• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Could George W Bush Mediate the Impasse?[W:93]

Could George W Bush Mediate the Impasse?


  • Total voters
    36
Care to drop the CON game and dispute the facts. BushII isn't so much refraining from political comment as not invited to comment. No appearances at the conventions. No attending campaigns to support GOP candidates, very unusual. So it goes far past 'rising above the fray' to a very simple no GOP politician wants to be photographed with Loser BushII.

But let's give it 20 to 30 years, even Nixon was remembered well at his State Funeral.... :peace

How can you dispute "facts"? If you actually come up with some facts, let me know, and I'll comment on them. Otherwise, we're wasting time.

You clearly know nothing about Bush II or Bush I or the way the family operates in politics and outside politics so your "facts" are, as I said previously, "utter nonsense".

I'd just ask what part of "I'm not going to be involved in politics from now on" don't you understand? The man said he's had his time in politics and he's moved on to other things. Just because know-it-all liberal/progressive ex-Presidents think that their opinions are worth anything and can't help telling everyone else how to live their lives doesn't mean the Bush men, having left the Oval Office, have to follow the same insufferable path to annoyance. Instead of asking where Bush is, why the hell aren't you asking when Carter and Clinton will **** off and go away?
 
Here's a hypothetical: if Bush were to come out of hiding and announce his support for re-opening the gov't and raising the debt ceiling, would that have any effect?

Or do Dems and Repubs equally loathe him and it wouldn't make a difference?

The problem is that the US does not need more debt. It needs less.
 
I like this idea Polgara..
After our basement flooded with mine-shaft backup and wrecked it, we've been in a holding pattern..
What do you do with a wife who is a recycling hoarder and a procrastinator??I really could use some hep here.

Good morning, NIMBY. :2wave:

You know, I was thinking about my joking comment, and my mind jumped to decoupage. One could use the requests as a sort of pictoral history of what was going on at the time in our community. They could be used to cover wastebaskets, decorate the top of an outdoor umbrella table, or other things like that. It's fun to do, it's colorful, it's free, the "junk mail" wouldn't go to the landfill, and kids love to mess with things like that, especially requests for help from the zoo! I'll think further on that. :thumbs:
 
Course being a Bush didn't hurt... :roll:

So what was the score on the military entrance test, it isn't a true IQ test, I took one, my GT was 126, OCS required 120.

Giving some stats rather than 'just saying' would be helpful. The 2006 Simonton study has BushII from 119 uncorrected to 124 cumulative. Clinton has a 141 and a 148 respectively.

I have always said the three smartest presidents in the modern era are GHWB (top of class at Yale), Richard Nixon (top of his class at Duke Law School) and Clinton (Top of his class at Georgetown).
 
How can you dispute "facts"? If you actually come up with some facts, let me know, and I'll comment on them. Otherwise, we're wasting time. You clearly know nothing about Bush II or Bush I or the way the family operates in politics and outside politics so your "facts" are, as I said previously, "utter nonsense". I'd just ask what part of "I'm not going to be involved in politics from now on" don't you understand? The man said he's had his time in politics and he's moved on to other things. Just because know-it-all liberal/progressive ex-Presidents think that their opinions are worth anything and can't help telling everyone else how to live their lives doesn't mean the Bush men, having left the Oval Office, have to follow the same insufferable path to annoyance. Instead of asking where Bush is, why the hell aren't you asking when Carter and Clinton will **** off and go away?

More CON nonsense. You can't dispute BushII is a pariah in American Politics who isn't welcome at any level of GOP political races.

Funny how disgraced GOP politicians seem to 'move on' from politics. Like Nixon, BushII sees moving on as the best course after a disaster in the Oval Office.

I have GREAT respect for BushI as a person and his war service. He is one of the last GOP class acts out there... (kinda admire Bob Dole as well) but as a national politician he was a coat tail rider and then one time Oval Office Wonder- like Carter. Many in his own party saw him as a RINO, and not 'conservative' enough, caving in. I doubt today he could get a congressional seat much less win the GOP nomination.

But to recap- it's pretty damned easy to 'move-on' when your own party has dropped you like a hot rock. :roll:
 
I have always said the three smartest presidents in the modern era are GHWB (top of class at Yale), Richard Nixon (top of his class at Duke Law School) and Clinton (Top of his class at Georgetown).

Interesting but I asked you to back-up your claims on what the military entrance test scores were. You claim something as if you have the scores handy, though you incorrectly call the GT score an IQ score- I'd like to see the numbers.

Not sure your claims about Kerry are accurate- I find he graduated Yale in the standard 4 years and was chosen to give the class oration at graduation. As for BushII I find he was a cheerleader and president of his frat house, but nothing of note academically.
 
