RE: What Should the Title of Bush's Memoirs Be? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


DomYngBlk -> RE: What Should the Title of Bush's Memoirs Be? (4/28/2010 11:02:59 AM)

What Me Worry?" is kinda funny.

However, you've mentioned Bush snorting cocaine while in office before, and failed to provide any kind of proof when I asked.  Where does this "drug addict" stuff come from?  Simple animosity, or projection?

Firm

 
I am just supposing you missed the 8 years of his presidency? I think it was pretty well documented that dubya had a bit of a problem in his "younger' yes....his 30's which I guess are younger to a 70 year old......His benders keeping him away from performing his "duty" in the Alabama Air National Guard along with his transfer to Alabama from the Texas Air National Guard......Did he do it in the White House? Frankly I don't know....but it would explain a lot of things. If not, then he is dumber than I thought.





BKSir -> RE: What Should the Title of Bush's Memoirs Be? (4/28/2010 11:03:01 AM)

Not sure, but I hear he wrote his thesis paper on "Pat the Bunny"...




Musicmystery -> RE: What Should the Title of Bush's Memoirs Be? (4/28/2010 11:06:44 AM)

Twilight in America: How I Put Out the Lights of Reagan's Morning in America




Sanity -> RE: What Should the Title of Bush's Memoirs Be? (4/28/2010 11:19:11 AM)


Speaking of Alfred... here is this months actual cover:

[img]http://www.dccomics.com/media/product/1/4/14378_450x600.jpg[/img]

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk

Should Be - "What Me Worry"? .....A drug addicts guide to being President


"What Me Worry?" is kinda funny.

However, you've mentioned Bush snorting cocaine while in office before, and failed to provide any kind of proof when I asked.  Where does this "drug addict" stuff come from?  Simple animosity, or projection?

Firm





Musicmystery -> RE: What Should the Title of Bush's Memoirs Be? (4/28/2010 11:23:07 AM)

Sadly, the book's been written already. Maybe add to it "The Presidency--My Final Profitable Failure"

The Failed Corporate Record of
George W. Bush


Several researchers have investigated the business history of the Bush family. The facts that they have uncovered are not very pretty. The business record of George W. Bush holds some revealing insights to how his presidency has operated, and helps to explain why the country has fallen so deeply in debt and has so many other problems.

As explained by Kevin Phillips in his book, American Dynasty: Aristocracy, Fortune, and the Politics of Deceit in the House of Bush, George W. Bush's businesses fail but he makes millions. Among Mr. Bush's business ventures:

* Arbusto, an oil exploration company, lost money, but it got considerable investments (nearly $5 million) because even losing oil investments were useful as tax shelters.
* Spectrum 7 Energy Corp. bought out Arbusto in 1984 and hired Mr. Bush to run the company's oil interests in Midland, Texas. The oil business collapsed as oil prices plummeted by 1986, and Spectrum 7 Energy was near failure.
* Harken Energy acquired Mr. Bush's Spectrum 7 Energy shares, and he got Harken shares, a directorship, and a consulting arrangement in return. Harken, under Bush, brought in Saudi real estate tycoon Sheikh Abdullah Bakhsh as a board member and a major investor. Over the next few years, Harken would turn out to have links to: Saudi money, CIA-connected Filipinos, the Harvard Endowment, the emir of Bahrain, and the shadowy Bank of Credit and Commerce International.
o A 1991 internal SEC document suggested George W. Bush violated federal securities law at least 4 times in the late 1980s and early 1990s in selling Harken stock while serving as a director of Harken. This is essentially the same kind of activity that Martha Stewart is going to prison over. Except at the time of the investigation, Mr. Bush's father was president and the case was quietly dropped.

In his book, Worse Than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush, John W. Dean explains that his family name and his father's prominence were significant factors in George W. Bush's business "success", or, were significant factors in repeated saves from serious business and financial failures. Both Arbusto/Bush Exploration and Spectrum 7 failed with Bush as chairman and CEO. At Harken, Mr. Bush was relieved of day-to-day management responsibilities but still served on the board of directors. Dean also notes:

* George W. Bush claims his formative years, which he extends to age 40, are out of bounds. Yet those are the years when one's character and values are formed. Bush had occasionally overindulged with alcohol, and he was a bit of an irresponsible youth.
* Dean believes Mr. Bush took advantage of his insider information when he sold his Harken stock in 1990, but he escaped SEC penalties because his father was president and many of the investigating officials had Bush family ties and other conflicts of interest. Many of the facts about the Harken deal remain buried and Bush has stonewalled all efforts to find out more.

Our first oil company/MBA president naturally views the world through the eyes of a CEO, according to Eric Alterman and Mark Green. In their book, The Book on Bush: How George W. (Mis)leads America, they describe how this results in a probusiness/anticonsumer record, including crony capitalism with the awarding of post-Iraq war contracts (Halliburton, Bechtel, and MCI/Worldcom getting most of the contracts). Alterman and Green note that the first 2 years of the Bush administration coincided with the biggest corporate scandals and bankruptcies since Teapot Dome in the 1920s. Mr. Bush had to manage a falling economy riddled with corporate malfeasance. Companies on the corporate rap sheet:

* MCI/Worldcom -- the single largest corporate securities fraud in U.S. history.
* Enron -- the largest contributor to Bush's political career. The Bush administration is staffed with numerous former Enron employees and consultants.
* Harken Energy -- Bush's behavior on Harken's board of directors was similar to that of the companies caught in the corporate scandals. Mr. Bush received several memos from Harken officials about the impending financial crisis in the company, sold his stock, then several days later the Harken financial problems wewre made public. He failed to file notice of these sales to the SEC for 8 months. The SEC simply stopped their 1990-91 investigation.
* Halliburton -- Dick Cheney served as CEO and chairman from 1995-2000. He sold Halliburton stock before bad financial news regarding his company was made public. Halliburton committed fraud on its investors by overstating its earnings.
* Enron and Worldcom were followed by scandals and failures at Adelphia, Tyco, and others.

As he did to his unsuccessful businesses, George W. Bush is doing to the country -- leading it down a path of failure:

* huge federal deficits
* mismanagement
* deception
* cronyism.

The Bush family has had financial and oil business ties with Middle Eastern countries for decades. As explained by Kevin Phillips in his 2004 book, American Dynasty: Aristocracy, Fortune, and the Politics of Deceit in the House of Bush:

* "no other political family in the United States has had anything remotely resembling the Bushes' four-decade relationship with the Saudi royal family and the oil sheikhs of the Persion Gulf" (page 315).
* The investment firm, The Carlyle Group, is run by the Bush crowd (George H.W. Bush, James Baker III, and Frank Carlucci have been/are its top managers and advisers). The Carlyle Group served as an interface between these Bush characters and the Saudi bin Laden family. "Some commentators felt that some connections between the bin Ladens and their black-sheep relative (Osama bin Laden) persisted" (page 315). This connection directly links George W. Bush to Al Quaeda and leads to the logical question: In spite of the president's rhetoric, are Mr. Bush and Osama actually working together? Could that be why Osama bin Laden hasn't been caught?
* "Greg Palast (asked) 'What made this new president [George W. Bush] take particular care to protect the Saudis (after the September 11 terrorist attack), even to the point of stymieing his own intelligence agencies?' The answers, he said, kept coming back 'Carlyle' and 'Arbusto,' the two prominent interfaces between the finances of the Bush family and those of the bin Laden family" (page 316).
* The Bush administration demanded major deletions (especially in the 28-page section dealing with the role played by the Saudis and other foreign governments) in the 2003 joint report of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees on the origins of the 9/11 attack and how it might have been prevented (page 316).

Kevin Phillips comes to a frightening conclusion about the Bushes and America in his book on page 330:

* Mr. Bush's main advisor, Karl Rove, is an avid reader of Machiavelli. Machiavelli wrote his books, The Prince and The Discourses, during the early sixteenth century at a time when his own Florentine republic was undergoing political turmoil. "French, German, and Spanish imperial power was overrunning Europe, including Italy, through a scale of wealth and military capacity that doomed many of the old city-states. Florence (Machiavelli's home), one such, surrendered its republican status in the 1530s and took the Medici as hereditary rulers. ... the advice Machiavelli gives in The Prince was dedicated to the Medicis and designed to work in the new princely, aristocratic, and neo-imperial milieu of 16th-century Italy."
* "The possibility that the United States could edge toward its own Machiavellian moment in an early-21st-century milieu of terrorism, neo-imperialism, and dynastization is not far-fetched."
o "Chapter 4, in its discussion of Bush domestic policy and 'compassionate conservative' rhetoric, has already referred to Machiavelli's advice that the Prince should lie but must 'be able to disguise this character well, and to be a great feigner and dissembler.' Moreover, 'to see and hear him, he [the Prince] should seem to be all mercy, faith, integrity, humanity and religion. And nothing is more necessary than to seem to have this last quality. ... Everybody sees what you appear to be, few feel what you are.'"
o "Other advice dwells on the merits of fraud, hypocrisy, faithlessness, and related practices, and 20th century academicians have noted Machiavelli's appeal to leaders like Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini. Doubtless there are also hundreds of copies of The Prince at the CIA. Which makes it revealing, and arguably ill advised, that the two political advisers to the two Bush presidents should claim it as a bible of sorts."
o "Even in religion, Machiavelli's advice to emphasize it is relevant to the early-21st-century United States. His career in Florence overlapped that of Friar Girolamo Savonarola, the Religious despot who ruled the gasping republic from 1494 to 1498 with a politics of fighting sin and immorality. Doubtless the youthful Machiavelli absorbed how close Savonarola came to achieving a theocracy even in republican Florence. Not a few Americans see a little bit of Savonarola in George W. Bush."
o "The advent of a Machiavelli-inclined dynasty (the Bush dynasty) in what may be a Machiavellian Moment for the American Republic is not a happy coincidence, but one that demands attention."

http://alaric3rh.home.sprynet.com/science/bceo.html




pahunkboy -> RE: What Should the Title of Bush's Memoirs Be? (4/28/2010 11:24:58 AM)

MM,

what has changed under Obama?




Musicmystery -> RE: What Should the Title of Bush's Memoirs Be? (4/28/2010 11:27:29 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy

MM,

what has changed under Obama?


Read thread before posting.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
Starting two wars, not paid for, with continued presence for years, not paid for, on top of tax cuts, not paid for....geez, even a conservative can do that math.

This year's budget, Obama's first solely, is $300 billion less than the 2009 one he inherited from Bush--a reduction of 18.75%.

From there, it's a matter of our differing perspectives on the severity of health care status quo--a costly situation period. We have to address it in some fashion. So we have a start. Everybody knows it will change. Frankly, in time, we'll have to move to a public option, unless private industry decides to prove they can handle it effectively.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
It's not a matter of playing cards--it's a matter of repeating failed, expensive policies and calling them "fiscally conservative."

When Reagan started this, the national debt was $909 billion. When Bush II left office, it was $12.3114 trillion. That's 13.54 times as large in just 29 years!

Let's take out the Clinton years--$1,462 billion to $1,863 billion, an increase of 27%--and that leaves an increase of 13 and a quarter times to the Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II years.

Now, granted, this in no way supports Obama's plans. But it sure as shit points out that going back, again, to the policies that got us here just doesn't make any damn sense.

No matter how loud the Tea Party shouts.

[Before you bring it up--yes, that should all be adjusted for inflation. However, that leaves the Clinton years reducing the national debt, and I know how you hate that "accounting trick." But, just for the record--$909 billion is $2.33611 trillion in 2009 dollars--still an increase 5 and a quarter times 1980, not withstanding the consequent reduction during the Clinton years.]

quote:

ORIGINAL: cuckyman

Reagan's tax cuts ushered in more than 17 million new jobs and the prosperity began anew...the deficts were the result of him being saddled with a democrat congress that forced him to make deals he would not otherwise would have made.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

There was a lot more to the history than that. Who controlled Congress when had a lot to do with the budgets, and there is the pesky fact that a lot of the Reagan deficits went towards the Star Wars programs which finally bankrupted the Soviet Union and effectively ended the cold war.

That in turn gave us the peace dividends that Clinton enjoyed.

From 1980 to 2009, there have been six Democratic Congresses, six Republican Congresses, and three split ones. Dems and Reps share this equally in terms of spending.

The split ones were the first three, the first six years of Reagan's terms--in other words, he was NOT facing a Democratic Congress. NOR did he usher in prosperity--the stock market crashed in 1987, and Bush I had to deal with double digit unemployment. The bad times even forced him to raise spending and increase taxes (sound familiar?). And oh yeah--remember the Savings & Loan crisis/bailout?

And despite Reagan's popularity--it was the economic fallout of his policies that got Clinton elected on the economy.

Now, as I said before, this shifts no blame away from Obama. But I do fervently want to establish the point that returning once again to the tax cut big military laissez-faire borrow and spend approach we've followed through Reagan/Bush/Bush is just folly.

[The Soviet Union is a side issue--Gorbachev had much to do with it, and the USSR was going to implode anyway. But even if Reagan did have an impact--that was then. The USSR is gone. Let's stop using outdated policies that (1) cost us dearly and (2) were used for an enemy gone twenty years now.]

Let's talk about Obama, though. I'm concerned too.

When a President takes office, the previous President has already submitted the budget--in this case, for 2009. $1.6 trillion dollars. 2010 is the beginning of purely Obama budgeting: $1.3 trillion--a reduction of $300 billion, or 18.75% less (and with a Democratic Congress). Yes, it's still too damn much money, but at least it is again a step in the right direction, as Clinton (yes, with a Republican Congress) did.

To the degree I'm hopeful, it's for these reasons:
1) GDP is already doing well again, from 3rd quarter of last year, and employment will follow, sooner or later, as inventories continue to sink and as consumer spending continues to rise (how soon will, frankly, probably determine the 2010 election). The stimulus spending and bailouts were one time expenses. Some of this is already coming back, sometimes at a profit.
2) The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were mistakes. But, we are at least finally dealing with them. Troop levels and spending is already down substantially in Iraq. The situation in Afghanistan is finally improving, and that too will then wind down.
3) Health care is a tremendous drain on our economy. We've finally done something. Yes, not a lot. But most importantly--we've crossed that mental barrier in the U.S. about government involvement. When all the fur is done flying, we'll make adjustments, but in the end, we will have begun to curtail our most rapidly rising expense. Granted, it's currently a mess. And also granted, both sides of this have relied on lies to exaggerate their points.
4) With the tremendous time and political capital health care took, attention can turn to other issues finally (or more substantially).

I'm concerned about the projections. But projections are just that--predictions. How many of these have we seen over the years that just didn't play out the way they were laid out? Thadius even devoted an entire thread to attacking the CBO.

Time will tell. But let us not return to what we already know doesn't work.









Politesub53 -> RE: What Should the Title of Bush's Memoirs Be? (4/28/2010 11:30:12 AM)

"I did it Dicks way"




DomYngBlk -> RE: What Should the Title of Bush's Memoirs Be? (4/28/2010 11:34:55 AM)

I would guess a lot has changed hunkboy - Limbaugh is leaving the country(alledgedly, though his drugs of choice are much more availble here), Beck is about ready to blow a heart valve and he says Communism lives in America, Republicans in congress vote no to anything proposed by anyone including themselves, Sarah Palin broke a nail, We have an exit strategy of getting out of the Bush Wars, Finalized Health Coverage for millions of Americans, Worked our way out of a Republican Led Bank Bailout, Revived the Auto Industry, Taken steps towards giving access to a College Education back to all Americans,....just to name a few ...So yeah, things have changed.




pahunkboy -> RE: What Should the Title of Bush's Memoirs Be? (4/28/2010 11:49:08 AM)

No nothing has changed.

We are in over 2 wars.

We still have the federal reserve.

Coke- Pepsi- Pepsi Coke.

I am not sure even what college degree would do at this point.  The monetary system is broke beyond repair.


