It just bugs me that nobody has tried to get Bush to run for his second term, though it is too late to bother now, he is the only president that I can honestly say that I approved of from recent history. Of course Bush did a handfull of blah stuff during his term, but when you stack him up against the rest of the presidents from the 20th century, especially the latter part of it, you can't deny that he was a far better president.

......I feel bad for you on a daily basis ABS.

......I feel bad for you on a daily basis ABS.

Agreed.

What's the catch here. I mean, we ARE talking about the worst president in US History here right.... ChimpyMcflightsuit and his sidekick Darth Cheney...... right?

What am I not getting here.....? :confused:

What do you mean by bait?

I am asking an honest question.

He's in his second term *CHOMP*

I'm Canadian FFS

He's going to accuse us of being ignorant for not reading his mind and knowing he's talking about Bush 41.

That seems to be what he likes to do.

So what he's doing what daddy and his buddies want anyway. Call it a third term.

Prime example of type of individual that isn't worthy of being bothered with in any sort of discussion on the topic.


So what he's doing what daddy and his buddies want anyway. Call it a third term.

:oThere is no mind reading involved, just text reading. If you are too much of an idiot to realize that there is only one Bush who is ready to serve a second term, then you aren't worthy of being involved in any rational discussion on the matter.

Or maybe instead of posting vague and pointless threads will no real substance for discussion you could actually try to post something meaningful, instead of acting like a douchebag and insulting everyone....just an idea for ya there buddy, you think you can handle that all by yourself, and maybe act like a big boy?

Well, he had a win with the Gulf War, but after that it was all downhill. No one is going to vote for another Bush, even if he wanted to run.

How is there anything vague about wondering about a second Bush term? It is a topic that should be discussed, even though it may be a little late now.

Bringing back a lot of Bush's policies could do a lot to help the nation right now, though hopefully even he would understand how silly BRAC was.

Well, the guys like 80 something, I doubt he could even make it through another 4 year term.

Why? The trickle down theory doesn't work, it's just a con job designed to enrich big business.

So we're talking about the first Bush here?

So we're talking about the first Bush here?

There is no mind reading involved, just text reading. If you are too much of an idiot to realize that there is only one Bush who is ready to serve a second term, then you aren't worthy of being involved in any rational discussion on the matter....

Massive reduction in spending and hopeful destruction of unconstitutional federal agencies would better allow states to run their own economies. Also, the only bad thing about the economy when Bush was in office was that he tied his hands when it came to paying back the debt that was racked up in order to pay for the war.

In the end, the war cost the US only $7 billion, because our allies paid us back for most of it.

http://people.psych.cornell.edu/~fhoran/gulf/GW_cost/GW_payments.html

But did they pay us the money before or after 1992?

Also, at least Bush will stand up against the Israeli government and put good justices on the Supreme Court who understand how to read.

HW Bush would have to run as a change candidate against his own son's policies. Who in their right mind would ask a father who's been fairly defensive of his son's presidency to do that?

I don't see him running as a change canidate as much as I need to fix what my son screwed up. Also, has he really been that defensive of his policies when he told him in 2002 not to mess with Iraq? Sure he has done the presidental thing and generally stayed out of politics for the most part, but I haven't gotten the rub that he has been any more 'defensive' of Bush as he was of Clinton.

Prime example of type of individual that isn't worthy of being bothered with in any sort of discussion on the topic.

Your just making all kinds of friends on this site aren't you, ya little frustrated bitch.

I don't see him running as a change canidate as much as I need to fix what my son screwed up.

Isn't that the pretty much a change candidate?

Your just making all kinds of friends on this site aren't you, ya little frustrated bitch.

Amen brotha :worship:

I still think that it wouldn't be the same if it was daddy fixin what his son broke as opposed to being a 'change' canidate. Sure it is mostly dealing with semantics, but still...

Well, if you are talking about Bush 41, 2 reasons:

1. He is the father of the WORST president.
2. he is 200 years old.

And he was lame, although I liked when he puked all over the Japanese PM...

Agreed.

What's the catch here. I mean, we ARE talking about the worst president in US History here right.... ChimpyMcflightsuit and his sidekick Darth Cheney...... right?

What am I not getting here.....? :confused:

Bastard! You made my coffee come out of my nose.:bawl:

I don't see him running as a change canidate as much as I need to fix what my son screwed up.
I doubt he would do so, since it would mean he was accepting the fact that his son is indeed incompetent. How would it look?

Well, he had a win with the Gulf War, but after that it was all downhill. No one is going to vote for another Bush, even if he wanted to run.

I would vote for Jeb.

Your just making all kinds of friends on this site aren't you, ya little frustrated bitch.

I like him. He's interesting...

Well, what are 5 great things Bush Sr. did during his term?

Anyway, the Iran-Iraq Contra affair tells me his a grease ball.

Off the top of my head I can name 4:

He didn't expand government.

He properly executed Operation Desert Shield and Operation Desert Storm.

He stood up and defied Israel by calling for the destruction of illegal settlements.

He appointed Clarance Thomas to the Supreme Court.

I'm sure if I dug around that I could find more, but those 4 are good enough for me at the time.

why the hell do americans seem to have so many levels of goverment, the more you put the issues into the hands of the fed goverment the less things would cost.

For instance if you centralise the education system then you have only ONE body who needs to set curiculam rather than at least 52, same with hospitals (Personally im all for Rudd taking over the hospital system BTW:p). The greater the centralisation the better the strategic planing and the less expence. Also with a greater budget the money could be distributed to where its NEEDED rather than to where it origniates. For instance a city full of poor people and a ritch city. More social problems in the poor city so a higher level of police spending required in relation to the ritch city. If the police system is city based then your going to get higher police spending in the ritch city leading to police BORDOM and operations like THIS (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=76726) rather than operations to deal with gang crime ect.