| Home | Community | Message Board |
|
You are not signed in. Sign In New Account | Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery » |
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
NextShop:  Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder  Kratom Capsules for Sale, Red Vein Kratom |
| |||||||
 Phred Fred's son   Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
|
I can't be bothered to dig up the threads where various Shroomery members have posted the George W. Bush "Resum?" in this forum, but I am pretty sure most of the regular readers have seen it -- if not here than elsewhere. It has been pretty widely circulated.
One of the most notable attributes of this "resum?" is its complete lack of sources backing its many claims. Well, today I found a link to a guy who has spent considerable time researching each and every claim in the "resum?". He has provided numerous links for anyone who wants to verify what he found. I want to go on record for the umpteenth time as stating that I am certainly far from a fan of George W. Bush, although I must reluctantly admit that he turned out to be a slightly better president than I had expected him to be when he first took office. However, I believe in criticizing him for what he actually did (or failed to do) rather than blindly accepting as gospel all the Bush-bashing drivel out there on the Web and elsewhere. I invite all of you who claim to be "open-minded" -- all those who claim your antipathy to Bush is based on a careful review of the facts; all those who claim to be immune to influence by "propaganda" either pro- or anti-Bush; all those who claim to be able to resist "media brainwashing" -- to take the time to read the information you will find at this link -- http://www.crossbearer.com/resume/The_Truth.pdf It is a .pdf file, so you will need Adobe Acrobat Reader to view it, but we all have Acrobat Reader, do we not? I await the resulting discussion with great anticipation. pinky -------------------- 
| |||||||
DoctorJ  Registered: 06/30/03 Posts: 8,846 Loc: space Last seen: 1 year, 5 months |
| ||||||
|
yeah I got this in the mail and sent it out to my friends, but I did take a few things out first that were blatantly false.
like that whole "amending the constitution" thing... everyone knows the constitution hasnt been amended for quite some time, and if it were to happen it would be Congress's job. Maybe the author of the resome wouldve been more correct if he said "Bush spearheaded a lot of arguably unconstitutional laws, ie Patriot Act" Also that "I started the first shadow govt..." the first? yeah right as much as I wanted to believe all this bad stuff about bush it was real obvious that the document was flawed and only a source of entertainment at best. If anything, its circulation weakens the anti-bush position.
| |||||||
 Cracka_X Spiritual Dirt Worshipper    Registered: 01/25/03 Posts: 8,808 Loc: Swamp |
| ||||||
|
good link
-------------------- The best way to live is to be like water For water benefits all things and goes against none of them It provides for all people and even cleanses those places a man is loath to go In this way it is just like Tao ~Daodejing
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
|
Hmmm.
In the 52 hours since this was posted, not a single one of the many regulars here who were sniggling in delight and high-fiving each other in orgies of self-congratulatory smugness over their wit in posting the "George W. Bush Resum?" for the umpteenth time have seen fit to comment on its thorough debunking? How odd. How totally unexpected. Speak up, folks -- the silence is deafening. pinky --------------------
| |||||||
|
Anonymous |
| ||||||
|
sniggling in delight and high-fiving each other in orgies of self-congratulatory smugness
hahaha.
| |||||||
|
Dava journeyman Registered: 03/02/03 Posts: 80 Loc: Belgium Last seen: 11 years, 5 months |
| ||||||
Quote: I guess you can say the same about the thread "Where are the answers to these questions" regarding to the 9-11-event. People dont just like to read big chunks of texts and debunk them. But cheer on! Whatever makes your day  -------------------- "These psychedelic substances cause hysterical psychoses in people who have not taken them..." - Timothy Leary
| |||||||
|
EchoVortex (hard) member Registered: 02/06/02 Posts: 859 Last seen: 15 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
Quote: My lord, who is being smug now? First of all, nobody in his right mind is going to waste precious hours of his life debunking a 28-page behemoth of a debunking. You didn't waste YOUR time properly debunking the resume, did you? You just waited for somebody else to do it. As far as the debunking itself goes, it is just as riddled with exaggerations and ellisions and distortions of truth as the resume itself. The only difference was the the resume was quite obviously a work of "HUMOR", half fact and half exaggeration. The resume form in the first person makes this clear. I'm just going to address a handful of the points made in the "debunking" and leave it at that. I'm not going to waste any more of my time than necessary on this foolishness. Ran for congress and lost. Every president in modern history has lost an election at some point: Clinton -- Clinton lost his bid for reelection for Arkansas governor in 1980 Bush, Sr. ? Lost to Clinton in bid for reelection in 1992 Reagan ? Lost race for GOP nomination in 1976 Carter ? Lost to Reagan in bid for reelection in 1980. Ford ? Lost to Carter in bid for reelection in 1976. Nixon ? Lost race for presidency in 1960 The author does nothing to disprove or debunk the point. Bush DID run for congress and DID lose. The author is merely trying to downplay this embarassment by pointing out that other former presidents have also lost elections (although generally in much more competitive races, such as that for the presidency itself). Bought an oil company, but couldn't find any oil in Texas, company went bankrupt shortly after I sold all my stock. Bush was not a tremendous success in the oil business. But the allegation here appears to be that Bush sold his stock to ?cash out? before the company went bankrupt. Bush sold his stock for $4.00 per share. A year later, the stock was valued at $8.00 per share. The company, Harken Energy Corporation, is still functioning. (http://www.harkenenergy.com/) More info: http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/05/13/president.2000/jackson.bush/ Here, the author selectively cherry-picks evidence to make Bush look okay. He has an obvious agenda, just as the authors of the "resume" did. Once again, the difference is that the author here claims to be "objective" (he goes so far, in fact, as to call his whitewash screed "The Truth"). The reason that Harken didn't go out of business was because Harvard University bailed it out. Here's an article: Harvard Was Unlikely Savior Of Bush Energy Firm Harken By Glenn R. Simpson The Wall Street Journal October 9, 2002 When the small company that helped make George W. Bush a multimillionaire verged on bankruptcy in 1990, newly unearthed documents show an unlikely financial archangel came to the rescue: Harvard University. It long has been known that the school's endowment arm, Harvard Management Co., was a major investor in Harken Energy Corp. But the documents reveal two heretofore little-noticed deals, both endorsed by Mr. Bush, to allow the Texas firm to stave off creditors. One, critical to the company's survival, involved a partnership used to move troubled assets and large debts off the company's balance sheet -- much like the controversial investments that Enron Corp. set up before it filed for bankruptcy-court protection. At the time, one of the Harvard endowment's most influential board members was a political supporter of then-President George H.W. Bush, the current president's father. One result of the deal: The current president avoided damaging his credibility as a businessman. Unlike many of Enron's deals, Harken disclosed its transactions to investors and the Securities and Exchange Commission and complied with accounting rules. Mr. Bush didn't profit personally from the subsequent boost in Harken's stock because he already had sold most of his shares to fund a lucrative investment in the Texas Rangers baseball team. IVY LEAGUE CONNECTIONS Harvard University's endowment helped Harken Energy when the firm, of which George W. Bush was a director, needed it. Key events in Harken's relationship with Harvard and Bush, along with Harken's stock price. 1. Sept. 19, 1986: Harken agrees to acquire Spectrum 7 Energy Corp., where George W. Bush is chairman. Bush becomes a Harken board member and $100,00-a-year consultant. 2. Oct. 15, 1986: Harvard agrees to buy 1.35 million shares of Harken for $2 million and invest another $20 million in Harken projects. 3. June 15, 1989: Citing the "positive image" Bush helped create for Harken, chairman Mikel Faulker extends Bush's consulting agreement. 4. May 20, 1990: Harken officials warn board the company is about to runout of cash. 5. Aug. 17, 1990: First City agrees to refinance Harken's debts. 