Is George W Bush a complete moron ?

[Boerseun]

Wanna try to justify calling it "Arab territory?" It was the Jews territory going back nearly to pre-history...

"Why should we move? We were here first!" is a line uttered by both Jews and non-Jews, both today and 3,000 years ago.

 

Jerusalem is one of the oldest cosmopolitan cities in the world. There has never in the history of this planet been a time when the territory covered by modern Israel have been an exclusive Jewish- or non-Jewish nation, state or territory. And there's the rub.

 

Although, it was achieve once, in the Old Testament, where the Jews, after an absence of 400 years in their self-imposed Egyptian exile, decided to move back to Israel and clear the land of all non-Jews. This was achieved via a very well described methodical process of genocide. The Jews moved from town to town, killing every single non-Jew throughout the land today known as Israel. I suppose that's one way of creating an exlusively Jewish state. But - a few years later, the non-Jews were back. So, for a very, very short time, the area was indeed Jewish. After the Jews got it through that dispiccable solution, namely genocide. They applied the "Final Solution" to the Arab problem, after they willingly abandoned their territory for 400 years - before which, they lived in peace with the Arabs/non-Jews.

 

My point is that absolutely no nation or people have any exclusive claim on the territory known as Israel or even Palestine. Regardless of what happened "near pre-history". It is actually the almost "pre-historical" documents of the Old Testament that is so damning to the Jewish claim to the territory.

 

But coming back to the topic of this thread:

 

Yes, George Bush is a complete moron.

[Qfwfq]

In many ways it is and always has been about Israel.

Cart before the horse. Isreal was just one step in the whole, millenia long ME saga.

 

...so the victorious Europeans gave the surviving Jews a huge chunk of Arab territory as a consolation prize.

The League of Nations had assigned a smaller area than what is now Israel but the Zionists had different ideas and were given aid by people most of whom weren't quite Europeans.

 

Just doesn't make much, if any sense.

I agree with this, I'd also say this whole discussion is quite off topic. Wasn't this thread about colonizing Mars?

[jackson33]

In many ways it is and always has been about Israel. I do not bear no grudges against Israel, but by the same token I owe them no favors or allegiances.

 

politics is a giant chess game, more often than not one must sacrifice a few, even many pieces to win the game....unfortunately when it comes to politics "pawns" = people and the higher ranking pieces = states.

 

Secondly, look at it from the Middle Eastern people's perspective, especially the Palestinians. A bunch of Europeans tried to genocide a bunch of Jews out of Existence, those Europeans lost, so the victorious Europeans gave the surviving Jews a huge chunk of Arab territory as a consolation prize.

 

Just doesn't make much, if any sense.

 

well, the plight of the Jew's is a matter the world peoples have to consider.

since they were given that "HUGE? chuck", suffered at the hand of Germany and are so hated by extreme Muslim factions and are a limited total of the area, their safety is the responsibility of those that granted that chunk.

 

I do look at the Middle Eastern people every day over what is offered as news. the only opinion i can form is they seem to hate everybody, especially themselves. how many opinions can be drawn from one persons writings from a world 600AD can there be...

 

politics or governing of people is something hard to understand. there is no way i would want to involve myself in the process. todays its the global warming issue, capitalism, free markets, wealth or prosperity and a host of other issues which to me are not political. in the US, what is governments responsibility was laid out in a definitive manner. as we slowly lose the intent of those that set out our path we will lose our cultural value.

[Moontanman]

Don't just spout 'what', spout 'how' as well. The U.S. itself is not a temperate forest region so expanding the global forest in the U.S. is not an efficient proposal. Even if the U.S. planted all of it's open space with plant life it does not have the optimal climate to support it. Countries that are temperate forest regions with better climates are busy harvesting more forest than they're renewing. Are you suggesting that we force these countries to reverese this process?

 

Countries like China and India are busy ramping up their industrial processes and their consumption of fossil fuels as well. They also don't have optimal regions for offsetting their consumption through forestation. Compounding the problem in all of these countries is their location on the globe. Each has regions far enough north to consume large quantities of heating fuel in the winter and regions far enough south to consume huge amounts of energy for air conditioning in the summer. With population growth and growing commercialism these consumption rates will soar far faster than any forest could be regrown to offset them.

 

At some point mankind's consumption will exceed that which the planet can supply or recover from. Should we wait until then with trying to learn how to branch out into space? That may be too late....

 

How can you say that clay? Originally at least half to two thirds of the US was under deep forests, close to a third or more still is. I live on the east coast, I grew up in the mountians of West Virginia, lots more forest here than you give credit for. The west coast has lots of forest as well. Yes the plains do not have the correct weather for forests but they are not most of the US. Sadly very little of this forest is old growth but that cannot be changed now. most lumber in the east comes from tree farms. I live near many thousabnds of square miles of tree farms. many people are unaware of them because most think they are natural forests. you can alwasy tell because tree farms have all the trees lined up in unnatural rows. the long needle pines are made into lumber for housing and replanted as soon as they are cut in a continuos process. Sadly out west much natural forest is still being cut for lumber that isn't any better than tree farm lumber. But to thier credit they do replant but those trees grow much more slowly than the pines in this subtropical area.

 

michael

[InfiniteNow]

Currently, human population growth seems analoguous to a virus sprending across the planet (our host). We are growing and eating and growing and using and growing and throwing away... Oil is but one (although large) part of the equation. We need a major societal shift in our thinking.

 

Where does change begin? With each of us. We have to educate ourselves and those around us to make better choices. We need new ideas and solutions, and we need to share them with everyone around us so the collective input will generate even better ideas and solutions. We need our reptilian brains to catch up to our mathematical abstractions in the evolution of our species and our society.

 

It will take more than one human at the top to make the change. However, if that one human were a true leader with a vision that made sense to all, whose belief was supported with evidence and facts and intelligence, then others would follow.

Others would walk beside them.

[Buffy]

My point is that absolutely no nation or people have any exclusive claim on the territory known as Israel or even Palestine.

...and there you have it....sounds like several somebodies need to learn how to share. Much to the chagrin of the Neo-cons, it sounds like the Labor party (those cheese eating accomodationists as Netannutball would probably put it) is on a major comeback with Peres voted in as President and their own Barak (Ehud, not Obama) on the way to PM....will the Palestinians continue to go hardline Hamas or "collaborationist" Fatah?

But coming back to the topic of this thread:

 

Yes, George Bush is a complete moron.

Wait, is it "moron" or "Martian?"

 

After all as a very wise man once told me, the chicken is not infrequently the true dove of peace, :phones:

Buffy

[TheBigDog]

No, by no measure that I am aware of could President Bush be classified as a complete moron. Such a conclusion is only reached by those abandoning reason for emotional ranting. But that is probably the supposition of this thread to begin with.

 

Bill

[InfiniteNow]

No, by no measure that I am aware of could President Bush be classified as a complete moron. Such a conclusion is only reached by those abandoning reason for emotional ranting. But that is probably the supposition of this thread to begin with.

 

Bill

 

Quite a bold and generalizing statement considering that this thread now has 17 pages of posts, and many members have acknowledged that he is not a moron, but clearly not is what's best for this country or this planet.

[TheBigDog]

Quite a bold and generalizing statement considering that this thread now has 17 pages of posts, and many members have acknowledged that he is not a moron, but clearly not is what's best for this country or this planet.

So, you agree with me then?

[TheFaithfulStone]

Do the decisions reached by George W. Bush seem to be the polar opposite from what I consider to be my well reasoned opinion on the matter?

 

Um...

 

Check.

 

TFS

[TheBigDog]

Are you cherry picking the decisions? I think you will find he has a great deal of common ground with you on some issues. Other issues you are obviously at odds with one another. But even then you need to look at the nature of the opposition. Are you trying to achieve the same thing and disagreeing on how to achieve it, or do you want different things?

 

*Complete* is a tough order to fill.

 

Bill

[TheFaithfulStone]

If I was gonna parse carefully, then I'd say "I didn't say 'complete' or 'all' I just said 'decisions'." :lol:

 

But then I'd be playing Bill Clinton - who I disagree with only slightly less than George W. Bush.

 

I guess it depends on what your definition of "Is" is?

 

Anyway, the tounge, it was in a cheekly position.

 

TFS

[InfiniteNow]

There are three classes of people: those who see, those who see when they are shown, those who do not see.

~ Leonardo da Vinci

[Buffy]

No, by no measure that I am aware of could President Bush be classified as a complete moron.

Actually, I think his level of intelligence and the internal logic of his decisions put him in the mainstream of America, and I think his social quotient--and why he's such a successful frat boy--are well above normal.

 

What I do believe is that he is 1) incurious about the ramifications of his conclusions as the Decider-In-Chief, 2) his compassion extends only to the moneyed elite that he grew up with and those actions that he sees as making him look compassionate, 3) he is so thin skinned that he will lash out at people he needs to cooperate with (like his own party), simply because he's mad at them, and 4) concerned mostly with being right and doing so by never, ever, ever changing his mind no matter how badly he knows he's screwed up.

 

If he was a moron, I could feel sorry for him....

 

I actually do agree with much of his Immigration bill, but he's squandered so much of his political capital in his *own* party, that he'll never get it passed even with the full support of the "Democrat Party".

 

I forgive you for being a 28 percenter, Bill!

 

Willing to admit being wrong,

Buffy

[Boerseun]

The danger, of course, being that seeing as this is his second term, he doesn't give a hoot for re-election, and can go balls-to-the-wall in this ego-stroking presidency of his. Vetoing budgets as approved by (a now Democratic) Senate just because he can, is myopic and moronic, although calling Bush a moron might be a bit of an insult to morons.

 

That, of course, is my personal opinion. Whether I'm a member of the moronic set that would be offended with Bush's inclusion is up to you to decide. However, the opposite is also true.

[Zythryn]

I don't question his intelligence, I question his wisdom.

[jackson33]

GW Bush, as Governor of Texas, prided himself in working with the loyal opposition. he even used the idea in campaigning for the presidency in declaring his *Conservative with compassion* notion. when he took office, he declared a new tone in Washington, which apparently has not worked. Ma Richards asked how he won the governorship said "his conviction, when he makes a statement he sticks with it", which on the Federal level only works when historians years from now will judge his efforts. he as a person IMO has been forced to make many decisions which on the outside seem a little over the limits of what can be accomplished. others, even some i disagree with *amnesty*, *education reform* seem based on the only logical way to solve some problems. even other perceived problems, Katrina, Rumsfeld, Gonzales were not problems at all but the movements of the highly organized "loyal opposition" via their media sources and the inside the beltway political structure.

 

i am not sure where wisdom can be applied to what a president must decide and act on and a decision must be based on convictions. the wise thing in most cases, are to do nothing, let some other nation or people act on the problem when ever possible. FDR did this and the problem almost became insurmountable by 75% of the world people and destructive to the entire world. as for intelligence, he has had the best and brightest to draw from, with the experience to evaluate, solve and limit countless problems which never made the headlines.

 

Buffy; 1-he is the decider in chief. the buck stops there or would you prefer he pass the issue off. 2-faith based assistance, aids in Africa, countless emergency aid, even when questionable are not to the rich. 3-4 i have addressed.