A Scary Look at Past Work Experience of a US President

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the past work experience of a US President, detailing various claims about their political and business activities. It encompasses a range of topics including governance, economic policies, military actions, and personal conduct, with a focus on the implications of these experiences for future elections.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants highlight the President's history of failed business ventures, including a bankrupt oil company and a Hollywood film production.
  • Others point out the environmental policies enacted during the President's governorship, which allegedly favored industrial interests and increased pollution.
  • A claim is made regarding the President's election to office despite losing the popular vote, attributing this to financial backing from corporations and political connections.
  • Participants note various records set during the President's term, including economic deficits, private bankruptcies, and the number of executions carried out as Governor.
  • There are assertions about military actions taken under the President's leadership, including preemptive strikes and the occupation of foreign nations, which some argue were controversial and against international consensus.
  • Claims are made regarding the President's handling of civil liberties and transparency, with references to the sealing of records and lack of congressional oversight.
  • Some participants express concern over the President's foreign policy decisions and their impact on international relations, particularly in the context of the Israel-Palestine conflict.
  • There are mentions of personal conduct, including allegations of drunk driving and being AWOL from military service, which some argue reflect on the President's character.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

The discussion contains multiple competing views and remains unresolved, with participants expressing differing opinions on the implications of the President's past experiences and actions.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference various records and claims that are reportedly sealed or unavailable for public review, which may limit the ability to verify the assertions made in the discussion.

  • #31
Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
You don't need to go to the Dean website to find interesting facts about the President, the House of Representatives has a few things to say about him -- "caught on film"
ah, here it is:
http://www.house.gov/appropriations_democrats/caughtonfilm.htm
Interesting to see that Congressmen can post their own personal websites on the House domain.
No fact checking required, huh? The next obvious question would be: did you help with the "fact checking" on Ann Coulter's book??
Zero, lately you're a little too quick with the comebacks and you're sticking your foot in your mouth again. I'll let you think about the implications of that one before pointing out your misstep. Or if you wish, I can just let it go.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32


Originally posted by Zero
Whatever, kat. I'm not sure what I did, you tell em and I'll fix it.


Would be nice if you took back some of those times you falsely called me antisemitic, but I don't believe in miracles.

I told you, you combined two separate comments to two separate quotes as though they were written together in regards to the baseball team.

as for calling you antisemitic, I'd take it back if I didn't believe it were true, and apologize profusely..but...



I'm glad that you have so many facts and opinions about GWB and his oil ventures, but that doesn't change a thing in regards to the statement and the truth of my comment on it.
To refresh your memory.
The email states "I bought an oil company, but couldn't find any oil in Texas; the company went bankrupt shortly after I sold all my stock."
This is incorrect, GWB succesfully drilled oil in about 50 percent of the drilling that he did in Texas. *BZZZT* The email is INCORRECT! comprende?
 
  • #33
Like I said...it is an oversimplification.
 
  • #34
Originally posted by russ_watters
Interesting to see that Congressmen can post their own personal websites on the House domain. Zero, lately you're a little too quick with the comebacks and you're sticking your foot in your mouth again. I'll let you think about the implications of that one before pointing out your misstep. Or if you wish, I can just let it go.
Nah, let it go...I've got guitars on the brain again. The initial fact-checking should have been done by the authors of that email...I think Michael Moore's factcheckers must have been on that one.
 
  • #35
Originally posted by Zero
Like I said...it is an oversimplification.

Yes, well, actually you said "Ok, ok...jeez, you could research this stuff yourself, you know, but ok." and I just wanted to be sure that it is clear that I had researched it.
 
  • #36
Originally posted by kat
Yes, well, actually you said "Ok, ok...jeez, you could research this stuff yourself, you know, but ok." and I just wanted to be sure that it is clear that I had researched it.
Ok, kat...I apologize for any hint that you didn't chenck anything...

You can go back to supporting Israel now.
 
  • #37


Originally posted by kat
I told you, you combined two separate comments to two separate quotes as though they were written together in regards to the baseball team.
You may consider reporting that. Zero has put a lot of words in my mouth but as far as I know he's never re-arranged any of my quotes to say something I didn't say (though he has removed parts of my posts a few times). Thats way over the line and despicable conduct for anyone on a forum, much less a moderator.

There is an ethical standard that should be upheld here.
 
  • #38


Originally posted by kat
Why did you combine my statements on two different topics in the quote this reply was to? It makes it appear as though I said something in regards to that subject that I definitely did not.

Sorry to butt in here, kat, but I just hate to see you two duking it out over a misunderstanding like this. I think Zero's error was a forum problem. When you hit the 'quote' key for your post, it runs those two staetements together as though they are one. The 'bold marks' sort of separate them, but if you don't notice that right away (I didn't until I looked closely) it appears as though they go together.

Again, sorry to butt in... now kiss and make up. - only watch out for the bloody parts! (Zero! You want I should send you some alcohol and band-aids?)
 
Last edited:
  • #39
Guys, It's okay...I didn't really think it was intentional to begin with, I like to "raz" zero a bit (he deserves it, honest):wink:
 
  • #40
Hey guys – Have pity on Zero, he’s got 5+ yrs. Of GW to look forward to, followed by 8 yrs. of Condoleezza Rice.
 
  • #41
Originally posted by GENIERE
Hey guys – Have pity on Zero, he’s got 5+ yrs. Of GW to look forward to, followed by 8 yrs. of Condoleezza Rice.
I sincerely hope you are joking...this must be the result of some serious right-wing proaganda, that even the most incompetent Republican is better than ANY Democrat...and the recall idiocy in California is proof of that.
 
  • #42
Originally posted by GENIERE
Hey guys – Have pity on Zero, he’s got 5+ yrs. Of GW to look forward to, followed by 8 yrs. of Condoleezza Rice.
You need to take your anti-delusional meds. Right away.
 
  • #43


Originally posted by russ_watters
You may consider reporting that. Zero has put a lot of words in my mouth but as far as I know he's never re-arranged any of my quotes to say something I didn't say (though he has removed parts of my posts a few times). Thats way over the line and despicable conduct for anyone on a forum, much less a moderator.

There is an ethical standard that should be upheld here.
You can't talk about ethical standards and support Bush at the same time...especially when you are still telling the same tired lies. Keep pushing me, Russ...
 
  • #44
I think this whole nonsense actually proves a point...for some people, if a 'liberal' is accused of anything, he is guilty of that and much more with no proof. If some bloodthirsty slimeball claims the name 'Republican' he is a saint who can do no wrong, no matter how much evidence exists to the contrary.

And, on that note, I'll go ahead and close yet another thread where the topic was ignored for the sake a baseless attacks.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

My list of the top five heavyweight boxers of all time
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
8K
News Historic visit by presidents of Taiwan and China
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
News The US Digital Service, aka DOGE
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
News Is Re-Electing Bush a Mistake Given His Presidential Record?
  • · Replies 90 ·
4
Replies
90
Views
10K
Discussion on the science-literature relationship and more
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
The Imprecision of Modeling Real World Events
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Large-Scale DAC (Direct Air Capture) Facilities to be Built Soon
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
News What's the real truth about the Canadian?
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
We live in very interesting times
  • · Replies 74 ·
3
Replies
74
Views
9K
Here's an idea: let people "work off" their criminal records
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
7K