Talk:George W. Bush/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 18 November 2024. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Lol

Lol. All it took was removing the redactions and some lame jokes, eh? ħuman 20:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

"Weird" claim/reference

Moonbats do not appreciate the election of a right-wing president, claim the election was illegitimate. Wingnuts do not appreciate the election of a (center-)left-wing president, claim the president is constitutionally ineligible for office. What precisely is "weird" about noting the parallels between these two phenomena? ListenerX^TalkerX 04:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Nothing, expect that I cannot understand a thing you just said. It seems like you hate everyone and think they are all stupid? And who was the C/LW pres? FDR? ħuman 05:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

To put my statement in fewer words, I was comparing Bush's political opponents calling him "illegitimate" to Obama's political opponents doing the same thing, albeit with a slightly different pretext. The "C/LW" president is Obama. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, ok. Sorry, the big O is C/R not left at all. But now I see your point. Barely. Obama won an election fair and clear, with a majority and no intervention by his daddies' friends. Birthers are insane. ħuman 05:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Accusations section

Anyone care to add some references to this list? Links to additional information would be helpful.--Filby (talk) 01:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Holy shit

Compared to today's Republicans, this guy is a socialist. And I'm not exaggerating. Just the other day I debated a guy who claimed that Obama was marxist. I asked for evidence, and of all things he cited the bailouts, which were started by Bush. Where is this country headed?!

Republicans and conservatives now are actually making me have a soft spot for Bush. At least he acknowledged the presence of atheists and claimed that he would not impose his religion on them! At least he apologized for torture committed at Iraq detention camps! Mr. Anon (talk) 06:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

My wingnut friend was calling him a communist all the way back in 2000.

Left-wing figures say the same thing about Obama, also citing the bailouts (thinking of ARRA rather than TARP, probably). ListenerX^TalkerX 06:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

To today's American wingnut everyone is a socialist. Osaka Sun (talk) 06:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

(EC x2) Not too long ago George W. Bush and his administration were the pretty much the face of the extreme wing of the Republican party. It's scary when a soft spot for such a man can be formed after seeing today's Republicans. My personal distaste for the man has been very mildly diluted, however, only by his lack of intelligence, not so much the extremeness of his modern counterparts. Still, as you said, holy shit. Sam ^Tally-ho! 06:31, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

No, the Bush administration was mostly neo-conservative in outlook. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:34, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Could that still be considered part of the extreme wing of the GOP? Sam ^Tally-ho! 06:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I would not put it thus. Most neo-conservatives are shysters, not cranks; although they disparage the reality-based community when it is found among the hoi polloi (they would vastly prefer suckers), they are personally very reality-based. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I suppose that since he was such an awful president I automatically assumed he was extreme. Thanks for correcting me. Sam ^Tally-ho! 06:57, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, we need a rewrite

There's so much to be said where we haven't. Come on, it'll be good comedy too. Osaka Sun (talk) 09:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Yah, this is pretty short for such a magnificently awful person. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 09:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

At the very least, I am offendo-stumped by "In fact, almost everything his administration touched turned to custard", which a) is the first time I have ever seen a [presumably] negative reference to custard (and I fancy myself fairly well-exposed to colloquial expressions of the US, England and Australia) and b) if literally true would be the one thing that ever could have persuaded me to vote for that fucking embarrassing tool. 184.78.166.161 (talk) 14:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Custard? Imma go with poetic licence here. The US American idiom as I have heard it is "everything he touches turns to shit." There is also the punchline to an old (c. 1930's vintage) joke that goes, "mustard, custard, and you, you old shit!" (something turd something something)

There is the resemblance of custard to the surprise one may find in the diaper/nappy of an unweaned baby. In a faintly related idiom, I've heard people say "in deep yogurt" when the more usual diction is "in deep shit." So, yeah, poetic license. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 14:50, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Worst President in History

Perhaps this belongs in an essay but I'd like to collect my thoughts here. Many people say Bush is not the worst in history. They often point to people like Buchanan and Andrew Johnson. But the thing is those people were never expected to be great. Buchanan won by a small majority while Johnson was a vice President who was only picked as a compromise (Lincoln said "Don't worry, he won't actually do anything". This was one of his worse moves and demonstrates why you should never pick a VP for political reasons).

But what makes Bush different is that he had America united after 9/11. 90% of Americans approved of him, and he could have used it to create an era of bipartisanship where Americans would get together and try to find the best ways to make this country better. This was especially important since he had won his election through controversial means, so he should have devoted extra energy to getting parties to work together.

For a President who had 9 out of 10 approving and the largest international sympathy, he sure must have done a lot to fuck things up to earn an approval rating 70% lower and the largest worldwide hatred. It takes a lot to achieve that, and the fact that he managed to do so is the single reason I rate him the worst President of all time.

TL;DR version: Bush started the most popular of all Presidents, and ended the most hated. For a President to do that, he must be the very worst of all. Mr. Anon (talk) 04:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's not just poll math that makes a bad president. By that logic, Reagan was a better President than FDR, because Reagan was actually elected by a bigger margin of the popular vote for his second term compared to his first, while FDR won by a smaller and smaller margin each time he ran. And I'm going to continue politely disagreeing and defer to what people more informed than me have to say. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 07:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Reagan did win by a bigger margin than FDR, but his average approval rating was far lower. FDR had Americans united, Reagan ended up making Americans divided. Plus FDR was able to get elected four times, and I don't think Reagan's popularity by the end of his term was enough to ensure a theoretical third term. Mr. Anon (talk) 23:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

That guy, though more informed than most people who claim "X is the worst/best president ever!" is still factually wrong in many areas. Hoover and Coolidge fought hard for Civil Rights and couldn't be considered racist at all. I don't think Harding belongs on that list since he had a shorter term than JFK. The really good legislation Nixon signed off should keep him off the top 10 list, regardless of watergate. Mr. Anon (talk) 23:06, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Seriously? Are you talking about the same Coolidge that signed the Immigration Act of 1924 and the same Hoover that helped the GOP lose the black vote? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:29, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The Immigration Act was anti-immigration, not racist. You forget that Coolidge spoke strongly in favor of Black rights and granted Native Americans citizenship. Hoover lost the black vote because the Depression (falsely blamed on Hoover) mainly affected African Americans. He too appointed many African Americans to federal positions and spoke in favor of civil rights. Mr. Anon (talk) 00:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Uh, that bill was born out of nativism and eugenics. Hoover began losing the black vote before the Depression hit. I'm not saying that they didn't do good things in terms of race relations. Certainly they were far better than, say, a Woodrow Wilson on that front. But to make them out as grand champions of civil rights without a racist bone in their bodies is bunk. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:05, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Would a racist personally rebut to a letter claiming that America was a "white man's racist"? I don't think so. Racism is defined as "the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, esp. so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races". While arguably Xenophobic, I would not call that bill racist. As for Hoover, would a racist appoint a Native American Vice President? Mr. Anon (talk) 01:41, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I have a question

what is the difference between this and regular wikipedia? ^{— Unsigned, by: ISwagHard / talk / contribs}

A few subtle things. Hit "random" a few times and it might become clear. Or see RationalWiki. ħuman 05:38, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

He's a Christian?

Er, no.

You may notice He is NOT a fan of them. Just want to let you know. Consider revising.--P.S. (talk) 12:16, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Chickenhawk?

The National Guard as part of the armed forces of the USA, too, and there were units of the National Guard in the Nam.--Arisboch (talk) 20:31, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

The Pet Goat

Does anyone know whether the eponymous Pet Goat "beats" a car robber or whether he "eats" the robber? The latter would make more sense, but the article says the former. But I don't actually own the book so I don't know. Gak92 (talk) 01:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Faith based initiatives

• 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.nobs^{Gary 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...

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)

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. ^{— Unsigned, by: 75.108.158.131 / talk / contribs}

"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)