Even the financial "reform" was written by the too big to fails.

And yes McCain would still be the trainwreck.   But all these clowns voted for TARP.

The federal reserve connects to all wars.





rulemylife -> RE: What Should the Title of Bush's Memoirs Be? (4/28/2010 12:18:24 PM)





DarlingSavage -> RE: What Should the Title of Bush's Memoirs Be? (4/28/2010 12:27:25 PM)

Mission: Revelations
A Guidebook for Manifesting Rapture and Tribulation




pahunkboy -> RE: What Should the Title of Bush's Memoirs Be? (4/28/2010 12:29:44 PM)

AHA!

I found a difference.

SS Colas more more generous under Bush.  Gasp~!~!  




SohCahToa -> RE: What Should the Title of Bush's Memoirs Be? (4/28/2010 12:31:13 PM)

'Fool me once'

By G.W.Bush




rulemylife -> RE: What Should the Title of Bush's Memoirs Be? (4/28/2010 12:36:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

However, you've mentioned Bush snorting cocaine while in office before, and failed to provide any kind of proof when I asked.  Where does this "drug addict" stuff come from?  Simple animosity, or projection?



Why are you pretending you've never heard of this before? 

Simple forgetfulness or more Republican revisionism?

John Seery: The Bush Cocaine Chronicles: Complicity and Cover-up

In 1994, when asked about drug use in his campaign for governor of Texas, Bush replied, "What I did as a kid? I don't think it's relevant." But it was and still is relevant, if only because his dismissive response reveals a profound misunderstanding of the severity of the charge. Imagine if he had sidestepped a similar question about other felonies such as armed robbery or rape. Moreover, if the rumors are true, namely that Bush used cocaine in college through the end of his military service at age 26, he certainly wasn't a "kid" at the time but was an adult citizen of this country, especially in the eyes of the law.

About a year ago, during the presidential primaries, 11 out of 12 candidates in both parties denied ever using cocaine. George W. Bush was the sole candidate who refused to answer the question. He quipped, "When I was young and irresponsible, I was young and irresponsible." But youthful irresponsibility is not the same as felonious criminality, and most state constitutions observe that distinction quite strictly.





pahunkboy -> RE: What Should the Title of Bush's Memoirs Be? (4/28/2010 12:46:48 PM)

Cocaine VS inflated egos.

Gosh-  I cant tell the difference, can you?




thompsonx -> RE: What Should the Title of Bush's Memoirs Be? (4/28/2010 12:50:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MichiganHeadmast

While I have no opinion in particular (I'm not the biggest fan of the former prez), I do note that the captain has turned off the "Do not mock your president" sign. 

Now, I presume that, if there is a thread entitled "What should the title of Obama's memoirs be?," the "Watch those comments or you're a fucked up racist!" sign will be prominently displayed.  [:D]




Perhaps we could revive an old title of Frantz Fanon..."Black Skins White Masks"




rulemylife -> RE: What Should the Title of Bush's Memoirs Be? (4/28/2010 1:00:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MichiganHeadmast

While I have no opinion in particular (I'm not the biggest fan of the former prez), I do note that the captain has turned off the "Do not mock your president" sign. 

Now, I presume that, if there is a thread entitled "What should the title of Obama's memoirs be?," the "Watch those comments or you're a fucked up racist!" sign will be prominently displayed.  [:D]



Well, maybe you can come back when Obama writes his memoirs and piss and moan about how he is getting special treatment.

Right now this is about Bush writing a book about his "accomplishments". 

Accomplishments!  God I crack myself up.  [sm=biggrin.gif]




DomYngBlk -> RE: What Should the Title of Bush's Memoirs Be? (4/28/2010 1:03:44 PM)

Yeah now we are going to get our fill of laura saying that they didn't want to "get in the way" by visiting New Orleans after Katrina. LOL what a load of shit.




DarlingSavage -> RE: What Should the Title of Bush's Memoirs Be? (4/28/2010 1:13:29 PM)

Boy, Is My Face Red!
5 Easy Steps for Shaming the Nation




Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625