The Next US President

michaeledward

Grandmaster
Joined
Mar 1, 2003
Messages
6,063
Reaction score
82
TwistofFat said:
Mike - should have clairified...if you count Stephen "Grover" Cleveland as the 22nd and the 24th then you are right. GWB is the 43 office holder (but 42nd man).
Hey, that's right. Cool. I forgot about Cleveland being elected to non-successive terms.

I really hope I am drafted. I could then show Brother John what a real Liberal looks like. Psst! - He thinks Kerry is Scary. <ha>.

Mike
 

Feisty Mouse

Senior Master
MTS Alumni
Joined
Jun 15, 2004
Messages
3,322
Reaction score
31
Location
Indiana
My vote is for President Bush.
He's intelligent, good speaker or not.
He's Honest.
He's got a wonderful work ethic.
He's a man of faith.
He's vastly responsible for the great economic turn around that our country is currently enjoying! (an economic resession that began BEFORE he took office and sped up greatly due to the terrorist attack on our soil)
He's tough on terrorism.
He did the RIGHT thing in Iraq, and still is.
He HAS restored the dignity and honor of the oval office.
Brother John, I'm going to have to vehemently disagree with you on every single one of these points. Dubya has taken more vacation time than any President in my memory. He has a terrible work ethic. He's crafty, but I don't think he is inteliigent - or maybe not wise. I don't think he's at all honest - you can't get a straight answer out of him.

Um, what economic turn around is that?

He completely bungled Iraq, and still is - we need more troops there, our troops are overextended and being forced to remain longer than they were deployed for, and he's cut their pay and benefits while they have been in Iraq.

He has destroyed the dignity and honor of the Oval Office - it has become a dirty CEO's office where industry and wealthy cronies get to have their say, and the government agencies that are suppossed to be protecting Americans have been put under the lead of people who want to please industried instead.

I know this thread was not started to be a big debate, but I couldn't let this go. GW Bush is the worst President our country has ever seen.
 

TwistofFat

Green Belt
Joined
May 4, 2004
Messages
176
Reaction score
2
Location
Waxhaw NC
Wow,

This is getting heated. Who tought that politics would create such anger?:) My thought on this whole discussion is that while the government creates these violent divisions within the country (eg, have you ever examined the congressional districts maps that run like hot wax - does anyone know what district you are in? Espescially if you move to a new state!). I do not mean conspiricy stuff (black helos), just the result of the a$$ho;es that want to hold onto power once they get it - whatever party. "Absolute power corrupts absolutely"...

I have friends for years that I have trained with that are demo/repub and yet we still manage to co-exist (with good natured ribbing). But if you read the foriegn press (bbc, yahoo.uk, etc), the world thinks we are on the edge of civil war - due mostly to the Political volume (mostly in US media). I do not have any relationships that began with me asking what political party they belong to.

I do not think George Bush is the best or worst president in history. The reality is I feed my family, I lift my own weights, do my on katas, care for my own elderly parents...
I simply do not have time to let these SOB's make me feel one way or another. I tried to collect unemployment one time (after paying into it for 12+ years) and was made to feel like a jerk...never again will I rely on anyone other than my family and friends.

PS - It is not as bad as it could be (remember when Alexander Hamilton was shot by Aaron Burr - he was The Vice President of the US!).

Regards - Glenn.
 
M

MisterMike

Guest
Brother John said:
My vote is for President Bush.
He's intelligent, good speaker or not.
He's Honest.
He's got a wonderful work ethic.
He's a man of faith.
He's vastly responsible for the great economic turn around that our country is currently enjoying! (an economic resession that began BEFORE he took office and sped up greatly due to the terrorist attack on our soil)
He's tough on terrorism.
He did the RIGHT thing in Iraq, and still is.
He HAS restored the dignity and honor of the oval office.

I don't agree with 100% of what he has done or proposes to do. I really don't. But overall, I feel that President Bush is a fine President.

Your Brother
John

Right on Bro' John! I'm with you on this one.
 

michaeledward

Grandmaster
Joined
Mar 1, 2003
Messages
6,063
Reaction score
82
Brother John said:
While in College I took a journalism class on "Detecting, avoiding and exposing bias". Then I took another class in the psyche department called "Deception in advertising". After a great deal of scrutiny of the media during the Bush/Gore run I HAD to become a Republican!!!!
Brother John said:
You are correct, I was wrong. It wasn't a democrat who first proposed it. I did hear a democrat on TV backing it...thought it was his idea. Sorry. Other than that, my statement was correct.
So, How'd that class on 'Detecting, Avoiding and Exposing Bias' class work out for you?

I appreciate your contribution. I appreciate that you are a conservative. I appreciate that you are a Republican. But, I am curious as to how you can quote of facts that 'biased'.

"President Bush is Intelligent." - President Bush was a 'C' student at Yale. His attendance at Yale was further assisted by the fact that he is a Legacy, Affirmative Action for White Guys. Then again, all people have a level of intelligence, even the mentally retarded people that Governor Bush had executed, the question is does the Presidents intelligence level equal that of the average American, is it higher, is it lower ... good questions all.

"President Bush is a man of Faith." So is Osama bin Laden. What does being a 'man of faith' have to do with governing a country that practices a separation of church and state? I am currently reading 'The President of Good and Evil', it is an interesting examination of the inconsistent views this man of faith uses when making governing decisions.

"He's vastly responsible for the great economic turn around that our country is currently enjoying! (an economic resession that began BEFORE he took office and sped up greatly due to the terrorist attack on our soil)" According to people like Alan Greenspan, the economic recession began in the second quarter of 2001. The Bush Inauguration occured in the first quarter of 2001. I am not claiming that Bush caused the recession, but he was in office before the recession began.

"He's got a wonderful work ethic." What does this statement mean? He has spent 40 % of his time in office, either on vacation, or in transit to his vacation sites: Crawford, TX, Camp David, Kennebunk, ME. I do suppose it would be "wonderful" to spend 40% of my time on vacation.

"In 2003, Kerry Voted With Kennedy 93% Of The Time" What exactly do you mean by this statement? It would seem to indicate that any vote of Senator Kennedy is somehow flawed, or at least a detriment. Is it possible that Kennedy is correct on at least some of his votes?

"Kerry’s Health Care Plan Could Cost As Much As $895 Billion Over 10 Years And Still Would Not Cover All Currently Uninsured Individuals." This number is falsely spun out of the Republican National Committee. Please see 'Detecting, Avoiding and Exposing Bias".

"I'm not spouting hyperbole, I'm giving facts that can be looked up by anyone." Then by all means, please look up the facts you are stating. Or at least list the references you are citing. I am always willing to learn.

Mike



 

heretic888

Senior Master
Joined
Oct 25, 2002
Messages
2,723
Reaction score
60
I really shouldn't get involved in this, but...

He's Honest.

Uhhh... this is a joke, right?? Anyone remember those "stockpiles of WMDs" he went on about?? The chemical agents Iraq supposedly bought from Africa?? The "mission accomplished" poppycock?? How about the Bush Administration's creation of fake "news reports" showing favor toward their new Medicare plan, and the subsequent strongarming and silencing of all those that opposed it --- not to mention lying about its total bill to Congress??

This administration is anything but honest.

He's got a wonderful work ethic.

I refer you to Feisty Mouse's comments above. This guy has been on vacation more than any other president in history. I wish I had his schedule.

He's a man of faith.

Which has absolute nothing to do with one's ability to lead the country. Virtually every leader we've had has been a "man of faith". It means nothing.

He's vastly responsible for the great economic turn around that our country is currently enjoying! (an economic resession that began BEFORE he took office and sped up greatly due to the terrorist attack on our soil)

You must live in a different America than me, then. From where I'm standing, the economy's still in the crapper.

He's tough on terrorism.

Yes.... as evidenced by his trough treatment of the Saudi Arabian government, who had more than a hand to do with 9/11 (which the Bush Administration tried to cover up by marking out with a black highlighter all references to the Saudis in the Congressional 9/11 investigation). Oh, wait....

He did the RIGHT thing in Iraq, and still is.

That's debatable, and certainly isn't a "fact". In any event, right or wrong, what's being done in Iraq is being very poorly managed, in no small part due to the Bush Administration (and their dim-witted belief that we would be seen as "liberators" as opposed to "occupiers", despite when all available experts told them otherwise).

He has restored the dignity and honor of the oval office.

Yes... because lying about pretenses to go to war, alienating America from the international community, destroying our environment, cutting back civil rights under dubious pretenses, extending a hand to the country from which most of the 9/11 terrorists resided from (Saudi Arabia), and providing tax cuts that primarily aided the wealthiest in the country --- are all hallmarks of "honor" and "dignity".

Not by my standards, anyway.

I don't agree with 100% of what he has done or proposes to do. I really don't. But overall, I feel that President Bush is a fine President.

I don't disagree with 100% of what he had done or proposes to do. I really don't. But overall, I feel that President Bush is the worst President our country has ever seen and probably will ever see.

Laterz.
 

Bammx2

2nd Black Belt
Joined
Apr 11, 2004
Messages
786
Reaction score
18
Location
London England
republicans....bad

democrats....bad.
who was the arrogant groups of morons who said we had to have ONLY these 2 parties to choose from?
Nothing in our constituion or bill of rights or ANY law for that matter,says these are the only parties allowed!
I have been eligible to vote for 20yrs and I haven't seen a either one I would vote for....and haven't.
Show me a man who is poor,not a lawyer and WORKS for a blue collar living and gets in the running for president,not to mention NOT being afiliated with either party...and I will vote for him!
I know there are other parties out there,but what makes them so bad?
We never get a chance to find out.The 2 biggies have cornered the market thru less than honorable means and we just sit back and take it.
Once again....
"He who BUYS the most toys....wins"
what happened to EARNING?
It seems every president we have is always "worse than the last"
Doesn't that seem odd to anyone?
 

michaeledward

Grandmaster
Joined
Mar 1, 2003
Messages
6,063
Reaction score
82
TwistofFat said:
PS - It is not as bad as it could be (remember when Alexander Hamilton was shot by Aaron Burr - he was The Vice President of the US!).

Ahh! The Good Ole Days ....

Damn .. I keep forgetting that I am an Anti-Gun, Lesbian-loving, latte-drinking, America-Hating, communist of a Democrat ... I can't be hoping for 10 paces with the Veep.

Mike
 

michaeledward

Grandmaster
Joined
Mar 1, 2003
Messages
6,063
Reaction score
82
Bammx2 said:
I have been eligible to vote for 20yrs and I haven't seen a either one I would vote for....and haven't.
. . . .
It seems every president we have is always "worse than the last"
Then you have no one to blame, but yourself. Until you have the courage of your convictions, and exercise your privelege to vote, you should really tone down your rhetoric.

Somebody much smarter than me once said: "We get the government we deserve."

Mike

P.S. It is the first Tuesday, after the first Monday in November. You just need to show up with your driver's license.
 

qizmoduis

Purple Belt
Joined
May 22, 2002
Messages
315
Reaction score
7
Location
Schwenksville, PA
Brother John said:
Errr...no WHAT? I said a few things, one generalize 'no' isn't very clear.

"Errr...no" - just to the phrase that I quoted from your earlier message. I wasn't making a generalized statement at all, but refuting a single specific point of yours, which was quoted in my reply.
 

Brother John

Senior Master
Joined
Jan 13, 2002
Messages
2,530
Reaction score
59
Location
Wichita Kansas, USA
Ok Mouse-
First off, I’d like to say to you, and Mike and others who are participating in this… I think it’s very good that you care enough to pay attention to the government and voice your concerns! Even though we don’t see eye to eye on certain politicians, political circumstances or party lines…we all care about and love America. In this…united we stand. TOO many people in our country are making it “Sheik” or in vogue to disrespect the President…and it’s idiotic. But if you do your research, even if you arrive at different conclusions than I do…my hats off to you!
now
Lets take your issues here Mouse.
You said:
“Dubya has taken more vacation time than any President in my memory.”
First off. His name isn’t “Dubya”. Not in any sense. At least show some respect for our President, even if you disagree with him. I disagreed with a great deal that President Clinton had to do/say…etc., but he’s still “President Clinton”. When you start dehumanizing someone’s name (and denying them their proper title “president”) it’s all to easy to dislike them without good reason. It’s part of the Bush-Bashing vogue. The highest office in the country deserves more respect than this.
Secondly: This, too, is a misrepresentation that the DNC spouts out… it’s misleading propaganda that’s all too easy to swallow. Like all deceptions…it’s based on a half truth.
TRUE: President Bush has spent over 40% of his time out of the Whitehouse and away from the politically charged D.C. Beltway. In fact a great deal of his time has been spent at his ranch in Texas….where his cabinet and administration joins him either in person or electronically and conducts business. IF I had a job that I could do from home (MAN…that’d be nice) and I did so 50% of the time…would you say that I spend half of my time ‘on vacation’? You would if I were President Bush and you were the DNC spin-doctors. They are lumping in his working away from the office time with his vacation time and making it one sum total…very misleading.

Next, you said: “more vacation time than any President in my memory.”

How many President’s vacation hours do you remember? What a strange bit of trivia to commit to memory. What percentage of time was President Carter away from D.C.? What about President Reagan? President G.H.W. Bush? President Clinton? President Hoover? Just wondering what your points of reference and basis of comparison are. Or are you just regurgitating DNC propaganda whole? Hope not. I’d rather think that you are a free-thinking American.

NEXT: You said: “He has a terrible work ethic.”
Terrible is an emotionally charged word and is totally subjective to you… in other words, it’s your biased opinion. (before anyone thinks that I’m demonizing the word “bias” or “biased”…I’m not. It’s the most human thing we can be, and it affects everyone. The more we are made aware of it however, the more we can overcome it in the interest of reason and fact. If you aren‘t biased on a subject it indicates that you don‘t care about that topic. You care, I care…we are biased.) So fact is YOUR Opinion is that he has a terrible work ethic.
Why?
IF it is based on the aforementioned spin concerning his ‘time away’ from the Whitehouse… then the conclusion doesn’t have a single leg to stand on.

NEXT: You said “He's crafty”
Nice connotation to that word, “crafty”. It implies the use of intelligence and subtlety in deceiving others. Here’s the thing though, EVERY SINGLE President MUST be crafty…or he’d NEVER get the job in the first place. If every President were to be 100% plain clear and honest/up-front about their plans and how they’d go about what they intend…they’d not make it. It’s not fair, not to us, but to them. Fact is that not every thing that needs to be done will be popular. Getting elected is about being liked, doing the job isn’t. It’s about taking action, often actions that many will disagree with. I think it was President Truman who said that a leader is one who “Takes risks that others won’t”. I believe it. But the eggs that get cracked along the way to the omelet will upset many a chicken. We require our politicians to act and say things one way to get the office, but if they take their office and it’s obligations seriously (as I believe every President of the last 100 years has) they must then act along some very different lines. Taking care of business and doing what must be done will seldom win a popularity contest. Every President has relied on speech writers and talking points in order to watch their every word and to couch their actions in words that put the best possible light on them…EVERY President. NOBODY else in the world is under that level of intense scrutiny. Nobody. So has President Bush been crafty? YES. As well he should be, must be and will continue to be.

NEXT: You said: “I don't think he's at all honest - you can't get a straight answer out of him. ”
So you say. Still just your opinion. Can you give an example or two?
Ok…back to ‘crafty’ huh? I say you get many straight answers out of him, it’s one of the reasons he upsets people. He’s not nearly as ‘crafty’ as President Reagan was who took DRASTIC measures to do the right thing…yet won peoples hearts and minds in the process….thus “The Great Communicator” title. He’s not as “crafty” as President Bill Clinton who could equivocate about the subtle differences about what the word “is” is.

NEXT: You said: “Um, what economic turn around is that?”

Um…
one:

Economic growth since last summer has been the fastest in nearly 20 years. The American economy grew at a strong annual pace of 3.9 percent during the first quarter of 2004 - above the historical average, and continuing the strong growth seen over the previous two quarters.
America's standard of living is on the rise. Real after-tax incomes are up by 11% since December 2000 - substantially better than the gains following the last recession. Since the President's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, personal consumption levels have risen significantly.
Retail sales other than motor vehicles in the first quarter of 2004 increased 11.8 percent, more than double the average annual rate of growth over the last decade.
Consumer confidence is at its highest level in 2 years. The Conference Board's index of consumer confidence increased over 18 index points in the past 12 months, from 83.5 last June to 101.9 this June.
New housing construction in May remains at levels near those of December 2003, when they were at their highest in almost 20 years.
The national homeownership rate, in the first quarter of 2004, remained at the record high of 68.6 percent set in the previous quarter.
Minority homeownership set a new quarterly record of 50.8 percent in the first quarter, up 0.2 percentage point from the fourth quarter and up 1.5 percentage points from the first quarter of 2003.
Inflation remains low by historical standards, with the core CPI (Consumer Price Index) and the core finished-goods PPI (Producer Price Index) both rising only 1.7 percent over the last 12 months.
Mortgage rates remain near historic lows, making home buying easier and more affordable.
Productivity grew from 2000 to 2003 at the fastest 3-year rate in more than 50 years. This has bolstered profits and will lead to significantly higher real wages for workers.
State tax revenue grew by 8.1 percent over the four quarters ending in March 2004, with nearly all of it attributable to the improving economy rather than to increased taxes - fully 7.1 percent of the revenue gains reflected the economic recovery. This is the best four-quarter growth rate in nearly 4 years.
Manufacturers have been reporting increased activity and new orders more than at any time in the last 20 years.
From its low in mid 2002, the stock market is up about 40% and the NASDAQ is up almost 70%.

The economy has posted steady job gains for each of the last ten months – creating more than 1.5 million jobs since August. According to statistics released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), 112,000 new jobs were created in June.
Nearly 1.3 million jobs have been added since the beginning of the year.
The national unemployment rate stayed constant at 5.6% in June - down 0.7 percentage point from a peak of 6.3% a year ago. At 5.6%, the unemployment rate is below the average of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s.
Employment over the last year was up in 44 of the 50 states and the unemployment rate was down in all regions and in 46 of the 50 states.
National manufacturing employment is up by 64,000 jobs since its low in January. The ISM Manufacturing survey's employment index reached a 30-year high in May and remained strong in June, indicating further gains in manufacturing employment.
The household survey shows a similar increase in jobs, up 1.7 million since August.
Unemployment rates have fallen across all levels of education, races, and ages over the past year.
o For people without a college degree, the unemployment rate is down by 0.7 percentage point.
o For both African-Americans and Latinos, the unemployment rate is down by 1.5 percentage points.
o For teenagers, the unemployment rate is down by 2.2 percentage points.

THAT recovery…which is still at full steam ahead. Of course you seldom hear this from the general media…wonder why.
(not really)

NEXT: You said “He completely bungled Iraq, and still is - we need more troops there, our troops are overextended and being forced to remain longer than they were deployed for, and he's cut their pay and benefits while they have been in Iraq.”

Bungled? Nice word there. Implied incompetency. Truth is that the military was cut cut cut in the last administration and when President Bush put forward to increase their funds…Democrats like Kerry and Edwards did all they could to shoot it down. There’s been problems along the way in the war effort. I don’t argue with you on that. But since when was going to war easy? Every war has had problems…but most of them didn’t have 24/7 news coverage with motion cameras in the war zones. This one does. Every problem or proclaimed problem used to cast blame toward our President has occurred with every major war effort we’ve ever had. After WWII we were viewed as “occupier” and an Imperialist country…but when we eventually left we left them in a much better state of affairs than when we arrived.

NEXT: You said: “He has destroyed the dignity and honor of the Oval Office - it has become a dirty CEO's office where industry and wealthy cronies get to have their say, and the government agencies that are suppossed to be protecting Americans have been put under the lead of people who want to please industried instead.”
Ahh….pure unadulterated DNC propaganda Spin!!! Show me facts.
This is your opinion…based on what?


Hope you are all well…take care.

Your Brother
John









 

Brother John

Senior Master
Joined
Jan 13, 2002
Messages
2,530
Reaction score
59
Location
Wichita Kansas, USA
qizmoduis said:
"Errr...no" - just to the phrase that I quoted from your earlier message. I wasn't making a generalized statement at all, but refuting a single specific point of yours, which was quoted in my reply.

Okay.
 
R

rmcrobertson

Guest
Sorry, Brother John, but no. Bit not for most of the reasons cited by the avatars of, "DNC propaganda," as though you weren't also citing the cheery propaganda of the President's cronies.

The stuff about vacation time and all the rest? Who cares. What matters is this:

1. The claim that the Clinton administration lowered military spending isn't true. Please re-check your facts. Further, the claim that the Bush admin increased it is also misleading: much of those increases went to high techniology, some of which (check the bidget for the B-1/B2) the services involved didn't even want. There were consequences--for example, the present consensus is that we simply don't have enough troops on the ground in Iraq, in part because we didn't spend the money on troops.

2. It's difficult to see which parts of the present Administration's pretty little war WEREN'T screwed up. The intelligence linking Hussein to the attacks on the US, and asserting that he had the far-famed WMDs was by all accounts completely faulty...and more than that, the President both ignored the UN inspectors and overrode his own analysts. He launched the War without international backing, against the advice of his only experienced military advisor, Colin Powell. He and his advisors insisted again and again and again that we'd be welcomed--and staged various events, such as the toppling of Hussein's statue, to ensure that this illusion was maintained as long as possible. He sent troops in with inadequate training, and inadequate supplies of little things like body armor, when there was no emergency. He promulgated policies, as did his advisors, that abrogated treaties on the treatment of prisoners, and said pretty much openly that torture was OK--and you know as well as anybody else what the consequences were.

3. Ah yes, the, "it's morning in America," economy. Well, real wages continue to decline; the work-week continues to rise. All those jobs? Well, the stats say that they're mostly crappy jobs--and if you'd looked at the economic news this week, well, "job creation," for the quarter was again about half what was predicted. Meanwhile, oil prices wobble about but trend higher, our balance-of-trade deficit continues to climb, etc. etc., etc.

4. Then we have minor bells and whistles like Ken Lay being indicted--a close personal friend of the Bush family, a major contributor and supporter to his election campaign. And if that ain't enough, this--President (elected, remember, by a popular minority and after a reasonably-flaky Court decision)--has actually been floating trial balloons about postponing elections.

I still think John Kerry's a twit. But preferable? Absolutely. It's a cheap shot--but unlike our President, just for openers, he did not sit on his ***, safe in Texas, during a war, then turn around and saber-rattle like a fool.
 
M

MisterMike

Guest
I dunno, but Kerry has flip-flopped on everything from SUV's to Affirmative Action. Like Gore, he will say or do anything to get elected. I'd prefer someone a little more centered, if at all.

www.flipflopper.com - Luvvvvvv the logo..LOL Someone should get one for this guy's lapel pin.

For my taste (and hopefully anyone else who pays taxes), he's voted left of liberal on nearly every issue (that he has decided to show up to vote for). For all of you worried about President Bush working from the ranch once in a while, I'd be a bit more concerned on how much this guy is gonna show up for work (in the unlikely event he is elected). His track record for showing up in the Senate aint too good.

"Mr. Kerry was absent 60 percent of the time in the Senate, totaling 246 votes"
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20031024-105806-7693r.htm

Tell me again what we're paying him for???

I think I'm having a premonition of what he will flip flop on next in the unfortunate event he were elected: The economy.

He'd say it IS in recovery, deep enough to repeal the tax cuts (on his version of the rich of course - any household making over $46k). Yea, that's just what we need. Not.
 

Makalakumu

Gonzo Karate Apocalypse
MT Mentor
Joined
Oct 30, 2003
Messages
13,887
Reaction score
232
Location
Hawaii
Mark Weiser said:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - [size=-1]A senior House Democratic lawmaker was skeptical on Sunday of a Bush administration idea to obtain the authority to delay the November presidential election in case of an attack by al Qaeda. [/size]

THERE YOU HAVE IT!!! George Bush does not want to give up his throne lol. All Hail King Bush lol

This really is not funny. I read the justification, but the cast of the bones (facts) in this case are inductively frightening.
 

michaeledward

Grandmaster
Joined
Mar 1, 2003
Messages
6,063
Reaction score
82
Concerning vacation time for the president. I guess 'junior' has a ways to go before he catches up to dear ole Dad.

Although I haven't searched for it yet ... I think you will also find that President Bush's daily schedule is much more limited compared to others who held the office. I understand he starts his day later and ends earlier than most other office holders. Although, Reagan was also known for his short work day.


According to an August 2003 article in the Washington Post, President Bush has spent all or part of 166 days during his presidency at his Crawford, Texas, ranch or en route. Add the time spent at or en route to the presidential retreat of Camp David and at the Bush family estate in Kennebunkport, Maine, and Bush has taken 250 days off as of August 2003. That's 27% of his presidency spent on vacation. Although to be fair, much of this time is classified as a "working vacation."

Bush isn't the first president to get away from his work. George Bush Sr. took all or part of 543 vacation days at Camp David and in Kennebunkport. Ronald Reagan spent 335 days at or en route to his Santa Barbara, California, ranch during his eight years in office. Of recent presidents, Jimmy Carter took the least days off -- only 79 days, which he usually spent at his home in Georgia. That's less than three weeks a year, which is closer to the average American's paid time off of 13 days per year. What about Clinton? As of December 1999, President Bill Clinton had spent only 152 days on holiday during his two terms, according to CBS News. A former staffer noted Clinton was such a workaholic that "it almost killed Clinton to take one-week vacations during August." In 2000, Clinton cut his summer vacation short to just three days, so he and his wife could concentrate on her Senate race and fundraising for Democrats. While we couldn't find the exact tally for Clinton's last year in office, it's reasonable to expect he didn't increase his vacation rate. And in barely three years in office, George W. Bush has already taken more vacation than Clinton did in seven years.
 

michaeledward

Grandmaster
Joined
Mar 1, 2003
Messages
6,063
Reaction score
82
I hate to do this ... but, "there you go, again."

