Information icon.svg The election booth for the RationalWiki 2019 Moderator Election is now open. Cast your votes today!

Talk:George W. Bush/Archive1

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 7 March 2019. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page:   , (new)(back)

Lol[edit]

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

"Weird" claim/reference[edit]

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? Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 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? ħumanUser talk:Human 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. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 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. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Accusations section[edit]

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[edit]

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). Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 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. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 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. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 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[edit]

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. Star of David.png 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[edit]

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. Star of David.png 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[edit]

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. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:38, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

He's a Christian?[edit]

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?[edit]

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[edit]

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)