64 (I'm not counting their common vetos). I wonder who is the one who ignores the other's demands.

America has the right to conduct their investigations of the Detainees as America sees fit. If you don't like it then too bad! Go get yourself a Violin. When we are fair and square and through with the investigations then 'PERHAPS' we will let UN Inspectors play Patty Cake with the Detainees.USA has signed the Geneva Conventions therefore it has to play with the rules and not to conduct the investigations of the detainees as it sees fit. The only legal justification in order to deny them the POW status is to claim that they are mercenaries but, as far as I can remember, nobody has claimed this. The only justification (maybe I'm wrong in this one)that was given by your government is that they aren't POWs because the war has never been declared, but according to Geneva Conventions this is irrelevant.

But I don't believe for a minute that enough refineries cannot be built somewhere in this big, wide world.
So let me get this straight, it is W's fault that gas prices are so high because we don't want refineries built in the US, so W is supposed to do something to encourage the development of refineries in places where they are affordable? I thought that W was evil because he encourages businesses to create jobs outside of the US. I also that that environmentalists thought that pollution was a world wide problem.

So somehow W is supposed to use his influence to get some other nations to build a big filthy refineries in their lands so that the US isn't the one creating the pollution? Boy, Kerry would have a field day with that: “George W. Bush is encouraging the oil industry to build refineries in nations with poor environmental controls, creating thousands of pounds of environmentally harmful pollution every day. Additionally this is taking important jobs away from Americans. When I am President I will eliminate these policies and make sure that any of these new jobs that can be created are created here in the United States.”

Another classic case of environmentalist “NIMBY” syndrome.

AO,

You are on a slippery slope my friend. If we start arbitrarily suspending the rights of individuals based upon current circumstances, where do we stop? I am probably the staunchest defender of Bush on this board, but I can't get behind him on this one.

I don't believe that we should hand them over to the UN. I agree with you in that the balance of power in the UN has turned against the US (as it is in their best short term interests to do so), and that this is an issue for the US to handle. However we must do it by the rules that we have agreed to. Either charge them with a crime or turn them loose. If it was either your or my brother, father, or child who was being held in jail without representation, uncharged, and with no sign of ever being released, we would be screaming for justice.

Darkwolf - No, not at all. I was not advocating anything. I was simply making an observation as a business person would. If there is demand for a product it seems to me that it can be produced. You would not like my own personal solution to the problem, which would be less dependency on oil altogether.

American Optimist wrote:

3000 of us died Are you sure ?

It's wonderfully simple simon to tally up vetos and point the finger at the nation with the most.

In your list you see that almost half of America's vetos were vetos against nations that sought to basically fire off Anti-Semitic resolutions. In many of those instances countries such as the UK abstained. Abstaining is not the same as 'VETOING' but it is a sign that UK was with US in finding an objection.

The true problem is what the VETO actually was.

Numbers mean nothing. It's what the resolution said and what the VETO meant during the time. During a time of 'GLOBAL WAR' placing a VETO against a country that was fighting to make 17 or so resolutions actually have validity is not something to shrug at.

That's not a VETO you can give the same weight to a VETO against an 'Insult' directed at Israel.

Based on that FRANCE should have racked up about a couple hundred points.

Then let's go and tally up the 'Abstaining' count.

I was bored, so I decided to reply out of context to something someone said. I'm too tired to go back and check who said it.

Fortunately, there is the matter of The Constitution of the United States, which protects the rights of its citizens. Those of us, (who are Americans) are familiar with it. You may have heard of it. Certainly, you have not read it. It is a protection for its citizens against: Since when have we cared about the constitution? We suspend it in times of crisis. 1941, the Japanese, for example.

My mistake I did not realize that the person whose allowed to insult happens to be the administrator and his buddies.

Taluntain wrote in his PM to me:

Hello. This post of yours is in severe violation of the AoDA forum rules .... As I'd spend way too much time editing out all the insults and generlizations, I'll just tell you that next time you write something similar, it'll be deleted.
Taluntain wrote which started this thread concerning President Bush's Resume:
Probably a bit over the top in some points, but horrifyingly true in most. In my opinion, of course. Fire away with your own comments!Which at 'least' is 'leading' into the negative insulting of President Bush. If not interpeted as an insult for calling a misleading representation of Bush's Resume, 'Horrifyingly true.'

TalunTain found time to PM my message but he did not have enough time to PM the following message said by:

Defspeal:
"And You wonder Mr Bush why a terrorist attacks your country.
But really the violation of international laws, set out by the world as a whole on the environment and human rights (including the geneva convention) really does worry me.
Right, blaming President Bush for 3000 deaths without any shred of proof or evidence? And this doesn't get treated as an Insulting Message or Generality?

If Taluntain wants to play 'fair' then he should grow up. Put away the insults or the 'inciting' of insults or the insulting generalities himself or stop PMing and Banning people just because they are participating in insults YOU YOURSELF incite and participate in against your own ideology.

[ Coming after the post with which I closed your other thread. You're quite the piece of work, American Optimist. ] - Beren

[ April 30, 2004, 05:38: Message edited by: Beren ]

Bye-bye AO. :rolleyes: