Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 25

Born and raised...
This article says: ''Bush is the son of George H. W. Bush and Barbara Bush. He was born in New Haven, Connecticut butgrew up in Midland and Houston, Texas, with siblings Jeb, Neil, Marvin, and Dorothy. ''

Meanwhile the article on the Bush_Compound in maine says: ''The Bush Compound was the place where President George H. W. Bush spent much of his childhood. As an adult, George H. W. Bush raised his own children, President George W. Bush, governor Jeb Bush, Marvin Bush, Neil Bush, Dorothy Bush, and Robin Bush on the Compound.''

Does anyone else find this confusing?

Reference to Dry Drunk Syndrome and Brain Damage needed
The article needs some discussion of the theories that Bush's poor diction and rigid thinking can be explained as a result of brain damage incurred by alcoholism and the subsequent Dry Drunk Syndrome pattern of behavior common among recovering extreme alcoholics. (e.g. "Addiction, Brain Damage and the President "Dry Drunk" Syndrome and George W. Bush by KATHERINE van WORMER" ) User:User


 * This "dry drunk syndrome"...is that a proven medical term accepted by the AMA or just phrasology AA uses to compel their "patients" to continue with their program? It's hard to say who's more likely to have brain damage...Bush and his poor choice of words or Clinton with his absolute abuse of power getting snarlins from Monica....I'd have to say Clinton, since this one deed alone is the biggest reason history will always see him as less than he could have been...that's brain damage. Besides...is there proof that Bush was an alcoholic or just drank more often than he should have...if he was an alcoholic or still is, he is in big company...according to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 1 in 13 Americans suffer from this disease...that's more than 20 million people...do they all also suffer from "dry drunk syndrome" or "brain damage"...if so, then we're in big trouble.--MONGO 11:31, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * And if cheating on your spouse is "brain damage", a third of all Americans would be damaged as well. Then we'd really be in big trouble. --kizzle 16:14, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * And of those, how many were President?...Clinton, regardless of my personal dislike happened to enjoy a strong economy, relative peace and world wide respect higher than many other Presidents...that he did this one act forever tainted his chance of greatness in the eyes of many people...not to mention his impeachment in the House...but I sure am glad he wasn't impeached by the Senate...then we would have had.....oh my gosh...GORE! Then as we critique Bush and his "you're with us or with the terrorists" jargon and not take it into account as being typical forceful talk by a world leader soon after the most distructive terrorist attack in world history...perhaps not the best chouce of word play...and then liberals think this is worse than Clinton..."I did not have relations with that woman" which all the world saw...not only is Clinton brain damaged, but he's a brain damaged liar to boot.--MONGO 20:06, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Probably about 50% at least of presidents... shit, he didn't even have illegitimate children out of his affairs like our founding fathers, and look how we revere them. They didn't even have to lie about it, as its pretty hard to explain having half-black children when your wife is white. --kizzle 20:18, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * And not to espouse cliche liberal talking points, but at least when Clinton lied, nobody died. --kizzle 20:20, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, that's sore point..it's okay if you liked Clinton...I can understand and he isn't the worst President in my lifetime...Johnson was. If you're speaking of Jefferson...he was a widower...I hadn't heard that there were other mixed race off spring of former Presidents...or any proven unfaithful ones...even Kennedy never had anyone prove that he had been unfaithful, despite all the rhetoric that he had been.--MONGO 20:29, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * If the worst you can say about a 2-term president is that he lied about having an affair, then in modern-day standards of morality, that ranks about a 8.5/10. No watergate, no wars, great economy, budget surplus, smart, all the good stuff that actually affects the people he works for.  And I'll get back to you on the (alleged) unfaithfulness of previous presidents... maybe it should be an article ;) sure as hell would carry a lot more weight than some articles on wikipedia (*cough*... Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda...*cough*) --kizzle 20:37, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)


 * Mongo, as for presidents and infidelity, you might want to play this game :) --kizzle 23:46, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, it's not the worst I can say and I won't so that ends that. The game is amusing, thanks.--MONGO 09:12, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * The "dry drunk" idea is considered in the work by Katherine van Wormer, which is part of the pending RfC (the section just above this one). You should register an account and weigh in on how Wikipedia should treat the whole substance abuse area. JamesMLane 08:02, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This whole thing is veering dangerously in the direction of original research. The Van Wormer crap is worthy of note because it made the Irish Times, an objective fact, the nutty professor's stuff is in a book that was fondly received by some members of his profession, another objective fact. If we go beyond that and find outselves tempted to hedge and whatnot it's because we've dropped the NPOV standard. Unlike certain television stations, we don't claim to be "fair and balances". But we don't go around discounting stuff just because we think it's tripe. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:08, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * There was that article by a doctor in Vanity Fair that said words to the effect that GW Bush's decline in sentence by sentence speaking ability indicated an underlying cognitive disorder, etc. something like that, I don't have the magazine, I read it at the Dr.'s office. It's not original research, I think  the real issue is whether it is credible or not credible, and whether anyone can be qualified to judge Bush's medical condition, anyone who isn't his personal physician.  I may think he's a coke addict, and a liar, but I'm not really qualified to judge that.  The source needs to be verifiable and credible, and that is really all there is to the issue, beyond that it's just slinging mud, and doesn't belong.  With a source of information that is both verifiable and credible, though, you can't go too far wrong by adding any info to any article.Pedant 2005 July 4 07:29 (UTC)
 * You may wish to review the Rfc on that information and post a comment there as well as voice your opinion on one or none of the 4 versions. The Rfc is at the top of this discussion page []--MONGO 4 July 2005 07:38 (UTC)

Religious Conversion due to Arthur Blessit not Billy Graham
The article neglects to mention the real story behind Bush's conversion, that it was due a travelling preacher Arthur Blessit , and Bush only met Billy Graham much later, but likes to mention Graham but not Blessit.


 * Dunno who wrote the above. The PBS quote seems to be evidence Jim Sales claims that Bush was converted by this odd godbotherer.  Please feel free to add this fact to the article (as if you needed permission!) I take it that Midland is some part of the United States having some more specific geographical parameters than the similarly-named area of England. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:47, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Evidently this factual bit of biographical information regarding Arthur Blessit and Dubya is too controversial for the genteel editors of Wikipedia to tolerate, as it has been repeatedly censored.

Vote for Portrait Change
A celebrity's portrait need not always be a solemn one. A photo which caught up the precious moment of a man's true nature might be more worthy or informative than you think. I believe a new bio-photo might be more helpful than the current one in helping those knowledge seekers who come to this page to distinguish the personal characteristic of the featuring topic in the first eye, hence a vote is held, to change the bio-photo from the current one:

to the proposed one:

Please cast your vote here so it can be decided if the proposed image is going to be applied. The poll will last a week.
 * Yes. The proposer. -- Curimi 14:48, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What is this patent nonsense? PPGMD 05:30, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Deleted...ongoing pranks constituting vandalism deleted. He was contributing zero to the article...he also archived this discussion page here [], just as we were getting busy on the Rfc...--MONGO 06:57, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To the hell where in my proposal did you find any vandalism? Hence the poll is revived. If you disagree, express your doubts in a civilized way. -- Curimi 14:48, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC) MONGO, this is the 2nd time you interfered with my attempt of polling without any obvious reason. If you think it is a bad idea to change the image, than say it loud by casting your vote. Thwart the whole poll attempt just because you dislike one of the options is not the democratic way. -- Curimi 02:25, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) State your reason why you think a change like this comprising a vandalism. Did I make joke of anything in my vote description or did you find it a blasphemy against the featuring topic by changing the picture? I proposed the portrait change because instead of the static, bureaucratic-posed current one, I found the proposed picture has a more dynamic, realistic nature. It addresses the activism and pragmatism personalities of the featuring topic in a vivid fashion. I argue that it can give more information about the distinguishing characteristics of the featuring topic than the trait-less one which now presenting.
 * 2) Even if you did not look with favor on my proposal, you could not call it a vandalism. You should not call it a vandalism. Did I applied any change on the article yet? No. I came to the talk page seeking a consensus. And now you claimed I have vandalized this sacred discussion place. What? You trying to strip away my freedom of giving out opinions? As long as this discussion page exists even George W. Bush is not capable of doing that on me!
 * 3) Oh yessss, I was contributing zero to the article, which means I am new to this article, so when I came here and found this talk page has more than 100KB I just archived it. My fault. My apology for this. But you just claimed me guilty and sentenced my poll to death before calling me to a hearing. Is this the proper netiquette a Wikipedian should have?
 * 4) Not to mention by excluding my rights of opining or editing just because I am new to this article you have desecrated the very doctrine of Wikipedia, the free-content encyclopedia that anyone can edit!
 * 1) Let us not be too naïve wrt to the anality and lack of humor of the BOFH Wiki Admin-Nazis in enforcing the NPOV dogma according to their own particular POV by deleting any such attempts at emulating Paul Krassner's The Realist. The slogan that anyone can edit is now empty party doctrine just like democracy or freedom of speech, in actuality, the power junkies rule here just as in the repugnican plutocracy of the USA.
 * This isn't some message board where we all get together and laugh at how silly Bush looks. We're trying to write an encyclopedia. Please stop this. Rhobite 02:31, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Someone, please tell me that rule that goes something like, in an argument, as time approaches infinity, the probability that an analogy to the Nazis approaches 1? Seems to be highly relevant in this case.  Please, I've never seen such an example of bitter loser-talk as the paragraph equating Wiki Admins to Nazis.  How long did it take for you to come up with that witty paragraph?  Geezus.  Cry me a river. --kizzle 04:38, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Curimi wants to know why the proposal is vandalism. According to Vandalism:
 * Vandalism is any indisputably bad-faith addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia. . . .  Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism.
 * This talk page isn't here so that you can emulate Paul Krassner. The real purpose of the page is quite clear: "On Wikipedia, the purpose of a talk page is to help to improve the contents of the main page, from an encyclopedic point of view."  Talk page  Your post was not a good-faith effort to improve the article, because your picture obviously would not be accepted.  The invocation of the Nazis is a confirming instance of Godwin's law. JamesMLane 06:40, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The intention is to get the featuring topic a more suitable portrait which fits in with the topic's inherent characteristics more than the current one. The topic is an advocate of activism, not a happy smiley. I am not so sure why Rhobite said the featuring topic just looks like a Chimp in his ifd against my original proposal; it is just a normal man speaking. But since many have expressed their dissatisfaction, then fine, I will put up a third option:

So here are the three options:


 * 1) Original Portrait
 * 2) Proposal One
 * 3) Proposal Two

I only hope this new poll will be more acceptable among here. -- Curimi 09:51, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * It isn't.--MONGO 10:06, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * And you are not the only other people here. I would like to hear comments from people other than you. -- Curimi 10:09, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Read above, they already did.--MONGO 10:17, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, Curimi, I agree with MONGO, which is undoubtedly a sign that the end of the world is nigh. JamesMLane 10:23, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Godwin's law, nice touch...I'll remember that one.--MONGO 10:39, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * clearly this is some use of the word options I was not previous aware of. clearly only the orginal is acceptable as a head of page portrait.
 * Then why did you suggest it? --kizzle 22:21, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Stop it Curimi. You're being annoyingly pedantic right now. The current picture is fine, leave it. Rhobite 16:15, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * If we're still voting, and mine probably doesn't count for much, but I think the current picture barely looks like him and I don't think the average person would recognize it upon first glance. As a democrat I would perfer option 1, but that's not a presidential picture, so I would say option 2 is a very good choice.

My pet goat picture viewpoint
The pic is good but I don't believe the viewpoints add anything to the picture itself so I'm removing them.Falphin 01:17, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * My reasons for changing the pic,
 * 1) Having the viewpoints inside the picture is pointless. There is nothing wrong with just commenting on where the president was during the September 11 attacks.
 * 2) The info belongs in a criticism section where the picture can be added a second time.
 * 3) The info currently adds no useful additions to the article.
 * 4) Its NPOV, IMHO to state where he was during the September 11 attacks without adding controversy to it. --Falphin 01:58, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree that presenting the picture without comment is NPOV, but it's also NPOV, and more informative, to tell the reader something about how Bush's supporters and detractors reacted. It has been the subject of a notable amount of commentary outside Wikipedia.  Why do you say that the information about those reactions isn't useful?  Regardless of what caption is used, I would be absolutely against including the picture (or any other picture) twice. JamesMLane 03:27, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm against including the picture once, but we've been over this before so I won't push it. Rhobite 03:28, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * The caption currently reads, "Bush reading "The Pet Goat" in a classroom after being informed of the attack on the World Trade Center." Prior to Falphin's change, the caption also included, "He was criticized by some for his apparent nonchalance, but praised by others for not alarming the schoolchildren."  May I suggest we move the current image and caption to the comics page?  Monkeyman 16:33, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think we should keep the picture (there has been quite some controversy over it after all), but suggest we move the reactions and such to the article text itsself. --W(t) 16:37, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)