The problem is that the US does not need more debt. It needs less.

I guess this has to be pointed out over and over again, but the debt ceiling does not add to the debt. We will have the debt whether it is raised or not because Congress has already spent the money.
 
Interesting but I asked you to back-up your claims on what the military entrance test scores were. You claim something as if you have the scores handy, though you incorrectly call the GT score an IQ score- I'd like to see the numbers.

Not sure your claims about Kerry are accurate- I find he graduated Yale in the standard 4 years and was chosen to give the class oration at graduation. As for BushII I find he was a cheerleader and president of his frat house, but nothing of note academically.


I guess you must have slept through the entire 2004 election. Kerry refused to release his grades for months and finally someone found them and it turned out that Bush has a slightly higher GPA despite all the claims he was less intelligent than Kerry. He also got into the top B school in the country while Kerry-who had an equally high pedigree, had to settle for a much lower ranked law school
 
I guess this has to be pointed out over and over again, but the debt ceiling does not add to the debt. We will have the debt whether it is raised or not because Congress has already spent the money.

I have always wondered who spent all the Money under the ceiling. And you really think that we will have more debt with a higher ceiling or a lower one? I would have thought the President would stop spending in time to stay under the ceiling. Somehow it seems uncool to spend more than your limit. It sounds like signing a check you know will bounce.
 
I guess you must have slept through the entire 2004 election. Kerry refused to release his grades for months and finally someone found them and it turned out that Bush has a slightly higher GPA despite all the claims he was less intelligent than Kerry. He also got into the top B school in the country while Kerry-who had an equally high pedigree, had to settle for a much lower ranked law school

Maybe Kerry should have gotten his father to fix his grades and acceptances for him, like Bush did.
 
I have always wondered who spent all the Money under the ceiling. And you really think that we will have more debt with a higher ceiling or a lower one? I would have thought the President would stop spending in time to stay under the ceiling. Somehow it seems uncool to spend more than your limit. It sounds like signing a check you know will bounce.

Technically Congress authorizes the spending, the President spends the money until he has to borrow, then Congress tells him he can borrow it. I know, it's f***** up.
 
Maybe Kerry should have gotten his father to fix his grades and acceptances for him, like Bush did.

I love when liberals with BDS make up such crap. Having gone to yale and having a brother who was an admissions officer (long after Bush attended that school) its fun watching people just spew stuff out their six because they are mad that Bush is better educated than they are

1) In the pre Inslee Clark days at Yale (where clark turned down highly qualified white male prep school men to let in unqualified blacks in an effort to make up for years of prep school favoritism), schools like Andover sent more than half their graduates to the big three. Bush was an average student at Andover and a legacy. people with those two credentials alone were generally accepted at Yale. SO Bush was no different than hundreds like him

2)If Bush's father fixed his grades why was his average at Yale also average? And having been accepted at Harvard B school and knowing that Bush did not have a legacy connection to Harvard, your claims or insinuation that Bush was accepted there because of his father is moronic.

SO you are basically lying because you are mad that Bush has a better academic resume than your hero Kerry
 
I love when liberals with BDS make up such crap. Having gone to yale and having a brother who was an admissions officer (long after Bush attended that school) its fun watching people just spew stuff out their six because they are mad that Bush is better educated than they are

1) In the pre Inslee Clark days at Yale (where clark turned down highly qualified white male prep school men to let in unqualified blacks in an effort to make up for years of prep school favoritism), schools like Andover sent more than half their graduates to the big three. Bush was an average student at Andover and a legacy. people with those two credentials alone were generally accepted at Yale. SO Bush was no different than hundreds like him

2)If Bush's father fixed his grades why was his average at Yale also average? And having been accepted at Harvard B school and knowing that Bush did not have a legacy connection to Harvard, your claims or insinuation that Bush was accepted there because of his father is moronic.

SO you are basically lying because you are mad that Bush has a better academic resume than your hero Kerry
No, I'm basically telling the truth, because there's no way in hell that Bush would have gotten into any of those schools if his name had been George Walker Obama.

Whereas Barack Hussein Obama didn't get into Columbia, or Harvard Law, with his father's help. It wasn't even available to him. He made it anyway, and on merit.
 
No, I'm basically telling the truth, because there's no way in hell that Bush would have gotten into any of those schools if his name had been George Walker Obama.

Whereas Barack Hussein Obama didn't get into Columbia, or Harvard Law, with his father's help. It wasn't even available to him. He made it anyway, and on merit.

you are lying. more than half of Andover went to Yale Princeton or Harvard that year. Obama got into Columbia and Harvard because he was black. He didn't get into Harvard Law on Merit. he didn't even make a 3.4 average at Columbia. I never heard of a white getting into Harvard law back when that mattered to me getting into Harvard Law from yale with anything less than a 3.7 average. In fact, when I met with the admissions director of HLS, she noted that if you didn't have at least a 3.6 don't bother applying. So Obama was an affirmative action recipient. Same with Columbia
 
you are lying. more than half of Andover went to Yale Princeton or Harvard that year. Obama got into Columbia and Harvard because he was black. He didn't get into Harvard Law on Merit. he didn't even make a 3.4 average at Columbia. I never heard of a white getting into Harvard law back when that mattered to me getting into Harvard Law from yale with anything less than a 3.7 average. In fact, when I met with the admissions director of HLS, she noted that if you didn't have at least a 3.6 don't bother applying. So Obama was an affirmative action recipient. Same with Columbia

One never really knows if a person was properly awarded admission or not until they prove themselves in life that they were indeed worthy. Barack Obama - by his amazing success in life coming from rather humble beginnings - has without any doubt proved his admission to Harvard was right and proper.

But all this could be a thing of the past if we only decided that only the highest scoring applicants with the best High School GPA's were to be admitted to all colleges and all other criteria would be irrelevant and not considered.

Do you support that Turtle?
 
One never really knows if a person was properly awarded admission or not until they prove themselves in life that they were indeed worthy. Barack Obama - by his amazing success in life coming from rather humble beginnings - has without any doubt proved his admission to Harvard was right and proper.

But all this could be a thing of the past if we only decided that only the highest scoring applicants with the best High School GPA's were to be admitted to all colleges and all other criteria would be irrelevant and not considered.

Do you support that Turtle.

that's crap and you know it. what counts is what you had when you were offered admission. Using your silly standards, every first round draft pick who doesn't end up being all pro should have never been selected. Worship Obama if you want-I see his "success" as hardly indicative of what is good in America. He used a corrupt judge to get rid of the guy who was going to beat him in the General senate election in Illinois after equally dirty tricks were used to advance him past more established dem rivals in the primary.

what he became has no relevance to his admission to harvard

but thanks for admitting what is obvious, he didn't have what would have been needed by a white man to get into harvard when he did. If he did you wouldn't be spewing this nonsense that what he did a couple decades later justifies an affirmative action decision much earlier
 
you are lying. more than half of Andover went to Yale Princeton or Harvard that year. Obama got into Columbia and Harvard because he was black. He didn't get into Harvard Law on Merit. he didn't even make a 3.4 average at Columbia. I never heard of a white getting into Harvard law back when that mattered to me getting into Harvard Law from yale with anything less than a 3.7 average. In fact, when I met with the admissions director of HLS, she noted that if you didn't have at least a 3.6 don't bother applying. So Obama was an affirmative action recipient. Same with Columbia
Obama got into Columbia because he applied and was accepted. He got into Harvard Law because he did well at Columbia. He got where he got on merit, something you clearly don't understand, because you don't have any.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Cut out the personal attacks.
 
Technically Congress authorizes the spending, the President spends the money until he has to borrow, then Congress tells him he can borrow it. I know, it's f***** up.

Yep! Got to do something about that. No more borrowing for a while?
 
Yep! Got to do something about that. No more borrowing for a while?

I don't think it's that simple.

I see similarities between the national debt and global warming. Like the debt, global warming gets worse over time. Global warming activists might like it if we cut out emissions today so that the trend doesn't continue, but it is logistically impossible and would hobble society to cut down our energy uses that much before we have a replacement for fossil fuels. You'd be asking people to give up cars, planes, power, and lots of other things that contribute to the problem. It would be crazy to do that. The way to combat global warming is a gradual process: first slow down emissions, then introduce new energy sources, and then replace the old with the new.

Debt activists have the same urgency that environmentalists have, but about our debt. It's at something like $17 trillion and grows every year we have a deficit, which is basically every year. It seems obvious to say that we just cut out all expenses that we can't afford, but what would that really do? Our annual budget is around $4T, and the deficit is around $1T, meaning we are only collecting about $3T in taxes. To balance the budget today we would have to cut about 25% of our expenses immediately. It's hard to explain how impossible that would be; it would basically be like this current shutdown, but permanently. Even the hated sequester only makes the same amount of cuts over 8 years. And balancing the budget would only stop borrowing, not stop the debt from increasing due to interest.

