When our own President sets this example...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-3FSUafZqk
:com:
~Bush, 09-26-07
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-3FSUafZqk
:com:
Last edited:
But how can education improve?
- Thread starter smurphy
- Start date
Although this is a good one, I don't think it will supplant my current sig at this time. Still hopeful for some new material soon, though. Say, like, from G-Dub speaking in Iran, or something like that.
"From the current report card in Iraq...Irans will learn not to middle in our affair." - Proposed new Bush sigline.
"From the current report card in Iraq...Irans will learn not to middle in our affair." - Proposed new Bush sigline.
It's all in the eye of the beholder Smurph--
We had Kerry a good speaker vs GW a poor speaker--
Yet GW had better grades--managed to own baseball teams-fly jets and be gov and 2 term pres
Yet Kerry has never accomplished anything other than marrying rich women to support him--Hmm maybe there is benefit of being a sliver tongue
Maybe you can start new header
--but how can ethics improve when--
When you have pres that shoves cigars up interns-gives it the ole :nono: to we the people--committs felony's in office--pardons ten most wanted for cash--disbarred for flagrant misconduct ect ect--
You know its quite amazing what bothers some and not others
We had Kerry a good speaker vs GW a poor speaker--
Yet GW had better grades--managed to own baseball teams-fly jets and be gov and 2 term pres
Yet Kerry has never accomplished anything other than marrying rich women to support him--Hmm maybe there is benefit of being a sliver tongue
Maybe you can start new header
--but how can ethics improve when--
When you have pres that shoves cigars up interns-gives it the ole :nono: to we the people--committs felony's in office--pardons ten most wanted for cash--disbarred for flagrant misconduct ect ect--
You know its quite amazing what bothers some and not others
Last edited:
DTB
if it came where you had to vote right now today
And just to add to it, the one that you post would be the next president.
who would you select ?
just wondering. grow some balls and post it.
if it came where you had to vote right now today
And just to add to it, the one that you post would be the next president.
who would you select ?
just wondering. grow some balls and post it.
Last edited:
Grow some balls?? --excuse me young lady?
Now back to question--which vote are you speaking of--back then or in 08?
Now back to question--which vote are you speaking of--back then or in 08?
as far as the actual candidates I am in tossup on about 4 but since your making me committ now would prob lean to Mcain--only because of miltary back round.
--however better than 50/50 I will change by election--would like them to define stances on immigration and a few other areas a little more.
If I had to choose a Dem it would be Biden--hands down. Has experience and mind of his own.While I don't agree with a lot of his views I think he has very good character and would have courage to make unpopular decisions if he thought they were correct.
--however better than 50/50 I will change by election--would like them to define stances on immigration and a few other areas a little more.
If I had to choose a Dem it would be Biden--hands down. Has experience and mind of his own.While I don't agree with a lot of his views I think he has very good character and would have courage to make unpopular decisions if he thought they were correct.
Biden and Mc Cain might make a good team. Honest Guys! and they won't win. It's a shame but our politics both sides has turn to speculation and half truths to win. And these two are not good at that.
Education. I guess to cut cost we can throw it back 100 years. Those that can go do. And those who can't stay home and grow the crops or paint the house. Or we can get our heads out of the sand and under stand that places like India and China understand the way to kick our ass is with great education. And there doing it.
Education. I guess to cut cost we can throw it back 100 years. Those that can go do. And those who can't stay home and grow the crops or paint the house. Or we can get our heads out of the sand and under stand that places like India and China understand the way to kick our ass is with great education. And there doing it.
