George W. Bush's Resume

Remove all ads!

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?

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:

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

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.

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.

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.

 

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:

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.

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:

Taluntain wrote which started this thread concerning President Bush's Resume:

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:

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.