Brother John said:
Then there's Kerry. SCARRY KERRY!!!
Brother John said:
First off. His name isn’t “Scarry Kerry”. Not in any sense. At least show some respect for our Senators, even if you disagree with him. I disagreed with a great deal that President Clinton had to do/say…etc., but he’s still “President Clinton”. When you start dehumanizing someone’s name (and denying them their proper title “senator”) it’s all to easy to dislike them without good reason. It’s part of the Bush-Bashing vogue.
So, tell me again, how did that class work out for you? You know, 'Detecting, Avoiding and Exposing Bias'.

Thanks for playing. Mike
 

Bammx2

2nd Black Belt
Joined
Apr 11, 2004
Messages
786
Reaction score
18
Location
London England
michaeledward said:
Then you have no one to blame, but yourself. Until you have the courage of your convictions, and exercise your privelege to vote, you should really tone down your rhetoric.

Somebody much smarter than me once said: "We get the government we deserve."

Mike

P.S. It is the first Tuesday, after the first Monday in November. You just need to show up with your driver's license.
Maybe you didn't understand....The whole "you have no right to complain" is a lame excuse.
I said there was never anyone worth voting for.How is someone supposed to express thier "opinion" when there has NEVER been a single person worthy?
If I am going to vote for someone...he needs to stand for what I believe in.I refuse to choose "the lesser of 2 evils"....who said ANY evil was neccessary?
And as I said before....when someone OTHER than a republican or democrat gets in the running......then and ONLY then will I consider voting.
Because I don't vote...doesn't mean I won't vote.

Damien

P.S....
I have always known when it is.
 

Brother John

Senior Master
Joined
Jan 13, 2002
Messages
2,530
Reaction score
59
Location
Wichita Kansas, USA
michaeledward said:
I hate to do this ... but, "there you go, again."



So, tell me again, how did that class work out for you? You know, 'Detecting, Avoiding and Exposing Bias'.

Thanks for playing. Mike
Not a bad come-back there Mike. But why do you keep using the name of a class I took in College against me? I didn't say I mastered the material, but it did open my eyes.
It worked out for me just fine really. Thanks for asking.

Respecting a senator doesn't even compare to respecting the Executive Office.
I feel this is apples and oranges.
Besides, I didn't make up a childish name for him... just imply that he scares/worries me.
He does.

Your Brother
John
PS: I chose NOT to 'avoid' bias...why should I? I'm opinionated.
 

michaeledward

Grandmaster
Joined
Mar 1, 2003
Messages
6,063
Reaction score
82
Bammx2 said:
Maybe you didn't understand....The whole "you have no right to complain" is a lame excuse.
I said there was never anyone worth voting for.How is someone supposed to express thier "opinion" when there has NEVER been a single person worthy?
If I am going to vote for someone...he needs to stand for what I believe in.I refuse to choose "the lesser of 2 evils"....who said ANY evil was neccessary?
And as I said before....when someone OTHER than a republican or democrat gets in the running......then and ONLY then will I consider voting.
Because I don't vote...doesn't mean I won't vote.

Damien

P.S....
I have always known when it is.
I disagree with just about every sentiment you express here. But, I think it is less about not being able to find someone who believes as you believe, and more about something else ... I can't imagine what.

In case you haven't heard, there is always someone other than a Republican or Democrat running for office. Of course, if you haven't seen an election ballot, then you might not be aware of how many people actually run for President. I am sure, however, that you have heard of 'Ralph Nader'.

But let us assume for a moment, that all the Presidential candidate's hold positions alien to your own. Why does the prevent you from voting your State representatives, your municiple representatives, or any ballot initiatives in your state?

Further, why not put your own name on the ballot, and help eliminate some of that 'evil' (I don't believe in evil, at least in your description).

Here's a primer.

Mike



http://teacher.scholastic.com/scholasticnews/indepth/election1/
 

Latest Discussions

Top