It's all in the eye of the beholder Smurph--
We had Kerry a good speaker vs GW a poor speaker--
Yet GW had better grades--managed to own baseball teams-fly jets and be gov and 2 term pres
Yet Kerry has never accomplished anything other than marrying rich women to support him--Hmm maybe there is benefit of being a sliver tongue
Maybe you can start new header
--but how can ethics improve when--
When you have pres that shoves cigars up interns-gives it the ole :nono: to we the people--committs felony's in office--pardons ten most wanted for cash--disbarred for flagrant misconduct ect ect--
You know its quite amazing what bothers some and not others
It truly is in the eye of the beholder, Wayne. I find it interesting that you can consider Bush much more successful than Kerry for the reasons you call out, and completely dismiss any personal value that Kerry has. This is quite simply bullsh**.
Kerry was successful before he ever met his wife - he was elected Lieutenant Governor AND Senator before she was around. Both would seem to be accomplishments if you ask me, and none of that had anything to do with her money. True, he was not an honor student at Yale, but it is interesting that his classmates selected him to give the class oration at graduation. Somehow, I doubt Dubbya received that honor. And to be exact, when you say Bush had better grades, his was 1% higher - 77% to 76%, so that is nothing really to sing about, IMO. I wonder what they both studied - that might be interesting to know. Kerry going on to law school and passing the bar lends some more credence to his abilities, I would think.
He then became a prosecuting attorney, then was promoted to first assistant District Attorney. He left that to start his own private practice with another prosecutor, and it was a success. After that, straight into a very successful political career, which he still maintains today. He became a Senator prior to meeting Heinz. So, in a very real sense - a true sense - Kerry made his place in life before meeting the person you say is the only thing he accomplished.
If you'd like to compare military service between Kerry and Bush, I'd be happy to. I'd say Kerry accomplished a heckuva lot more than Bush ever did - and there are only a few Bush supporters and a handful of other people who dismiss what Kerry accomplished there, and most of us know why that was done in the first place. But even considering what THEY say Kerry did, he accomplished quite a bit.
There has been plenty shown in this forum and elsewhere about how "successful" Bush was in business. It's not a very flattering picture, but if you want to go down that road again, we can. Own a ball team? Wow...how did he manage THAT? Cool!
The point is, John Kerry accomplished plenty in life, and most of it before he met the rich lady. So, your point is simply wrong, IMO.
Last edited:
Your comparing prior district attorney/senatot to gov and 2 term pres
--and how successful was Kerry's privite practice??
--some facts
--only house he "co-owns" is Boston townhouse he had to mortgage in 03 to run for pres???
In 1995, Kerry reportedly had a taxable income of $126,179, and made charitable contributions of $0. In 1994, he gave $2,039 to charity. In 1993, the figure was $175. In 1992, it was $820, and in 1991, it was $0.
Kerry's 2003 return illustrates the extent to which Kerry's lifestyle is subsidized by his wife. Apart from the income from the painting, Kerry's Senate salary would not be enough to pay the property taxes on the several residences they own.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Yep Chad he was a real winner before marriage to Heinz --almost all income from tax payor--little or no investment income--and a real 2 america prophet --stiifing charity for 0.
I won't rub salt and put up GW's net worth-real estate-investment income or charitable giving
---unless you insist
His only chance of becoming wealthy is alla Clinton--con the masses--then sell them books and give them lectures--and rent the white house and sell a few secrets and pardons in between--oh and sell some worthess real estate.
and just what about BillyBob/Hilliary before the white house--are you curious?
Remeber this is joint income of the 2
"For 1989, the Clintons had taxable income of $138,348, on which they paid $37,883, their 1989 return showed.
The biggest change in the family's income from 1989 to 1990 was in honorariums, fees paid by organizations, usually for giving a speech. The 1989 tax return showed $7,702 in honorariums, and the 1990 return $52,700. The sources of honorariums were not listed.
Another difference was in Mrs. Clinton's income from the Rose Law Firm of Little Rock, where she is a partner. The Clintons' 1989 return reported $92,444 in such income, and the amount rose to $105,711 on the 1990 return.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Consensus--prior to politics/marriage
your past pres
-maybe future pres
and ex pres candidate
-- earned about the same as a garbage collector in New York in privite life--
--and GW paid about as much in taxes as any earned--and Cheney gave more to charity in one year than they all collectively earned in their lifetimes prior to politics.
