RationalWiki's 2020 Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2021.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!

Donations so far: $2120Goal: $3500

Talk:George W. Bush

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon politics USA.svg

This United States politics related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Icon sociology.svg This article contains information about one or more living persons.

Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats.
Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed.
If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.

This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: <1>

National Guard[edit]

"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.

Faith based initiatives[edit]

  • Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, an office of the White House that focuses on tearing down the wall of separation of church and state

Actually this is not true. The faith based initiative actually weakened churches and brought them under control of the government. Under the initiative, churches could recieve FEMA grants for meal programs provided they did not engage in proselytizing, including praying before eating [1] Faith based initiatives were expanded under Obama to include HUD grants to church run homeless shelters which now, under Obama's recent Executive Order, require church run homeless shelters to allow a transgender to sleep in the men or women's section of a shelter of their own choosing. [2] Many churches now are dumping the HUD grants, or closing their shelters, or complying with federal demands to keep the money flowing. So the issue is not just limited to Bush, Obama expanded it, and the effects are quite opposite of what this article alleges.nobsGary Johnson for Rehab! 21:30, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Well i see no reason we shouldn't clarify or remove it.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 23:35, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Given the facts...[edit]

Given the facts of what we all know now:

  • Bill Clinton is a rapist
  • Hillary Clinton is a lesbian
  • Barack Obama is gay
  • Michelle Obama is transexual
  • Donald Trump likes golden showers
  • George Bush is a god-fearing reformed drunk

Why does Bush still rate at the bottom of likeability and remain the brunt of our derision? nobs 22:05, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Bush is a naive child manipulated by the reptilian Dick Cheney. Diacelium (talk) 22:33, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

"That face you make when you know you're not the worst President ever anymore."[edit]

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?[edit]

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. — Unsigned, by: Guyonthecouch / talk / contribs