Is Bush nuts?

Originally posted by MidnightDStroyer

Originally posted by joehayner I would have loved to see a better person in the executive seat fo our country, but there wasn't anything better to vote for.

Actually, that's the whole point behind the operations of our government...There was no better choice! Americans need to take back their government to *give* them a better choice.

Between Bush's Bully Boy Gang & the other politicians who blindly follow the "party line", D.C. has more fruits, nuts & flakes than Kellog's.

[Edited on 28-2-2003 by MidnightDStroyer]

i guess ill have to buy DC brand cereal then

Originally posted by Wolfpack 51
To Bushes charecter of leadership, I base a persons worth in how well they stand on their principles, especially if they are written and initialed that they support them.

Ooooooh...Politics, something I know more about than you...this will be fun.

Bush lacks charecter to stand upon the platform for which he ran on.
The Texas Republican platform of 2000, of which Bush stood upon in his election, is written in dictionary form, in that it lists their stance in a word or words, followed by a definition., an excellent format to use, provided you will do as you agree to do by initialing.

I use 3 examples of many, (1) State Sovernity- that a state has the right to govern itself without intervention of federal govt. Now Florida is a state , that was useing it soverin right in its recount through its supreme court. Bush took it to the federal level, against his own written stance.

Since the end of the Clinton era, we've been exciting the times of "Coersive Federalism" which was the stage after "New Federalism"...New Federalism was the Reagan plan to restor State Soveriegnity destroyed by LBJ. Coercive Federalism was Clinton's plan to return the Central Government to absolute power.

George Bush Jr. has begun a "New New Federalism" program.

Also, when dealing with a Federal Election Florida does not have priority jurisdiction.

(2) Executive Order Powers- that if elected , would turn this power back to congress, where it belongs. Again he has used his executive power quite alot since he got in issueing executive orders. Contrary to his written stance.

This doesn't really matter, and you are being subjective, Reagan made a LOT of Executive Orders, some many hundreds of them. It is what they are used for that matters most.

Clinton didn't make so many...350 I think, and his worst was just 1 EO...entitled Federalism where page 826 stated that the Executive of the Federal is the final word in all State matters.

(3) Abolishment of IRS- to do away with this enity, and replace with useful way to fund govt. Again he has not even attempted to complete this written statement, which he initialed.

He never said he was going to abolish the IRS...that statement is a very extreme statement and doesn't go well with moderate voters.

You'll have to find hard core proof.

As stated, you must stand on your ground and words firmly, and to my judgement, from the beginning he has not. If you cannot stand as a leader on your written platforms, and stances, how can anyone follow your leadership.

Well I fail to see your point...and it wasn't as political as I hoped...mainly opinion.

But to the question...

It is obvious to anyone with a trained eye that a psychiatric screening of George W Bush will turn up congenital problems, cognitive deficits arising from extended periods of drug dependency, and the idiosyncratic tic and quirks that arise from being totally unsuited to one's station.

Such screening is however not a precondition of occupying the office of POTUS.