Did Bush really say these things? :O

  • Thread starter Thread starter Monique
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion critiques the intelligence and communication skills of former President George W. Bush, highlighting his frequent verbal gaffes and lack of self-awareness when speaking. Participants express a desire for a more competent leader, noting that Bush's comments often reflect a misunderstanding of key issues, such as confusing Osama bin Laden with Saddam Hussein. The conversation also touches on the broader political landscape, contrasting Republican and Democratic ideologies, particularly regarding taxation and social values. Additionally, there is a sense of frustration with the perceived ineffectiveness of both parties in addressing the needs of the American public. Overall, the thread underscores a longing for leadership that demonstrates greater intelligence and clarity.
Monique
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
4,211
Reaction score
68
http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/Niek/M4100395.JPG :eek: :rolleyes:

most should know the drill, if the link doesn't work.. open a browser with google and paste the link into the url bar.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
I JUST WANT A PRESIDENT WHO'S SMARTER THAN ME! :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:
 
lol :-p
 
I can testify to the "If this were a Dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, so long as I was the Dictator" comment, as I've seen footage of it.
 
Sadly, there is just no shortage of statements like these by dubya. Sure, anyone in the public eye is bound to trip over a word or sentence ocassionally, and it's always good fun for the media or late night comics, but it's the sheer volume of such comments that sets Bush apart from all the rest. Scarier is that he's not even aware he says such things...rarely do you hear him catch himself and correct a misspoken sentence. With his command of the English language, it's hard to believe he even graduated from grammar school let alone made it through high school and into an Ivy League university. But isn't the US a wonderful country that the poor and underpriviledged can get the same quality education as the rich elite? :-p :rolleyes:
 
Looks like Rummy's follwing Bush's example, or is this a sign of something deeper :

This is from a speech made on Sep 10, 2004 :

The leader of the opposition Northern Alliance, Massoud, lay dead, his murder ordered by [Osama bin Laden], the Taliban's co-conspirator.

[Osama bin Laden], if he's alive, is spending a whole lot of time trying to not get caught. And we've not seen him on a video since 2001.

"What's the big deal ?", you ask.

Here it is : In both the places where [Osama bin Laden] apprears in that quote, Rummy actually said "Saddam Hussein". Wonder why he might have confused Osama with Saddam ? :devil: Hmmm...

Anyway, the official DoD transcript of the speech changed 'Saddam' back to 'Osama' in the first part and completely erazed the second one.
 
Coming from the ancient kingdom of Brunei, I don't really understand US Diplomacy. What is the difference between a Republican and a Democrat? I just watched Fahrenheit 9/11 the other day. So, as you can imagine I didn't really understand the whole story. But I liked the part where Bush said something like, "I call upon all countries to fight terrorism. Now watch this drive."
 
I liked when he announced that we were starting a "crusade" against terror. The next day the staff put a sock on the foot in his mouth.

When I heard this I thought of some of Bush's previous words of wisdom: "the warning light is flashing on the dashboard of America!"

“Logically unsound; confused and unprincipled; unwise to the extreme.” - Chinese President Jiang Zemin speaking in conference to Asian nations regarding President George Bush Jr.; 5/25/01.
 
recon said:
Coming from the ancient kingdom of Brunei, I don't really understand US Diplomacy. What is the difference between a Republican and a Democrat? I just watched Fahrenheit 9/11 the other day. So, as you can imagine I didn't really understand the whole story. But I liked the part where Bush said something like, "I call upon all countries to fight terrorism. Now watch this drive."

former statesman Adlai E. Stevensen, Jr. made this distinction which may prove helpful, "...I have an idea, if Republicans will stop lying about Democrats, we'll stop telling the truth about Republicans." he said this in 1954 which proves that nothing really changes in Washington.
 
  • #10
recon said:
Coming from the ancient kingdom of Brunei, I don't really understand US Diplomacy. What is the difference between a Republican and a Democrat? I just watched Fahrenheit 9/11 the other day. So, as you can imagine I didn't really understand the whole story. But I liked the part where Bush said something like, "I call upon all countries to fight terrorism. Now watch this drive."

For the most part the distinction is transient. I think the simplest distinction in theory is that the Republicans are conservative [don't want change], and the Democrats are Liberal [do want change], but in practice the distinctions much more complicated.

See Conservatism and Liberalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal

In recent US history, the Republicans are seen as being stronger on National Defense, Foreign policy, reduced taxes, smaller government, and as supporters and beneficiaries of big business.

The democrats are seen more as supporters of social programs, environmental reforms, government regulation of industry, and civil rights. Just as the Republicans are seen as big Business, the Democrats were once tainted by the influence of corrupt labor unions. Now many "right wingers" [conservatives] think the Democrats are ruled by special interest groups.

The views of each party change with the people who are leading, but the overall perceptions mentioned above change more slowly. Over many decades the roles can and have reversed; I think at least twice. IIRC, and I may not, but I think the modern Democratic party actually comes from the original Lincoln Republicans. Anyway, we have seen complete reversals like this; that is who gets the label of liberal or conservative.
 
  • #11
Moonbear said:
Sadly, there is just no shortage of statements like these by dubya. Sure, anyone in the public eye is bound to trip over a word or sentence ocassionally, and it's always good fun for the media or late night comics, but it's the sheer volume of such comments that sets Bush apart from all the rest. Scarier is that he's not even aware he says such things...rarely do you hear him catch himself and correct a misspoken sentence. With his command of the English language, it's hard to believe he even graduated from grammar school let alone made it through high school and into an Ivy League university. But isn't the US a wonderful country that the poor and underpriviledged can get the same quality education as the rich elite? :-p :rolleyes:

Bush, though clearly a very stupid man, still takes a very close second place to Dan Quayle, former VP of the US under Dubya's daddy... one of his most famous Quaylisms was when he addressed the United Negro College Fund in May of 1987, "What a waste it is to lose one's mind or not to have a mind is very wasteful."
 
  • #12
recon said:
Coming from the ancient kingdom of Brunei, I don't really understand US Diplomacy. What is the difference between a Republican and a Democrat? I just watched Fahrenheit 9/11 the other day. So, as you can imagine I didn't really understand the whole story. But I liked the part where Bush said something like, "I call upon all countries to fight terrorism. Now watch this drive."

Not many people do. Adding to Ivan Seeking's post, Republicans tend to consider morality as more important than personal freedoms. Democrats think the opposite.

The high degree of polarization in ideologies in the past decade leaves many Americans confused as to where they stand. Very few people are "pure" liberal democrats and few are "pure" conservative Republicans. Most people lie in the middle and would be labeled "inconsistent" by groups such as the media.

When it comes to their campaigns, both parties tug the public around at will by playing off of their moralities or beliefs. The Republicans want to end abortion, but electing a President to do so will not end abortion itself, such decisions are made in the courtroom. Republicans also draw on the Christian religion and preservation of "family values." But how are these family values going to be preserved by just the election of the president?

In terms of actual policies, the Republicans have only been successful at giving tax breaks to the rich and other corporate interests, and the Democrats want to strive towards tax breaks for the middle class and increased taxes on the rich.

The Democratic party has been very weak compared to the centralized and beaurecraticzed Republican party. This is because the Democratic party is very factionalized (trying to please everybody) and generally isn't as efficient in rallying people towards their candidate. The Republicans tend to focus on a specific group and draw the majority of the voters from that area, and efforts from the Christian Coalition seem to be working very effectivly.

If you're confused about why Americans act the way they do, you're not alone. As an American myself, I can say that we are extremely inconsistent and quite illogical at times.
 
  • #13
Tax cuts for the rich.

motai said:
Not many people do. Adding to Ivan Seeking's post, Republicans tend to consider morality as more important than personal freedoms. Democrats think the opposite.

In terms of actual policies, the Republicans have only been successful at giving tax breaks to the rich and other corporate interests, and the Democrats want to strive towards tax breaks for the middle class and increased taxes on the rich.
Did it ever occur to you that those that pay the most taxes should get the biggest tax break, while those that pay little should get the smallest tax break and those that pay nothing, should get no tax break?

Here are the numbers. You'll be stunned. The overwhelming majority of federal income taxes are paid by the very highest income earners. The top 1% of income earners pay about 32% of all income taxes. The top 5% pays 51.4%. The top 10% of high income earners, pay 63.5%. The top 20% of income earners pays 78% of all federal income taxes.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_081304/content/only_the_rich_pay_taxes.guest.html
President Reagan tried a "soak the rich tax" by putting a luxury taxes on yachts. The result, the rich went to Asia and Europe to buy their yachts and a lot of small boat yards and other small business went bankrupt. The government lost more tax revenue than it gained.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #14
Could someone make up such a terrible statement, that even Georges would be unlikely to commit it ? I doubt. I picture him able to eruct anything :-p
 
  • #15
FaverWillets said:
Bush, though clearly a very stupid man, still takes a very close second place to Dan Quayle, former VP of the US under Dubya's daddy... one of his most famous Quaylisms was when he addressed the United Negro College Fund in May of 1987, "What a waste it is to lose one's mind or not to have a mind is very wasteful."

Quayle rules : Here are some Quaylisms...

"One word sums up probably the responsibility of any vice president, and that one word is 'to be prepared'".

"The Holocaust was an obscene period in our nation's history. I mean in this century's history. But we all lived in this century."

"I believe we are on an irreversible trend toward more freedom and democracy - but that could change."

"What a terrible thing to have lost one's mind. Or not to have a mind at all. How true that is."

Mars is essentially in the same orbit... somewhat the same distance from the Sun, which is very important. We have seen pictures where there are canals, we believe, and water. If there is water, that means there is oxygen. If oxygen, that means we can breathe."

"I was recently on a tour of Latin America, and the only regret I have was that I didn't study Latin harder in school so I could converse with those people"

"If we do not succeed, then we run the risk of failure."

"Well, it looks as if the top part fell on the bottom part."

"We don't want to go back to tomorrow, we want to go forward."

"We're going to have the best-educated American people in the world."

I could go on... :biggrin:
 
Last edited:
  • #16
Tsunami said:
I JUST WANT A PRESIDENT WHO'S SMARTER THAN ME! :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:
We had one, President Clinton.
When Bill Clinton finished college in 1968, he won a Rhodes Scholarship, which allows select students to study at Oxford University in England.
It All Began in a Place Called Hope
Of course if you are smarter than President Bush then you shouldn't have any trouble getting into Harvard or Yale. :smile:

List of U.S. Presidents by college education Interesting list
 
  • #17
I miss clinton
 
  • #18
Smurf said:
I miss clinton
Be careful what you ask for, Hillary will be elected in 2008.
 
  • #19
gokul please do go on hehe
i've never seen a country so divided in half like the US
 
  • #20
i_wish_i_was_smart said:
gokul please do go on hehe
i've never seen a country so divided in half like the US
it is not divided in half, it is more like divided like this. From the 2000 election ,

http://freeconservatives.com/rhino/mandate.gif
 
  • #21
Wow, that picture makes it clear that Bush won about 90% of the vote.

Damn ! I wonder why they made such a big deal about Florida then ?

Divided, my @$$ ! :devil:
 
  • #22
Woohoo, George Bush has more supporters who live in less concentrated areas than Al Gore's supporters did.

Bush won the vote by how many square miles the counties that voted for him had, and how many counties voted for him. Guess what, MORE PEOPLE VOTED FOR GORE! Last time I checked, in a Democracy, it was the people's will who decided the leaders, not the amount of space that a group of people occupied.
 
Last edited:
  • #23
wasteofo2 said:
Woohoo, George Bush has more supporters who live in less concentrated areas than Al Gore's supporters did.

Bush won the vote by how many square miles the counties that voted for him had, and how many counties voted for him. Guess what, MORE PEOPLE VOTED FOR GORE! Last time I checked, in a Democracy, it was the people's will who decided the leaders, not the amount of space that a group of people occupied.
True, all you have to do is win in a few populated states and the hell with the rest of the country. Of course all that empty space has congressmen and senators.
 
  • #24
Gokul43201 said:
Wow, that picture makes it clear that Bush won about 90% of the vote.
No, he won 5.9% of the vote, as the stats make clear.
wasteofo2 said:
MORE PEOPLE VOTED FOR GORE!
No, 16 million more people voted for Bush than Gore.
 
  • #25
Aaaaah so nice - Bush being represented by "RED" on the map! :rolleyes:

Anyways - humans are doing the voting right and not sand, grass, prairie, mountains and whatever else all those red dots cover?

Anyway - just an extra thing here - SA under apartheid had a system of "over-loading" rural voting districts ie. farm votes counted more than urban votes. Hence, the right-leaning Apartheid govt. (ie. The now defunct National Party) was kept in power!

And monique - maybe I'm just stupid with computers and all but I didn't get the link to work! hehe! But I did find this pic on the same website.
http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/SuperD/george.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #26
Interesting, I was just studying the nice map provided by outcast and it seems that Gore actually won quite a lot of counties in Texas! Anybody else find that quite interesting??
 
  • #27
Not very. Thoses are the border counties with a high latino concentration. You would expect them to vote Left.

"No, he [Bush] won 5.9% of the vote, as the stats make clear. "

I'm sure I don't understand this, Monique. Could you explain ?
 
  • #28
Gokul43201 said:
"No, he [Bush] won 5.9% of the vote, as the stats make clear. "

I'm sure I don't understand this, Monique. Could you explain ?
127 million people voted for Gore
143 million people voted for Bush
you do the math :P
 
  • #29
Gokul43201 Our election is based on The Electoral College System and not the popular vote.

In fact, it is possible for a candidate to not get a single person's vote -- not one -- in 39 states or the District of Columbia, yet be elected president by wining the popular vote in just 11 of these 12 states:

California
New York
Texas
Florida
Pennsylvania
Illinois
Ohio
Michigan
New Jersey
North Carolina
Georgia
Virginia

Has a presidential candidate ever lost the nationwide popular vote but been elected president in the Electoral College? Yes, three times:

# In 1876 there were a total of 369 electoral votes available with 185 needed to win. Republican Rutherford B. Hayes, with 4,036,298 popular votes won 185 electoral votes. His main opponent, Democrat Samuel J. Tilden, won the popular vote with 4,300,590 votes, but won only 184 electoral votes. Hayes was elected president.

# In 1888 there were a total of 401 electoral votes available with 201 needed to win. Republican Benjamin Harrison, with 5,439,853 popular votes won 233 electoral votes. His main opponent, Democrat Grover Cleveland, won the popular vote with 5,540,309 votes, but won only 168 electoral votes. Harrison was elected president.

# In 2000 there were a total of 538 electoral votes available with 270 needed to win. Republican George W. Bush, with 50,456,002 popular votes won 271 electoral votes. His Democratic opponent, Al Gore, won the popular vote with 50,999,897 votes, but won only 266 electoral votes. Bush was elected president. The Electoral College System
 
  • #30
Okay, you mean't Bush won by 5.9% over Gore. Je comprends :smile:

Actually, there were some people that voted for the Green Party - about 5% or so. That makes the margin a little smaller.
 
  • #31
Outcast said:
Gokul43201 Our election is based on The Electoral College System and not the popular vote.

Thank you for teaching me about the Electoral College. It's where the voters go after Electoral High School, right ? Now I understand everything.

And perhaps you have me confused with waste, who said that the people determine the President. I was going to point out that they really don't, and that it's the EC that does.

Hmmm...so how does your big, red map reflect the electoral votes ?

(except for small variations, one can use that map for population density...like this one below)

[url]http://www.cast.uark.edu/local/catalog/national/images/maps/Population.dir/USpop1990.gif[/url]
 
  • #32
Is there a correlation between intelligence and the density of population where you live ? I do think there is :-p
 
  • #33
Monique said:
No, he won 5.9% of the vote, as the stats make clear. No, 16 million more people voted for Bush than Gore.
Are you missing the word "by" in that first sentence?

Anyway, its interesting that by population (voting and non-voting) Bush had more people than Gore. I've never thought about it before, but if you have kids, should you get an extra vote...?
 
  • #34
russ_watters said:
Anyway, its interesting that by population (voting and non-voting) Bush had more people than Gore.

I'll bet he has Utah to thank for some of that. :biggrin: What's their birth-rate like ?
 
  • #35
russ_watters said:
if you have kids, should you get an extra vote...?
This is ridiculous, nobody ever implied that, because kids are not supposed to understand politics, so it has been established they have no right to vote. You perfecly understand the point without needing any explanation.

In indirect systems, it may occur that the elected president was chosen by only a minority of people having the right to give their vote.

Did anyone need this clarification ?
 
  • #36
This is the very basis of democraty by the way. Democratic systems are already not perfect. There is no need to flaw them even more by introducing several levels in the election process.

What is this doing in GD ?
 
  • #37
humanino said:
Is there a correlation between intelligence and the density of population where you live ? I do think there is :-p
Gee it that's true, them maybe I should have gone to prison instead of college.
:smile: http://www.coursework.info/i/41627.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #38
Outcast said:
Overcrowding prisons has been an rising issue in American society.
:smile:
One has plenty of time to study there :rolleyes:
 
  • #39
humanino said:
This is ridiculous, nobody ever implied that, because kids are not supposed to understand politics, so it has been established they have no right to vote.

Should adults who don't understand politics also have no vote then ?

:-p :-p

cheers,
Patrick.
 
  • #40
I guess, they could dice-vote. That would be better. :-p
 
  • #41
vanesch said:
Should adults who don't understand politics also have no vote then ?

:-p :-p
I've always been against voting for that very reason.
 
  • #42
vanesch said:
Should adults who don't understand politics also have no vote then ?

:-p :-p

cheers,
Patrick.

They have a statistically accepted capability to understand the impact of their vote. That some choose not to, is a different matter.

Back to Bushisms, here's the latest :

"Free societies are hopeful societies. And free societies will be allies against these hateful few who have no conscience, who kill at the whim of a hat." —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Sept. 17, 2004

"Too many good docs are getting out of the business. Too many OB-GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country." —George W. Bush, Poplar Bluff, Mo., Sept. 6, 2004

Here's the video :

http://politicalhumor.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=politicalhumor&zu=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.buzzflash.com%2F04%2F09%2Fbushlove.wmv
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #43
Has anyone done "They misunderestimated me!" yet?
 
  • #44
That has now gone beyond the limited realm of a Bushism, and is gradually making it's way into mainstream English. Soon everyone will be misunderestimating like crazy. :-p
 
  • #45
Gokul43201 said:
That has now gone beyond the limited realm of a Bushism, and is gradually making it's way into mainstream English. Soon everyone will be misunderestimating like crazy. :-p
thats pretty daft aint it, i usualy miunderestimated my opponants in hockey, the only reason I'm better is that they misunderestimate me far worse, hehe
 

Similar threads

Insights I Know the Math Says so, but Is It Really True?
3
Replies
138
Views
11K
Bug Why Did I Receive the Wrong User Alert on a Forum?
Replies
3
Views
2K
Should I be worried that I contracted malware?
Replies
3
Views
2K
Do you want to build a website?
Replies
15
Views
2K
Suggestion Ambiguous wording of "You have insufficient privileges to reply here"
Replies
9
Views
2K
Seeking psychological help: Tricks to deal with being really envious?
Replies
1
Views
2K
What did President Bush say about Syria and Hezbollah?
Replies
17
Views
2K
Classical FLP Original Course Handouts at The Feynman Lectures Website
Replies
2
Views
2K
Some questions on strange things in online courses
Replies
10
Views
2K
News Was George W. Bush's Response to 9/11 Justified?
2
Replies
88
Views
14K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top