# Did Bush really say these things? :O

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/Niek/M4100395.JPG [Broken]

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:

Related General Discussion News on Phys.org
Tsu
Gold Member
I JUST WANT A PRESIDENT WHO'S SMARTER THAN ME!!!!!!!

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
lol :tongue2:

I can testify to the "If this were a Dictatorship, it'd be a heck of alot easier, so long as I was the Dictator" comment, as I've seen footage of it.

Moonbear
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
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? :tongue:

Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
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 ? 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."

Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
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.

Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
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.

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? :tongue:
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."

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 isnt 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.

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 [Broken]
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:
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 :tongue2:

Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
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...

Last edited:
Tsunami said:
I JUST WANT A PRESIDENT WHO'S SMARTER THAN ME!!!!!!!
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.

List of U.S. Presidents by college education Interesting list

I miss clinton

Smurf said:
I miss clinton
Be careful what you ask for, Hillary will be elected in 2008.

gokul please do go on hehe
i've never seen a country so divided in half like the US

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

Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
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 ? :grumpy:

Divided, my @ !!

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:
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.

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
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.

Aaaaah so nice - Bush being represented by "RED" on the map!

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 [Broken]

Last edited by a moderator: