PDA

View Full Version : Great Resume


brendan
08-11-2004, 02:14 PM
GEORGE W. BUSH

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20520


EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE:

Law Enforcement:

I was arrested in Kennebunkport, Maine, in 1976 for driving under the influence of alcohol. I pled guilty, paid a fine, and had my driver's license suspended for 30 days. My Texas driving record has been "lost" and is not available.


Military:
I joined the Texas Air National Guard and went AWOL. I refused to take a drug test or answer any questions about my drug use.

By joining the Texas Air National Guard, I was able to avoid combat duty in Vietnam.

College:
I graduated from Yale University with a low C average. I was a cheerleader.



PAST WORK EXPERIENCE:

I ran for U.S. Congress and lost.
I began my career in the oil business in Midland, Texas, in 1975. I bought an oil company, but couldn't find any oil in Texas.
The company went bankrupt shortly after I sold all my stock.
I bought the Texas Rangers baseball team in a sweetheart deal that took land using taxpayer money.
With the help of my father and our friends in the oil industry (including Enron CEO Ken Lay),
I was elected governor of Texas.



ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS GOVERNOR OF TEXAS:

I changed Texas pollution laws to favor power and oil companies, making Texas the most polluted state in the Union.

During my tenure, Houston replaced Los Angeles as the most smog-ridden city in America.

I cut taxes and bankrupted the Texas treasury to the tune of billions in borrowed money.

I set the record for the most executions by any governor in American history.

With the help of my brother, the governor of Florida, and my father's appointments to the Supreme Court, I became President after losing by over 500,000 votes.



ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS PRESIDENT:

I am the first President in U.S. history to enter office with a criminal record.

I invaded and occupied two countries at a continuing cost of over one billion dollars per week.

I spent the U.S. surplus and effectively bankrupted the U.S. Treasury.

I shattered the record for the largest annual deficit in U.S. history.

I set an economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any 12-month period.

I set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12-month period.

I set the all-time record for the biggest drop in the history of the U.S. stock market. In my first year in office, over 2 million Americans lost their jobs and that trend continues every month.

I'm proud that the members of my cabinet are the richest of any administration in U.S. history. My "poorest millionaire,"

Condoleeza Rice, has a Chevron oil tanker named after her.

I set the record for most campaign fund-raising trips by a U.S. President.

I am the all-time U.S. and world record-holder for receiving the most corporate campaign donations.

My largest lifetime campaign contributor, and one of my best friends, Kenneth Lay, presided over the largest corporate bankruptcy fraud in U.S. History: Enron.

My political party used Enron private jets and corporate attorneys to ensure my success with the U.S. Supreme Court during my election decision.

I have protected my friends at Enron and Halliburton against investigation or prosecution. More time and money was spent investigating the Monica Lewinsky affair than has been spent investigating one of the biggest corporate rip-offs in history.

I presided over the biggest energy crisis in U.S. history and refused to intervene when corruption involving the oil industry was revealed.

I presided over the highest gasoline prices in U.S. history.

I changed the U.S. policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded government contracts.

I appointed more convicted criminals to my administration than any President in U.S. history.

I created the Ministry of Homeland Security, the largest bureaucracy in the history of the United States government.

I've broken more international treaties than any President in U.S. history.

I am the first President in U.S. history to have the United Nations remove the U.S. from the Human Rights Commission.

I withdrew the U.S. from the World Court of Law.

I refused to allow inspector's access to U.S. "prisoners of war" detainees, and have refused to abide by the Geneva Convention.

I am the first President in history to refuse United Nations election inspectors (during the 2002 U.S. elections).

I set the record for the fewest numbers of press conferences of any President since the advent of television.

I set the all-time record for most days on vacation in any one-year period. After taking off the entire month of August 2001,

I presided over the worst security failure in U.S. history.

I garnered the most sympathy ever for the U.S. after the World Trade Center attacks and less than a year later made the U.S the most hated country in the world---the largest failure of diplomacy in world history.