--and how successful was Kerry's privite practice??
--some facts
--only house he "co-owns" is Boston townhouse he had to mortgage in 03 to run for pres???
In 1995, Kerry reportedly had a taxable income of $126,179, and made charitable contributions of $0. In 1994, he gave $2,039 to charity. In 1993, the figure was $175. In 1992, it was $820, and in 1991, it was $0.
Kerry's 2003 return illustrates the extent to which Kerry's lifestyle is subsidized by his wife. Apart from the income from the painting, Kerry's Senate salary would not be enough to pay the property taxes on the several residences they own.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Yep Chad he was a real winner before marriage to Heinz --almost all income from tax payor--little or no investment income--and a real 2 america prophet --stiifing charity for 0.
I won't rub salt and put up GW's net worth-real estate-investment income or charitable giving
---unless you insist
His only chance of becoming wealthy is alla Clinton--con the masses--then sell them books and give them lectures--and rent the white house and sell a few secrets and pardons in between--oh and sell some worthess real estate.
and just what about BillyBob/Hilliary before the white house--are you curious?
Remeber this is joint income of the 2
"For 1989, the Clintons had taxable income of $138,348, on which they paid $37,883, their 1989 return showed.
The biggest change in the family's income from 1989 to 1990 was in honorariums, fees paid by organizations, usually for giving a speech. The 1989 tax return showed $7,702 in honorariums, and the 1990 return $52,700. The sources of honorariums were not listed.
Another difference was in Mrs. Clinton's income from the Rose Law Firm of Little Rock, where she is a partner. The Clintons' 1989 return reported $92,444 in such income, and the amount rose to $105,711 on the 1990 return.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Consensus--prior to politics/marriage
your past pres
-maybe future pres
and ex pres candidate
-- earned about the same as a garbage collector in New York in privite life--
--and GW paid about as much in taxes as any earned--and Cheney gave more to charity in one year than they all collectively earned in their lifetimes prior to politics.
A guilty conscience will make a person do things like this. Fairly common among criminals and other sundry scumbags.
Yet GW had better grades--managed to own baseball teams-fly jets and be gov and 2 term pres
Yet Kerry has never accomplished anything other than marrying rich women to support him--Hmm maybe there is benefit of being a sliver tongue
You can't be serious Wayno. You are going to use inherited money as an accomplishment (baseball team) then turn on a guy that married money. You mention unused military skills as an accomplishment, but fail to mention the leadership/accomplishments of an actual combat veteran. Finally, you mention political achievements for one and don't mention them for the other. Brutal attempt sir.
While we are covering your Kerry comparison, WTF does he have to do with George Bush's stupidity? Answer = Nothing! I don't know what's better, your debate tactics, or the fact that you almost always get away with them.
You can't be serious. I think you misinterpreted the spirit of the thread, but I know where your unhealthy logic is going.
Gary,
You're somewhat new. Almost all, if not all, of Wayne's 'default' arguments about almost anything have been destroyed multiple times over the years by multiple people.
That doesn't stop him from running the same exact stuff back out there every 2 or 3 motnhs.
People get bored with most of it. I mean, really. You get ignored, totally, and then the same stuff? At least defend yourself.
So, please don't get frustrated if you think nobody is challenging his stuff. It's been done, many times, it's been ignored by him, many times, and it's run back out by him as if nothing was ever said. Many times.
Garry I'd be more than happy to elaborate on Kerry's accomplishments of actual combat vet if you would like.
Matt Hate to bring up the facts again
but every time someone brings up opinion--I think the facts are in order.
Here is another pertinent fact--
It amazes me how competent some figure 2 people- Bill and Hilliary are--when you have two people with law degrees and over age of 40 that gross less than 200,000 a year collectively prior to politics.
My question to you Matt would be how can you be impressed with presidential candidate not smart enough to earn more than you in privite sector (on their own merit)
Matt Hate to bring up the facts again
but every time someone brings up opinion--I think the facts are in order.
Here is another pertinent fact--
It amazes me how competent some figure 2 people- Bill and Hilliary are--when you have two people with law degrees and over age of 40 that gross less than 200,000 a year collectively prior to politics.
My question to you Matt would be how can you be impressed with presidential candidate not smart enough to earn more than you in privite sector (on their own merit)
Last edited:
Wayne, the only thing you are illustrating, in my opinion, is that Dubbya has made a lot of money and was quite simply put in that position by his family and their connections, which is essentially the same scenario as his political career. I wasn't really comparing the two as much as addressing your point that Kerry hasn't accomplished anything other than marrying right. I guess I could point out that had Bush not married the strong willed woman he did, he'd probably be dead from drunk driving or an overdose and not accomplished a thing.
There's no doubt the main measure of success for you and most conservatives is that a person holds a lot of wealth, for whatever reason. Doesn't matter where they came from, how they got it, or anything of note. I seriously doubt if the two individuals started out in the same point in life they would have ended up the same, I honestly think Kerry would have been more successful, just by listening to the two speak. Had Bush had to sell himself (even WITH all of his education and money) I don't think he would have made it very far. Without it - I can't imagine. I don't have to with Kerry, he made a law career and became a senator without it - as you point out.
I think it's understandable why Kerry himself didn't have as much money - he went to college, joined the military, and quickly entered politics (successfully, at that) which is a government-paid job. He wasn't able to be placed in the positions Bush was due to his family and connections, so of course he wouldn't have the portfolio that Bush was. There's really no way to assign WORTH from that comparison. But you value money in its pure form, so you say he is more successful. I think Kerry made his own way far more than Bush did - without the wife. And I think Karl Rove and his father has far more to do with Bush being successful politically than anything Junior has done.
There's no doubt the main measure of success for you and most conservatives is that a person holds a lot of wealth, for whatever reason. Doesn't matter where they came from, how they got it, or anything of note. I seriously doubt if the two individuals started out in the same point in life they would have ended up the same, I honestly think Kerry would have been more successful, just by listening to the two speak. Had Bush had to sell himself (even WITH all of his education and money) I don't think he would have made it very far. Without it - I can't imagine. I don't have to with Kerry, he made a law career and became a senator without it - as you point out.
I think it's understandable why Kerry himself didn't have as much money - he went to college, joined the military, and quickly entered politics (successfully, at that) which is a government-paid job. He wasn't able to be placed in the positions Bush was due to his family and connections, so of course he wouldn't have the portfolio that Bush was. There's really no way to assign WORTH from that comparison. But you value money in its pure form, so you say he is more successful. I think Kerry made his own way far more than Bush did - without the wife. And I think Karl Rove and his father has far more to do with Bush being successful politically than anything Junior has done.
You mention baseball team ownership - think he was a part owner, no doubt where that money came from, but I digress. Here is an interesting essay on that from About.com. I guess he didn't have quite such a concern about taxpayers when it would have helped his bank account, eh?
Who is George W. Bush? The Texas Rangers
Was it a love of the game or family connections that led George W. Bush to the Texas Rangers? Is there more evidence of using his position (or Dad's) for financial gain or are we just reading too much into it all?
"I never dreamed about being president. When I was growing up, I wanted to be Willie Mays."
George W. Bush on his official Web site
"[Baseball commissioner] Ueberroth began looking for another buyer for the Rangers. And as luck would have it, Ueberroth, who was tightly connected to the GOP, knew George W. Bush. Ueberroth knew his dad, the Vice President, too." Quoted from How the Son of the Vice President Bought a Team by GeorgeBush2000.com (not an officially sanctioned Bush site, no longer active)
Nothing wrong with talking to people you know.
