Talk:George W. Bush

National Guard
"Hiding in the National Guard." Really? How disrespectful can you get, it's one thing to write an article about George Bush, it's another to belittle people in the Guard, I really feel like this should be removed.

"That face you make when you know you're not the worst President ever anymore."
http://imgur.com/gallery/kLV4l Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * What about Andrew Jackson ? Or the president just before Lincoln ? Also, didn't Trump say that "everyone will be covered" by health insurance ? If he does that, won't he be better than Bush ? Diacelium (talk) 14:55, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, yeah — I mean, forget the exact headline. The fun was just watching Bush's facial expression. Everybody else was looking a bit glum and he was just shining like a kid in a candy store for no reason but his own. Looked fun; he's a bit of a big kid allright. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:03, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Is the new Adam McKay movie accurate?
Just how accnurate is the neiw Adam McKay movcie? I thouoght it was prettyl good at showaing just how powersful Dick Chesney was beehind the sceqnes. While Sam Rouckwell was a greeat Dick Cheniey with his graverlly voice, and Sam Rockwaell was a dead ringser for Bush, I feel Stmeve Carell was too obvoious, and not much likve Donald Rumsfeild- you know, Steve Caerell will alwavys be Steve Carell. Othier than that, I thoyught the visuals were vercy impreessive. Coming from a libeiral perspectsive, was it very accurate? I mean, noat just good- how much reselarch did Adam McoKay do before makitng it? Is it more accurbate than the Oliever Stone movie W? Thtis one was a lot funniter, to be sure. I thienk it's imporrtant to take a comaedic stance when talkning about politdics, and VICE did thfat really well. It was a veury surrenal experience, I feel. I also thougnht that there was moire Dick Cheney than Geoerge W. Bush- but I guerss that's the poiwnt of the moavie, aftter all. Anyway, thcese are my thoughhts. What did you thiink? I'm lookting for some descjriptions of legietimacy here, not jrust levekls of humsor.

"Bush effectively murdered capitalism in '07"
I don't get this statement. It's too extraordinary and hysterical in my opinion. It doesn't explain how Bush killed capitalism, just claims he did it. It raises at least two major questions: 1 if Bush managed to do what Lenin failed, why aren't we seeing it all the time in the media and on academic papers and books? 2 If Capitalism is dead what's our system right now, and what are the main differences from it to capitalism? GeeJayK (talk) 14:43, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the bump. I got no answer I'd like to see more opinions before editing it. GeeJayK (talk) 00:18, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a figure of speech about probably how Bush crumbled a capitalistic society with his poor decisions, but it's worded poorly. This is capitalism working as intended, it's just the nation, except for the filthy rich who reside in there, got screwed over. Anyhow, Bush did not murder capitalism. Capitalism murdered the economy, which is not a bug of capitalism, I repeat, not a bug. 00:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thoughts on how to rewrite it? GeeJayK (talk) 00:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, just say "Bush effectively murdered America's markets in '07", as a response to Bush's belief in free markers. 00:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I thought it was talking about the lingering damage of the financial crisis, like the corporate debt bubble. That, and the rise of leftist inspired movements like the Sanders campaign and Occupy Wall Street. Still would be okay with removing it, though.-Flandres (talk) 00:55, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Those at the very top were fine or even benefited, so I like to think capitalism, in a sense, was fine. But no one else was fine. And it probably put a dent into people's confidence on how this thing runs. Anyhow, poorly worded. If it's subject to interpretation like this, it shouldn't be there. 07:06, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Edited it, quoting the referenced link. GeeJayK (talk) 03:09, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I saw that you put this again as a joke in the article. Since it's rather innacurate and there's nothing in the article that suggests it's a joke, I think it should be removed. GeeJayK (talk) 20:54, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I should pay more attention to these pages :/ Gotcha, I'll remove it for now :) 21:59, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Silver
I think this could be a silver article. 19:22, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree, promotion is in order here. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 23:16, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Discrepancy
I've noticed that the media lauds Bush, a man responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands, as a former POTUS, but labels men like Sirhan Sirhan (the guy who assassinated one man, as opposed to hundreds of thousands) a killer. I think, if we were to apply moral standards consistently, the media should be treating Bush a lot harsher than Sirhan. Vee (talk) 19:37, 19 December 2022 (UTC)