I have set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously protest me in public venues (15 million people), shattering the record for protests against any person in the history of mankind.

I am the first President in U.S. history to order an unprovoked, preemptive attack and the military occupation of a sovereign nation. I did so against the will of the United Nations, the majority of U.S. citizens, and the world community.

I have cut health care benefits for war veterans and support a cut in duty benefits for active duty troops and their families in wartime.

In my State of the Union Address, I lied about our reasons for attacking Iraq and then blamed the lies on our British friends.

I am the first President in history to have a majority of Europeans (71%) view my presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and security.

I am supporting development of a nuclear "Tactical Bunker Buster," a WMD.


I have so far failed to fulfill my pledge to bring Osama Bin Laden to justice.


RECORDS AND REFERENCES:


All records of my tenure as governor of Texas are now in my father's library, sealed and unavailable for public view.


All records of SEC investigations into my insider trading and my bankrupt companies are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view.

All records or minutes from meetings that I, or my Vice-President, attended regarding public energy policy are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public review.



PLEASE CONSIDER MY EXPERIENCE WHEN VOTING IN 2004!

EN[i]GMA
08-11-2004, 02:33 PM
I don't think all of those are true. In fact I know some of them aren't.

Jasonik
08-11-2004, 02:39 PM
Point by point footnotes and/or sources would have been nice. brendan, I can assume you authored this, right?

QueenAdrock
08-11-2004, 02:40 PM
No, I saw it online too. It's a mass forward email that's been sent out.

Jasonik
08-11-2004, 02:43 PM
The other side of the gmsisko1 coin..... :rolleyes:

brendan
08-11-2004, 02:53 PM
The other side of the gmsisko1 coin..... :rolleyes:

word...just giving the right a taste of their own medicine. all hail the power of the cut and paste.

LIMERICKFILE
08-11-2004, 02:55 PM
I don't care who it regards or slanders, mass emails can suck my balls.

Jasonik
08-11-2004, 03:06 PM
He said "cute and paste" LOL :p

D_Raay
08-11-2004, 04:14 PM
GMA']I don't think all of those are true. In fact I know some of them aren't.
And those would be? And how does that make it better? If a majority of them are true it's downright preposterous.

ASsman
08-11-2004, 05:01 PM
THIS THREAD IS ALSO BULLSHIT.

Double standards are for pusses.

And as for chain emails, fuck it, lets just go over someones house and have a pillow fight you bunch of nancies.

EN[i]GMA
08-11-2004, 07:35 PM
It's a vague chain email with a bunch of unsubstantaited claims. Innocent until proven guilty my friend. The burden on proof isn't on me. And I assure, many of these are not true.

TheWedge
08-11-2004, 07:39 PM
"We've got eggs, bacon and SPAM
Sausage, eggs, ham and SPAM
SPAM, eggs, SPAM, sausage and SPAM"

"Do you have anything that doesn't have SPAM in it?"

"Um, SPAM, eggs, sausage, and SPAM"

"But that has SPAM in it!"

"Not very much."

"But I don't like SPAM!"

"WHAT??!! YOU DON'T LIKE SPAM??!!!"

"SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM
MARVELOUS SPAM WONDERFUL SPAM!!"

D_Raay
08-12-2004, 12:39 AM
GMA']It's a vague chain email with a bunch of unsubstantaited claims. Innocent until proven guilty my friend. The burden on proof isn't on me. And I assure, many of these are not true.
Actually enigma, I recognized many of these "unsubstantiated" claims from my research on the subject. Maybe they are not so much unsubstantiated as just not recognized by the media for some reason. Besides you said you "know" some of them aren't true. Which are you referring too? Can you back it up?

Señor Stino
08-12-2004, 05:37 AM
i realise that many of these statements are probably phony, but could you please point out to us which ones are untrue, enigma, i'm curious.


so the man can not cut and paste to start a discussion about the presidents record?, why not?

EN[i]GMA
08-12-2004, 07:12 AM
I'm not certain about all of these but they strike me as a little iffy:

I spent the U.S. surplus and effectively bankrupted the U.S. Treasury.

He bankrupted the Treasury? I somehow doubt that.
http://www.treas.gov/ Seems to be operational.

I shattered the record for the largest annual deficit in U.S. history.

Not the largest percentage wise.

I have protected my friends at Enron and Halliburton against investigation or prosecution.

What exactly did he do to prevent the Enron investigation? It isn't his jurisdiction at all.

I created the Ministry of Homeland Security, the largest bureaucracy in the history of the United States government.

What the hell? Seems like an opinion to me...

I have cut health care benefits for war veterans and support a cut in duty benefits for active duty troops and their families in wartime.

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docid=144 Downright lie.

D_Raay
08-12-2004, 10:40 AM
Oh the "Annenberg" site huh? I wouldn't believe anything coming from that site.

EN[i]GMA
08-12-2004, 10:56 AM
Really now? Don't be such an asshole. There is no possible way that is biased. LOOK AT THE FUCKING SOURCES. It's not like it's some opinion piece; their taking Clinton's budget and comparing it with Bush's budget to show that Bush isn't reducing Veteran's funding. Tell me how exactly is that biased? It's not. Your just looking for some excuse to ignore it perhaps?

"In Bush’s first three years funding for the Veterans Administration increased 27%. And if Bush's 2005 budget is approved, funding for his full four-year term will amount to an increase of 37.6%.

In the eight years of the Clinton administration the increase was 31.7%"

OH MY GOD LOOK AT THE FLAGRANT BIAS!!! HOW DARE THEY COMPARE THE ACTUAL FIGURES TO GIVE YOU AN ACCURATE REPRESENTATION OF WHAT THE FUNDING INCREASE WAS!!!

Just because it comes from an "Annenberg" site doesn't mean it's bullshit. If Fox News compared the budgets of Clinton and Bush it wouldn't be biased; it would be the facts. Perhaps the editorial about it would be biased, but not the data itself.

Jasonik
08-12-2004, 11:38 AM
Nicely said, though it is sad you had to say as much, the burden of proof should not be on you to disprove, but on the claimant to substantiate.

If I said that John Kerry knowingly and intentionally killed innocent women and children then cut of their ears as souvenirs to wear around his neck on a string, would I have to ask you to disprove it? Rightly so, I would be asked for proof of said claim.

Moral of the story; don't SPAM with unsubstantiated claims, it is a waste of people's time. Do the research, or SHOVE-IT!

D_Raay
08-13-2004, 12:21 AM
I've done the research my friend, and this isn't about the veteran funding. All the other stuff in the e-mail is much more damning. As far as Annenberg goes, you DO know who he was don't you Jasonik and Enigma? Oh and btw, in the Bush administration what has the increase been in minimum wage? Or salaries in general? Or jobs? (I mean real jobs not people with jobs having to get second ones that shouldn't count) All that money that went into Iraq, well, sheesh it's mind boggling to think what it could have done for the people right here in good ol' USA. But he cares for our veterans? So much so that he hasn't attended a single memorial service? His father even did. There is nothing and no way you will ever convince me that Dubbya has done anything for this country. Even if he has, it is far outweighed by what he hasn't.

Oh and please don't call me asshole, If you disagree that's fine but I am a genuine human being.

EN[i]GMA
08-13-2004, 06:26 AM
Yes I know who he was, but saying that you wouldn't listen to ANYTHING from the site throws me off. Sure, it may be biased but I assure you, those were the facts. And without evidence the entire thing is really a load of shit.

Ace42
08-13-2004, 08:59 AM
GMA']Really now? Don't be such an asshole. There is no possible way that is biased. LOOK AT THE FUCKING SOURCES.

Like the spreadsheet they use from whitehouse.gov ?

Señor Stino
08-13-2004, 09:17 AM
Like the spreadsheet they use from whitehouse.gov ?

haha, zero-one for the bad guys

Could someone tell me who this Annenberg dude is? sounds Jewish, that name

and with is the deal about Veterans wages? do war veterans get a special treatment of some kind ?

Ace42
08-13-2004, 09:32 AM
http://slate.msn.com/?id=2071870

^^ My friend Walter...

Jasonik
08-13-2004, 11:44 AM
So what does this dead guy have to do with a suspect, unsubstantiated chain letter? Other than he is hated and vilified just as Bush is?

For a litany of claims to be made, link respected verifiable sources to back up the claims.

Example:

1). George Bush can throw a strike, whereas challenger John Kerry can't even make it to the plate!
see here (http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-dogkindred8aug08,1,1325747.story?coll=la-headlines-sports)

2). John Kerry eats dove!
see here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59559-2003May30.html)

3). New York Times correspondent baffled by people voting their conscience not their pocketbooks, -intimates, Fox News is to blame.
see here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3925909.stm)

It's fun, :D -just link to the credible source.

TheWedge
08-13-2004, 11:56 AM
So what does this dead guy have to do with a suspect, unsubstantiated chain letter?

His name is on the ubsubstantiated website which a person attempted to use to discredit the email.
Showing how people feel he manipulated media in life, casts a shadow of doubt on the straightforwardness of "his" website in death.
Circumsatntial evidence? Certainly.
Is this a court of law? No.

LIMERICKFILE
08-13-2004, 12:02 PM
For a litany of claims to be made, link respected verifiable sources to back up the claims.

What about the fact that 90% of the replies to any link posted usually have to do with complaints pertaining to a media bias, many times followed by examples of a news source showing partisan favoritism (spelling on that one may be off) or poster's opinions towards the author of the piece?

There is no safe resource when it comes to differing opinions on news sources. There's always a fault, and there's always a point-of-view to be taken that someone can and will disagree with.

Ace42
08-13-2004, 12:06 PM
So what does this dead guy have to do with a suspect, unsubstantiated chain letter? Other than he is hated and vilified just as Bush is?

It's fun, :D -just link to the credible source.

If you google for the name, and ignore the usual "litany of bought obituaries" which praise lots and say little, you'll see that it is NOT a matter that is under debate. He was a crook, he was full of shit, he was backed by mafia money, etc.

My point was the much more ephemeral one that why would factcheck.org be funded by the legacy of a man who stood for everything factcheck claims to despise?

I am not making allegations, merely answering "who was this Annenberg guy" question with a suitable source and saying I will treat his legacy with skepticism. No need to research that, as I am not asking anyone else to believe it.

I have already highlighted my sourced criticisms of factcheck's analysis of the Butler report in this forum, that should be a good enough start.

Jasonik
08-13-2004, 12:24 PM
Am I speaking in some foreign tongue?!

THE EMAIL CHAINLETTER IS AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN DISCREDITED PRECISELY BECAUSE IT HAS NO SOURCES! IT DOES NOT NEED TO BE DISCREDITED AND THE FAILURE TO PRODUCE SOURCES THAT DISPROVE IT DOES NOT PROVE BY ANY STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION THAT ANY OR ALL OF IT'S CLAIMS ARE TRUE. THIS DEAD BASTARD HAS NO BUSINESS ANYWHERE IN THE DISCUSSION. brendan, THE ORIGINAL POSTER POSTED SHIT. IF YOU ARE TRYING TO DEFEND HIS LAZY POST, BUST OUT THE SOURCES. IF YOUR DEFAULT REACTION IS TO BELIEVE WILD CLAIMS UNTIL THEY ARE PROVEN FALSE, I'VE GOT NEWS FOR YOU....YOUR MOTHER HAD SEX WITH TWO ZEBRAS LAST NIGHT BEFORE SHE BLEW A GIRAFFE.[/rant]

I am not defending the late Annenberg, or Bush for that matter. What I am trying to do is instill a bit of rigorous methodology for evaluatng internet junk. Most of us here are quite astute in this area, so why the intellectual laziness when it comes to so flippantly adopting or dismissing something?

BTW I am all for reading valid substantiated Bush criticisms.
see here (http://www.house.gov/appropriations_democrats/caughtonfilm.htm)

TheWedge
08-13-2004, 01:11 PM
Am I speaking in some foreign tongue?!

THE EMAIL CHAINLETTER IS AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN DISCREDITED PRECISELY BECAUSE IT HAS NO SOURCES! IT DOES NOT NEED TO BE DISCREDITED AND THE FAILURE TO PRODUCE SOURCES THAT DISPROVE IT DOES NOT PROVE BY ANY STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION THAT ANY OR ALL OF IT'S CLAIMS ARE TRUE. THIS DEAD BASTARD HAS NO BUSINESS ANYWHERE IN THE DISCUSSION. brendan, THE ORIGINAL POSTER POSTED SHIT. IF YOU ARE TRYING TO DEFEND HIS LAZY POST, BUST OUT THE SOURCES. IF YOUR DEFAULT REACTION IS TO BELIEVE WILD CLAIMS UNTIL THEY ARE PROVEN FALSE, I'VE GOT NEWS FOR YOU....YOUR MOTHER HAD SEX WITH TWO ZEBRAS LAST NIGHT BEFORE SHE BLEW A GIRAFFE.[/rant]

I am not defending the late Annenberg, or Bush for that matter. What I am trying to do is instill a bit of rigorous methodology for evaluatng internet junk. Most of us here are quite astute in this area, so why the intellectual laziness when it comes to so flippantly adopting or dismissing something?

BTW I am all for reading valid substantiated Bush criticisms.
see here (http://www.house.gov/appropriations_democrats/caughtonfilm.htm)

Sorry Captain Validity.
From now on when someone posts a link to a "sketchy" website trying to disprove a "sketchy" chain email, I'll PM you and ask if it would be OK if I voice my opinion about the legitimacy of said website.

No one ever said that the email was true.
If you read the thread, someone said it was bunk, and that they "assured" us so. Someone replied saying, "if you are 'assuring' this, can you post a link?"
The "assurer" posted a link to a website, and some of us pointed out that we thought that link was not exactly "proof" of his claim of "assurance".

You are not the final word on internet debate etiquitte. Get off of your high horse, Captain.

You want to discuss things? Fine.
No one needs you instilling anything though.

Astute laziness? WTF? Me saying that I don't necessarily think the Annenberg site is 100% legit because of past revelations of misleading information and incomplete data is being lazy?

Would you be happy if everyone said, "Yeah man. That email sucks. Don't even try and disprove it!"?
IMO, this is a perfectly acceptable, even healthy, conversation regarding the email contents.

NO ONE EVER SAID THAT THE EMAIL HAD TO BE DISPROVED. THEY MERELY ASKED THE PERSON WHO SAID THEY "ASSURED US" THAT IT WAS TO BACK THAT UP. QUIT ASSUMING SHIT OR I'LL ASSUME YOUR MOTHER OWES ME $1500 FOR MY CUT OF HER EARNINGS. 'CAUSE A BITCH OF MINE BES NOT KEEP A DIME![/RANT about rant and cap lock]

Jasonik
08-13-2004, 02:10 PM
No one ever said that the email was true.
If you read the thread, someone said it was bunk, and that they "assured" us so. Someone replied saying, "if you are 'assuring' this, can you post a link?"
The "assurer" posted a link to a website, and some of us pointed out that we thought that link was not exactly "proof" of his claim of "assurance".
Nice recap, the bottom line is that this 'way' of establishing credibility is ass-backward.
Astute laziness? WTF? Me saying that I don't necessarily think the Annenberg site is 100% legit because of past revelations of misleading information and incomplete data is being lazy?
Refer to EN(I)GMA's post #17 (I was seconding his sentiment and chiding D_Raay's transparent reactionism).