Removing for a second the chance that tax revenues would be affected, if we wanted to completely eliminate the debt as fast as possible, we could cut the budget to basically $0 and it would still take more than four years before we pay down our debt. So cutting spending is not the only solution. We need to figure out instead how to grow our economy and tax revenues. You do that through policy changes and planning, not gutting expenditures.

Both cases are the results of choices that go back decades, and both are long term problems that deserve workable long term solutions.
 
I don't think it's that simple.

I see similarities between the national debt and global warming. Like the debt, global warming gets worse over time. Global warming activists might like it if we cut out emissions today so that the trend doesn't continue, but it is logistically impossible and would hobble society to cut down our energy uses that much before we have a replacement for fossil fuels. You'd be asking people to give up cars, planes, power, and lots of other things that contribute to the problem. It would be crazy to do that. The way to combat global warming is a gradual process: first slow down emissions, then introduce new energy sources, and then replace the old with the new.

Debt activists have the same urgency that environmentalists have, but about our debt. It's at something like $17 trillion and grows every year we have a deficit, which is basically every year. It seems obvious to say that we just cut out all expenses that we can't afford, but what would that really do? Our annual budget is around $4T, and the deficit is around $1T, meaning we are only collecting about $3T in taxes. To balance the budget today we would have to cut about 25% of our expenses immediately. It's hard to explain how impossible that would be; it would basically be like this current shutdown, but permanently. Even the hated sequester only makes the same amount of cuts over 8 years. And balancing the budget would only stop borrowing, not stop the debt from increasing due to interest.

Removing for a second the chance that tax revenues would be affected, if we wanted to completely eliminate the debt as fast as possible, we could cut the budget to basically $0 and it would still take more than four years before we pay down our debt. So cutting spending is not the only solution. We need to figure out instead how to grow our economy and tax revenues. You do that through policy changes and planning, not gutting expenditures.

Both cases are the results of choices that go back decades, and both are long term problems that deserve workable long term solutions.

You are absolutely right that there are similarities to global warming. There are however a few major differences. The most important ones I see are that we are approaching the point, where the consequences are becoming highly dangerous to us in the very near future and could spin out of control suddenly like they did with Lehman. The other is that we are close enough to this happening, that it was irresponsible to continue making deficits at the present rate and install a program that will initially increase spending and reduce economic activity.
Now this does not mean that I was totally against trying to get the economy running again after 2008. But that is a long time ago and Obama was not capable of getting other nations to shoulder part of the responsibility. He also did not reduce the deficit. But that was his job description and he said he could.
 
You are absolutely right that there are similarities to global warming. There are however a few major differences. The most important ones I see are that we are approaching the point, where the consequences are becoming highly dangerous to us in the very near future and could spin out of control suddenly like they did with Lehman. The other is that we are close enough to this happening, that it was irresponsible to continue making deficits at the present rate and install a program that will initially increase spending and reduce economic activity.
Now this does not mean that I was totally against trying to get the economy running again after 2008. But that is a long time ago and Obama was not capable of getting other nations to shoulder part of the responsibility. He also did not reduce the deficit. But that was his job description and he said he could.

Well put, but I still think global warming is as much or more important an issue to tackle than our debt, thinking in the long term. And taxes could take a huge dent out of the deficit if it were ever be politically acceptable. In general, the debt seems much more manageable in the next couple decades.
 
Well put, but I still think global warming is as much or more important an issue to tackle than our debt, thinking in the long term. And taxes could take a huge dent out of the deficit if it were ever be politically acceptable. In general, the debt seems much more manageable in the next couple decades.

Really? You think it is much more important to work on global warming, which is a long term goal, long term being thousands of years, instead of the debt which will kill the country in a very short time span? Really?
 
Really? You think it is much more important to work on global warming, which is a long term goal, long term being thousands of years, instead of the debt which will kill the country in a very short time span? Really?

Yes, and it's not going to be a thousand years before it affects our safety and economy, it has already begun and projections for the end of the century are around a 3 foot sea level rise. Really, you have to place yourself 500 years from now and think about how history remembers our generation. If we failed at curbing global warming because people wanted jobs, that will seem like the height of hubris, akin to the natives on Easter Island tearing down all their trees for use in constructing idols.

The good thing is that fixing climate change and improving our economy can go hand in hand if we really pursue green energy.
 
Really, you have to place yourself 500 years from now and think about how history remembers our generation. If we failed at curbing global warming because people wanted jobs.

I like the 500, but I prefer the 100 years, like when the Car--Plane--were invented around 1900, 1800 when our Country was taking off..
I liked to ask that question of students: What will we be like in 2100..I push for Mandatory Recycling and No more Garbage..
I see 2100 digging up our landfills and using them.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom