President Bush: Is He a Liar?

Intrepid wrote:

Not a problem for me. It does, however, indicate that he is using his brother for his own ends.

Explain. Do you think everybody doing business with Dubai is arranged by the President? Does the story indicate that? How do you make that leap?

0 Replies

Bill's brother sounds like a bit of a dick.

But the elder Bush is a different sort of fish. First, there was the Savings and Loan matter which cost a lot of people their lives' savings. Then there was the prostitute incident which I don't care about except that he was in Bejing doing business deals with the families of the folks running China (nasty commie pinkos). The significant point here isn't the misbehavior of a politician's brother, it is the oligharical nature of the Bush family and all its financial/power connections, to the Arab world, to unsavory dictators, and to the folks in china.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Intrepid wrote:
Not a problem for me. It does, however, indicate that he is using his brother for his own ends.

Explain. Do you think everybody doing business with Dubai is arranged by the President? Does the story indicate that? How do you make that leap?

Foxfyre wrote:

Quote:

And Roger Clinton was no more pertinent to the politics of his day than Neil Bush is to his wouldn't you say? Except perhaps that Roger did try to use his brother's power/influence for this own ends. There is no evidence that Neil Bush has done that.

When he make photo opps where the fact that he is George's brother is made very well known I would say that he is using his brother's power to some degree.

I am wondering why you knock Roger Clinton for doing similar things to Neil Bush but only question what is written about Neil Bush.

I have no axe to grind in either instance, but what is good for the goose.....

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Intrepid wrote:
Not a problem for me. It does, however, indicate that he is using his brother for his own ends.

Explain. Do you think everybody doing business with Dubai is arranged by the President? Does the story indicate that? How do you make that leap?

Foxfyre wrote:

Quote:
And Roger Clinton was no more pertinent to the politics of his day than Neil Bush is to his wouldn't you say? Except perhaps that Roger did try to use his brother's power/influence for this own ends. There is no evidence that Neil Bush has done that.

When he make photo opps where the fact that he is George's brother is made very well known I would say that he is using his brother's power to some degree.

I am wondering why you knock Roger Clinton for doing similar things to Neil Bush but only question what is written about Neil Bush.

I have no axe to grind in either instance, but what is good for the goose.....

But aren't you supposing/speculating that Neil Bush makes photo opps as the President's brother for his (Neil's) own personal gain? Or is that the way it has been depicted? Can you back that up with other verification?

Is there any incident where the President, in his capacity as President, has done any favors for Neil or any of Neil's associates for profit or any other reason?

At least there is media evidence that Bill Clinton's brother and Hillary Clinton's brothers did use, or attempted to use, the President's powers for their own advantage. Is there such media evidence related to Neil?

And what is this sudden fascination with Neil Bush anyway. Has he been elected to any offlicial office or appointed to any official position? If not, and he has obtained no special favors from his brother, what difference does it make if he is a creep?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Quote:

And what is this sudden fascination with Neil Bush anyway. Has he been elected to any offlicial office or appointed to any official position? If not, and he has obtained no special favors from his brother, what difference does it make if he is a creep?

Exactly. Um, it was you who brought up Roger Clinton in the first place. As far as I'm concerned this direction is not productive to the topic at hand and I will leave it at that. I think I have made my point. :wink:

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Quote:
And what is this sudden fascination with Neil Bush anyway. Has he been elected to any offlicial office or appointed to any official position? If not, and he has obtained no special favors from his brother, what difference does it make if he is a creep?

Exactly. Um, it was you who brought up Roger Clinton in the first place. As far as I'm concerned this direction is not productive to the topic at hand and I will leave it at that. I think I have made my point. :wink:

Well no, I didn't bring up Roger Clinton, somebody else did to counter somebody else using Neil to bash the President. But I did include Hillary's brothers in the mix.

I do think it is significant if siblings use the Presidential powers for their own benefit, and this could be suspect. There is evidence that Bill and Hillary Clinton's relatives did do this. And depending on what favors they received, that might or might not be in the public interest.

I don't think there is any evidence that Neil Bush has done this. I therefore don't see how Neil is pertinent in any way other than as fodder for yellow journalism in the tabloids.

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Quote:
And what is this sudden fascination with Neil Bush anyway. Has he been elected to any offlicial office or appointed to any official position? If not, and he has obtained no special favors from his brother, what difference does it make if he is a creep?

Exactly. Um, it was you who brought up Roger Clinton in the first place. As far as I'm concerned this direction is not productive to the topic at hand and I will leave it at that. I think I have made my point. :wink:

Actually, I thought I brought up Roger Clinton. I brought up Roger Clinton in reaction to someone bringing up Neil Bush. As far as I'm concerned, if we are going to talk about one President's relatives, it makes as much sense to talk about other President's relatives .... which ain't a whole lot of sense, BTW.

0 Replies

One difference here is that Neil Bush, in his diminished capacity, thinks that he is entitled to the free money and prostitutes. The others mentioned are just scoundrels.

Do you recall the film, "Forrest Gump?" My question is who inspired the film, George or Neil Bush?

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

One difference here is that Neil Bush, in his diminished capacity, thinks that he is entitled to the free money and prostitutes. The others mentioned are just scoundrels.

Do you recall the film, "Forrest Gump?" My question is who inspired the film, George or Neil Bush?

Well that's just silly, Advocate.

Among embarassing relatives of Presidents though, Neil has the dubious distinction of the being the relative of not one, but two Presidents of the United States. And if Jeb Bush moves on up the ladder to the Presidency, make that three. That's a record unlikely to be broken in our lifetime. Smile

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Intrepid wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:

Quote:
And what is this sudden fascination with Neil Bush anyway. Has he been elected to any offlicial office or appointed to any official position? If not, and he has obtained no special favors from his brother, what difference does it make if he is a creep?

Exactly. Um, it was you who brought up Roger Clinton in the first place. As far as I'm concerned this direction is not productive to the topic at hand and I will leave it at that. I think I have made my point. :wink:

Actually, I thought I brought up Roger Clinton. I brought up Roger Clinton in reaction to someone bringing up Neil Bush. As far as I'm concerned, if we are going to talk about one President's relatives, it makes as much sense to talk about other President's relatives .... which ain't a whole lot of sense, BTW.

I agree, Tico.

My apologies to you for not giving you credit where credit is due and my apologies to Foxfyre for mistakingly attributing this silliness to her.

Embarrassed

0 Replies

Quote:

And if Jeb Bush moves on up the ladder to the Presidency

No

0 Replies

That would be no worse than the continuation of the sleaziest Dynasty in Modern History- The Clintons. I can't bear to think of a possibility that Billary Rodham Clinton would make it!!!

0 Replies

George Bush; lie by lie.

http://www.motherjones.com/bush_war_timeline/

0 Replies

BernardR wrote:

That would be no worse than the continuation of the sleaziest Dynasty in Modern History- The Clintons. I can't bear to think of a possibility that Billary Rodham Clinton would make it!!!

Why?

A - Because she is a Democrate?

B - Because she is a Clinton?

C - Because she is a woman?

D - Because she is smarter than George Bush?

E - All of the above?

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

BernardR wrote:
That would be no worse than the continuation of the sleaziest Dynasty in Modern History- The Clintons. I can't bear to think of a possibility that Billary Rodham Clinton would make it!!!

Why?

A - Because she is a Democrate?

B - Because she is a Clinton?

C - Because she is a woman?

D - Because she is smarter than George Bush?

E - All of the above?

You missed one

F - Her misguided politics and devotion to fringe politics.

E - Her lust for power that has left many skeletons yet uncovered.

G - Her lack of ethics and a stable platform.

0 Replies

E, F & G is three, not one. Smile

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Intrepid wrote:
BernardR wrote:
That would be no worse than the continuation of the sleaziest Dynasty in Modern History- The Clintons. I can't bear to think of a possibility that Billary Rodham Clinton would make it!!!

Why?

A - Because she is a Democrate?

B - Because she is a Clinton?

C - Because she is a woman?

D - Because she is smarter than George Bush?

E - All of the above?

You missed one

F - Her misguided politics and devotion to fringe politics.

E - Her lust for power that has left many skeletons yet uncovered.

G - Her lack of ethics and a stable platform.

If you substitute him for her in F, E and G you would be talking about George Bush.

0 Replies

Back to the original question, Yes Bush is a liar, but well intentioned. God tells him what to say because Bush can't trust us with the truth (at least he thinks it's God speaking to him). There haven't been many Presidents selected by God, crap I didn't know God could vote.

0 Replies

George Bush is proof that God has a sense of humour.

0 Replies

Reminds me of H.L. Mencken (1880-1956), he once remarked that "time is the great legalizer, even in the field of morals". I can't recall the remark he made about what it would take to make American's happy regarding the selection of a President, but I think it had something to do with selecting a dullard or moron. Anybody remember the Mencken line????

0 Replies

President Bush: Is He a Liar?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know