It's what happened (and how it alledgedly went down) after Bush became an owner that leaves some folks skeptical about his integrity and honesty. Basically, skeptics contend that Bush and his fellow investors attempted to blackmail the city of Arlington (home of the Texas Rangers) into paying for a new stadium through a sales tax increase by threatening to take the team elsewhere.
"...whether the public interest issue is taxes, size of government, property rights, or public subsidies of private sports ventures, Bush's personal ownership interest in the Texas Rangers baseball team has been wildly at odds with his publicly declared positions on those issues. And ongoing litigation over the Ballpark deal has revealed documents showing that beginning in 1990, the Rangers management--which included Bush as managing general partner--conspired to use the government's power of eminent domain to further its private business interests."
Robert Bryce writing for The Texas Observer
A conspiracy? Or could it simply be that he made some good business and financial decisions. Was Bush an active participant or was he simply the name that opened doors for others? What do you think?
"Bush and his partners hit what can only be described as a towering home run by selling the Texas Rangers to Thomas Hicks for $250 million. Bush [for his $605,000 investment will get] between $10 million and $14 million. [But] they still haven't paid the $7.5 million they owe the city of Arlington."
Robert Bryce writing for the Austin Chronicle
Bush and fellow investors disagree with the city over who should pay the outstanding debt. Each side has their own interpretation of the agreement. So, is Bush willfully refusing to pay a legitimate debt or does he truly believe that he is not legally liable? In other words, is he a liar shirking his responsibilities or a businessman standing by his (his lawyers) interpretation of a legal contract. Which is more important, the letter of the law or the way this whole mess made Bush look during a Presidential election whether he's guilty of wrongdoing or not?
Who is George W. Bush? The Texas Rangers
Was it a love of the game or family connections that led George W. Bush to the Texas Rangers? Is there more evidence of using his position (or Dad's) for financial gain or are we just reading too much into it all?
"I never dreamed about being president. When I was growing up, I wanted to be Willie Mays."
George W. Bush on his official Web site
"[Baseball commissioner] Ueberroth began looking for another buyer for the Rangers. And as luck would have it, Ueberroth, who was tightly connected to the GOP, knew George W. Bush. Ueberroth knew his dad, the Vice President, too." Quoted from How the Son of the Vice President Bought a Team by GeorgeBush2000.com (not an officially sanctioned Bush site, no longer active)
Nothing wrong with talking to people you know.
It's what happened (and how it alledgedly went down) after Bush became an owner that leaves some folks skeptical about his integrity and honesty. Basically, skeptics contend that Bush and his fellow investors attempted to blackmail the city of Arlington (home of the Texas Rangers) into paying for a new stadium through a sales tax increase by threatening to take the team elsewhere.
"...whether the public interest issue is taxes, size of government, property rights, or public subsidies of private sports ventures, Bush's personal ownership interest in the Texas Rangers baseball team has been wildly at odds with his publicly declared positions on those issues. And ongoing litigation over the Ballpark deal has revealed documents showing that beginning in 1990, the Rangers management--which included Bush as managing general partner--conspired to use the government's power of eminent domain to further its private business interests."
Robert Bryce writing for The Texas Observer
A conspiracy? Or could it simply be that he made some good business and financial decisions. Was Bush an active participant or was he simply the name that opened doors for others? What do you think?
"Bush and his partners hit what can only be described as a towering home run by selling the Texas Rangers to Thomas Hicks for $250 million. Bush [for his $605,000 investment will get] between $10 million and $14 million. [But] they still haven't paid the $7.5 million they owe the city of Arlington."
Robert Bryce writing for the Austin Chronicle
Bush and fellow investors disagree with the city over who should pay the outstanding debt. Each side has their own interpretation of the agreement. So, is Bush willfully refusing to pay a legitimate debt or does he truly believe that he is not legally liable? In other words, is he a liar shirking his responsibilities or a businessman standing by his (his lawyers) interpretation of a legal contract. Which is more important, the letter of the law or the way this whole mess made Bush look during a Presidential election whether he's guilty of wrongdoing or not?