IMO, this is a perfectly acceptable, even healthy, conversation regarding the email contents.
There have been NO links posted to substantiate any of the claims made in the original post. I'll grant we are conversing 'regarding the email contents,' but not one bit about the topical substance. I think the object of the post was to spur conversation about Bush's record. In that regard, it has failed miserably.

100% ILL
08-13-2004, 02:18 PM
Less filling!! Tastes Great!!

Jasonik
08-13-2004, 02:30 PM
:D
Beating around a bush with two birds in it.....

D_Raay
08-13-2004, 02:49 PM
Fact is, Jasonik, like I said earlier, through my research over the last 3 years, I have seen a lot of material that would substantiate a good deal of that E-mail. But seriously, there's no TIME man! I wish I had the time to retrace all that info and post all the links but work usually gets in the way of my internet time. As far unsubstantiated goes, if you support Bush you really can't make any argument. WMD's is all I have to say. "America is a safer place" has been repeated at nausea all the while they are ringing their terrorist bells again? (Funny timing there right after the dem. conv. especially when the info is 3 to 4 years old which means in fact it was timed) And like I tried to say before, maybe some of the e-mail is not 100% factual, but what difference does that make? It's like saying well that one shark in that tank with 20 sharks in it doesn't really look like a shark so I will jump in anyway.

jabumbo
08-13-2004, 02:56 PM
not that my opnion will matter in this thread, or any other in this section...

but, you do realize that your arguing over the legitamacy of a chain email that somebody wrote? of course the email isnt going to have something to back it up. its a list of compiled events and such, that this person put together to inform people on what he believes is true.

you can't aregue that a particular statement isnt true (like the claim that the thing the author wrote about the homeland security thing as an opinion). if you realize that this is written as a RESUME, you will realize that it is meant to have been written by Bush himself...

now to argue a couple of the facts (without stupid linkage to make my claims "valid"):

first off, if you can't see that the environment is being put in the shitter, then try opening your eyes for once. if you want evidence, go back, look at the regulations that clinton had placed, and then look and see how man of them bush has repealed/rolled back/loosened all for the good name of big business.

second, so ok, he went to war, and spend something like 400 million dollars initially on it, nothing i can do about that. but when he comes back to congress requesting several hundred million more then i have a problem. if i were to do something like that with my job, i would be fired on the spot, my company would either lose the contract or have to pay for the cost overruns, and i would have a black spot on my resume forever.

third, even if he is helping the vets with their medicare, then he must be taking their raise in funding from all the non-vet seniors out there, because many of them are going bankrupt trying to pay their medical bills because they have no coverage.

fourth, if you htink the tax cuts are helping the average american, please tell me why my school tuition goes up 10 fold over how much more money i receive back from taxes. each year the federal government gives less to education, and thats why we get the hikes. if you want more prrof of the decrease in funding, then you can look at how my forrmer city school district closed something like a dozen of its schools at the end of this year

if you want proof to all this you can do 2 things: click here (pmd3@pitt.edu), or just look out your window

Señor Stino
08-14-2004, 08:52 AM
djz, Jasonik, so you're pissed off because the thread changed subject after a couple of posts?

and why does everything need a weblink, you can't read magazines or books anymore?

pfft, and stop the difficult language please :)

LIMERICKFILE
08-14-2004, 11:08 AM
and why does everything need a weblink, you can't read magazines or books anymore?

It's fucking ROCK if everyone started quoting books or encyclopedias and whatnot.

"Well I beg to differ, because in his acclaimed third book of the series Sartre tried grasping the individual within societal structures and the implications of government on their development. If you'd care to read this book check out....."

Wow.....i can just see it now.

Señor Stino
08-14-2004, 12:05 PM
et voila, on y va