6. Aug. 20, 1990: Harken discloses loss of $23 million. 7. Nov. 30, 1990: Harken transfers $20 million in debts to Harvard partnership, eliminates another $16 million in debt by transferring assets to Harvard. 8. September 1991: Harvard begins selling Harken stock at more than $6 a share, receiving $7.4 million over the next 12 months. Source: Thomson Datastream The partnership deal is notable in the context of President Bush's drive to reform corporate standards in response to a string of accounting scandals. The Harken deal was designed to raise money without incurring new debt or selling stock. It did so by exploiting "a fundamental weakness in accounting rules" by moving the deal off its balance sheet, said Rice University accounting expert Dala Bharan, who reviewed the transactions for The Wall Street Journal. Mr. Bush was then a $100,000-a-year consultant to Harken and the board member who made the motion to approve a partnership that seemed to benefit Harken far more than Harvard. Harvard has said it made a small profit from the association. White House spokesman Dan Bartlett says the partnership was Harvard's idea and the school "basically dictated the terms of the investment." He said Harvard began talks with Harken in April 1986, well before Mr. Bush joined Harken. "The original relationship had nothing to do with President Bush," he said. He referred questions about the matter to Harken and Harvard. Neither responded to letters and phone calls. Mr. Bush ended up at Harken as a result of a series of sales of the oil company he founded after earning a master's degree from Harvard Business School. Just after Mr. Bush joined Harken's board, Harvard Management became one of its biggest backers, ultimately buying 30% of its stock, loaning it millions of dollars and transferring oil properties to it. Harken's good fortune after Mr. Bush joined often has been questioned by political opponents. The firm bested bigger rivals to obtain drilling rights from the Bahrain government in early 1990. But the Bahrain deal did little to improve its short-term finances, which were in a perilous state. The board meeting minutes from that July said the company's primary objective was to "avoid default." The company's response to the crisis is detailed in records recently gathered from the Securities and Exchange Commission and elsewhere by HarvardWatch, a student and alumni group, and the nonpartisan Center for Public Integrity. Harken was already technically in default at that point, according to other company records, because it had failed to abide by equity requirements in loan agreements with its two primary banks. One, Bank of Boston, was demanding immediate payment, but the other, First City Bancorp, agreed to take over Bank of Boston loans. At the time, First City was controlled by Robert Abboud, another supporter of the senior Mr. Bush who attended a White House event 10 days before that bailout's approval. In an interview, Mr. Abboud said Harvard's backing was a key factor in First City's decision to approve the Harken bailout and that it wasn't influenced by his relationship with the then-president. But that deal still left Harken with crushing debt. At the July 1990 board meeting, Mr. Bush and the other directors decided to "establish a 'joint venture' " with Harvard Management's venture-capital arm, Aeneas Venture Corp., the minutes say. At the next month's meeting, Harken President Mikel Faulkner laid out a proposal to form a partnership with Aeneas that would take on much of Harken's debt, moving it off the balance sheet. The proposal also provided Harken with desperately needed cash, in the form of fees to manage the new entity. "After discussion, upon motion being made by Mr. Bush," the minutes say, the board unanimously agreed to open negotiations with Harvard. A partnership deal was struck shortly thereafter. Harken contributed $20 million in debt and liabilities, plus a group of poorly performing oil-drilling assets valued at $26 million -- many of them in Oklahoma's Anadarko basin -- for a net of $6 million. Harvard's Aeneas contributed $64.5 million of its drilling assets, 91% of the investment, but agreed to accept just 84% of the so-called Harken Anadarko Partnership's earnings. The deal immediately helped Harken's cash flow, bringing in $100,000 a month in management fees, and drilling and servicing fees of more than $3 million in the first year. Harken also retained cash from a $7.5 million bank loan that the partnership was required to repay. "It seems to be a simple case of Aeneas bailing out Harken," said Mr. Dharan, an accounting professor at Rice University's Jones Graduate School of Management. Because Harken owned less than 20% of the partnership, it no longer was required under accounting rules to include the debts and assets on its balance sheet. Mr. Dharan argues that a true reflection of Harken's financial health would have included them. In effect, the partnership raised money without taking on new debt. Still more help from Harvard came in an almost simultaneous deal to extinguish another $16.2 million that Harken owed its Aeneas arm from a previous venture. The company allowed Harken to pay off the note with assets valued at just $14.5 million. The moves led to a gradual recovery in Harken's stock price, which was $1.25 a share at the end of 1990. In 1991, thanks to the prospect of a Bahrain strike and Harken's much-improved balance sheet, the price topped $8, prompting Harvard to begin selling its Harken shares. It sold 1.63 million shares valued at $7.47 million over the next year. Current and former Harvard officials declined to comment publicly on the Harken transactions for this story or said they remember little about the matter. Harken had several connections to Harvard, including business-school diplomas held by Mr. Bush and another Harken board member, Alan Quasha. The person with the most influence over the endowment for decades has been Robert Stone Jr., an oil man on Harvard Management's board whom former Harvard executives described as the driving force behind its energy investments. It is unclear whether the Bush and Stone families were personally acquainted, but they were politically aligned. A sometime resident -- like the Bush family -- of Greenwich, Conn., and Houston, Mr. Stone was a financial supporter of the senior Mr. Bush when he ran for president in 1979, as was his father, siblings and executives at his oil and gas company. Mr. Stone and his wife, Marion, also contributed to the senior Mr. Bush's successful 1988 run. Over a two-month period, Mr. Stone didn't respond to numerous messages left with the receptionist in his New York office. Copyright ? 2002 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. Link Also, he fails the reproduce the concluding paragraph of the CNN link that he provided. Here it is: "So Bush the businessman did prosper. But not by his bootstraps -- with help from wealthy friends and taxpayer subsidies." May 19, 2003 Page 6 of 28 Attacked and took over two countries. Afghanistan?s Taliban regime was displaced by US intervention in 2002. A government led by Afghans is currently in power: http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/central/06/13/afghan.council/index.html As to why we ?attacked and took over? in Afghanistan, I refer you to the 2000 report by Amnesty International: ?Human rights abuses by the warring factions against members of rival ethnic groups occurred throughout 1999. Taleban forces burned homes, destroyed orchards, wheat fields and irrigation systems and forcibly displaced more than 100,000 mainly Tajik people. The UN imposed financial and aviation sanctions on the Taleban for not surrendering Osama bin Laden to stand trial for his alleged involvement in US embassy bombings in August 1998. Women, children, human rights defenders, members of ethnic groups, people accused of homosexual activity, and refugees were systematically targeted by the Taleban and other warring factions on the basis of their identity. Taleban courts imposed sentences of death, amputation and flogging after apparently unfair trials.? (http://www.web.amnesty.org/web/ar2000web.nsf/countries/f45d4bd4ae8ee428802568f 200552988?OpenDocument) As for Iraq, we removed Saddam Hussein from power. Here are just a couple of articles detailing the abuses of his regime: http://www.web.amnesty.org/web/ar2000web.nsf/countries/24fe8ccc9d037845802568f2 00552932?OpenDocument http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/si_online/news/2003/03/24/son_of_saddam/ But the reason we gave for attacking Iraq was Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) and violation of the UN resolutions 660, 678, and 1441. Here?s the evidence for that: The United States has documented violations of these UN resolutions since the end of Desert Storm in 1991. In fact, UN Ambassador Bill Richardson, of the Clinton Administration, testified in 1997 about the Iraqi non-compliance: http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1997/11/97111011_tpo.html The Bush administration laid out its case for the Iraqi invasion by detailing each UN resolution and the UN?s own conclusion that said resolutions had been violated: http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect2.html First of all, an Afghan government is not currently "in power" by any reasonable definition of that word. That government would collapse exactly one nanosecond after US forces left. That government only exerts authority in those areas where US forces are present, Kabul more or less. Second, the author can still argue with a straight face that weapons of mass destruction were the reason to invade Iraq. The fact remains that the United States DID attack (use military force against) and invade (enter a sovereign state by use of force) two countries. ? Spent the surplus and bankrupted the treasury. As a quick reading of the Constitution will attest, the President has no power to spend. That power lies with Congress. ? Shattered record for biggest annual deficit in history. Again, spending power resides with Congress. The author fails to mention that both houses of Congress are controlled by Republicans. He also fails to mention that the White House submits and oversees the budget. Given the fact that Bush submitted these budgets to a Congress controlled by the party of which he is the de facto, if not the titular, leader, he may take responsibility for the fiscal crisis. May 19, 2003 Page 10 of 28 ? In my first two years in office over 2 million Americans lost their job. President Bush took office in January 2001. The Bureau of Labor Statistics has data for 2001 and 2002 on their web site: http://data.bls.gov/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=L NU03000000&years_option=all_years&periods_option=specific_periods&periods=Annu al+Data If you assume that GWB is responsible for what happened in 2001, which I believe is a faulty assumption, then 2.5 million Americans were added to the unemployment rolls during his first two years in office. I suggest that the 2001 statistics probably should be attributed to Clinton policies, though that is a subject for some debate. Are 2.5 million jobs lost in two years unprecedented in history? Hardly. Here are some other examples of such a drop: 1954: 1.7 million added to the unemployment rolls (1.04% of the population) 1958: 1.7 million added to the unemployment rolls (.97% of the population) 1970-1971: 2.2 million added to the unemployment rolls (1.05% of the population) 1974-1975: 3.6 million added to the unemployment rolls (1.67% of the population) 1981-1982: 2.4 million added to the unemployment rolls (1.02% of the population) 1991-1992: 2.6 million added to the unemployment rolls (1.02% of the population) I tried the link that author provided, but either it was broken or didn?t exist in the first place. I went to Bureau of Labor Statistics and called up their employment figures. Here is what I found: In January 2001 there were 5.95 million unemployed in the United States. In August 2003, that number was 8.91 million. In January 2001 the unemployment rate was 4.1%. In August 2003 that rate was 6.1%. What the author also fails to mention is that, although particular years may have seen sharper increases in unemployment, Bush is the first president to preside over a NET loss in jobs during the course of a presidential term since Hoover. See here: http://money.cnn.com/2003/09/05/news/economy/jobs/ ? First president in US history to enter office with a criminal record. I will not dispute that President Bush was arrested in 1976 for driving under the influence. He has admitted it, though understandably he didn?t volunteer the information. For a complete story, here?s a link: http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/02/bush.dui/ will leave it up to the reader to determine what other presidents have had such indiscretions, yet were never caught. Once again, this is not a debunking but an apologia. Bush WAS arrested for DUI, and the author is simply trying to excuse his actions with the outrageous plea that "well, other presidents have PROBABLY done the same kinds of things but just not gotten caught, so why not forgive and forget?" You call THIS a debunking? Give me a break. This is all the time I'm going to waste on this trivial nonsense. The "resume" certainly wasn't a 100% factual document, but at least it was clearly a form of humorous political propaganda and made no bones about the fact. This joker claims to be giving us "The Truth" when all he's doing is just producing more spin.
| |||||||
Learyfan It's the psychedelic movement!  Registered: 04/20/01 Posts: 34,212 Loc: High pride! Last seen: 6 hours, 56 minutes |
| ||||||
|
I always thought it wasn't very credible. It said he directed a B-movie.
 
-------------------- -------------------------------- Mp3 of the month: Sons Of Adam - Feathered Fish 
| |||||||
|
infidelGOD illusion  Registered: 04/18/02 Posts: 3,040 Loc: there |
| ||||||
|
THIS JUST IN:
Curt King (the author of that article) finds numerous factual descrepencies in articles of the publication The Onion!!! Read as he systematically deconstructs their LIES point by point. Don't be FOOLED. He's done the research necessary to prove most every article in The Onion to be undeniably false! below are his findings: www.crossbearer.com/evenmoredumbbullshit/THE_TRUTH!!!!!!!!!!!.pdf
| |||||||
|
EchoVortex (hard) member Registered: 02/06/02 Posts: 859 Last seen: 15 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
Quote: ROTFLMAO 
| |||||||
| |||||||
Edit 
Reply 
| Shop: Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder Kratom Capsules for Sale, Red Vein Kratom |
|
| Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
 |
 |
My father crapped bigger ones than George Bush |  fft2 |
766 | 3 | 06/17/04 08:44 PM by Anonymous |
|
 |
George Bush to WHO: Junk food is good for you (  1 2 all ) |
 carbonhoots |
3,326 | 32 | 01/24/04 02:19 PM by carbonhoots |
|
 |
George Bush Causes Hurricanes |  1stimer |
627 | 3 | 10/28/04 11:16 AM by Annapurna1 |
|
|
When terror bell rings, George Bush smiles |  ekomstop |
1,250 | 12 | 10/08/04 06:56 PM by JesusChrist |
|
|
George Bush drops his dog on its head | FileSoup |
1,741 | 16 | 09/04/03 01:05 AM by Baby_Hitler |
|
 |
George Bush Sr: Reasons Not to Invade Iraq |  Swami |
763 | 3 | 04/10/04 11:43 AM by Learyfan |
|
|
George Bush kills Quadriplegic ( 1 2 all ) |
1stimer |
1,883 | 32 | 10/23/04 12:16 AM by silversoul7 |
|
 |
A Green Vote or Independant Vote is A Vote for George Bush | fft2 |
1,246 | 19 | 06/30/04 03:12 AM by sir tripsalot |
| Extra information | ||
| You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa 946 topic views. 1 members, 9 guests and 4 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||