 * The points about Bush's reaction to 9/11 are closely tied to the picture. It seems more convenient for the reader to have those viewpoints in the caption. JamesMLane 18:53, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * But the truth is he sat on his posterior and read that adolescent book instead of politely excusing himself and getting on with business. Who knows what he was thinking, if at all. I dunno but it was a big time brain fart on his part. (Some might argue that he has lots of those). The guy's no Einstein, but I still see the picture as being cross related to F911. I think that is why there have been several objections to it. The picture doesn't make us look good and it doesn't make us look bad...I think due to it's controversial overtones, it wouldn't appear in the article on Bush in Encarta, Encyclopedia Britannica or other encyclopedias but that doesn't mean it can't be here. Monkeyman, you can certainly change the caption if you can come up with one that everyone will be mutually unhappy with as it seems that is all of ours ultimate quest...otherwise, none of us will have anything to B*%ch about.--MONGO 20:28, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Encarta's for pussies. --kizzle 21:44, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * I think that as long as the information is balanced and there is a demand for it to be in the article, it definetely should be in. I don't think the previous justification of not "adding anything to the picture itself" is warrant for its removal if it helps even one person. --kizzle 19:46, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * Is there a reason we need to specify which book Bush is reading? Why not just say, "Bush reading in a classroom after being informed of the attack on the World Trade Center."  It feels like the book title is included just to make him look like a buffoon.  Monkeyman 23:38, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Is there a specific reason why we need to censor the book he was reading at the time?--kizzle 00:18, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)


 * We went through this whole discussion months ago. The result was a caption presenting both points of view and generally accepted as fair, with the sentence: "He was criticized by some for his apparent nonchalance, but praised by others for not alarming the schoolchildren."  Howzabout if we just go back to that?  Naming the story is useful because it links to the article.  I don't see how it makes Bush look like a buffoon.  No one would expect an elementary school class to be reading Shakespeare. JamesMLane 00:33, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * If he were reading Macbeth would the title still be included? Monkeyman 01:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * The point Moore was trying to make in criticizing Bush was not the contents of the book he was reading, but the fact that he continued reading for so long. The actual book he was reading at the time of his inaction is irrelevant. --kizzle 03:07, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * So we agree that the title should be removed then? JamesMLane, I would welcome your opinion on this as well.  Monkeyman 11:41, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I meant irrelevant to your argument. --kizzle 17:02, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, it wouldn't be as funny, but it would still be held up as an example of incompetence. Gzuckier 01:53, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Monkeyman, I said just above that naming the story is useful because it links to our article on "The Pet Goat". If Bush had been attending an event at which some adult actors were doing a reading of Macbeth, he would still have been praised and criticized for how he handled the news, and I would still favor linking. JamesMLane 13:11, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't see how that information contributes to the article. Should we also include a description of the suit he was wearing that day?  Monkeyman 13:45, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * The answer to that question rests upon significance of information, which is different from the justification of bias you referenced earlier in including the name of the book. --kizzle 17:04, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * This does not answer my question. How is the book title more worthy of appearing in the article than a description of Bush's suit?  Monkeyman 17:54, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * How many people would care what suit he was wearing? (The book with "My Pet Goat" was sold out at amazon.com; there's never been a comparable run on a particular type of suit just because Bush was wearing it on 9/11.)  Is there a separate article to be linked to?  (I can't imagine why we would ever have a separate article on a Bush suit, but if we did, it would be linked to from this article.) JamesMLane 18:26, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Interesting that an Rfc dealing with Drug and Alcohol abuse controversies ended up becoming half a discussion page over one picture that has nothing to do with the original Rfc. Monkeyman, this is turning into a petty argument. The picture is a vidcap of an actual event...it isn't based on some opinion...it really did happen...he was really reading that book...[]...he sat there for, I'd like to forget how long...in actuality, he appeared to be off in a trance..I would have been too. This event happened...we even have video and pictures to PROVE it! I wish it didn't, but it did. The consolation is we also have video and pictures of Clinton denying the facts about Monica, we have video and pictures of Reagan denying Iran-Contra...few people would argue that these items have been doctored using some form of movie magic...it's pretty hard to refute this kind of evidence. If it makes you feel better, the suit looks to me to be Brooks Brothers, Deep Charcoal in color.--MONGO 20:02, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Fortunately or unfortunately, that was the book he was reading and has become inextricably linked in the public mind to the incident. If you pick 10 people off the street at random, pro or anti bush, and just say "My Pet Goat" to them, they will probably all ten think of this incident.
 * No Bush fan I, but
 * the title of the book, though ridiculous, really has nothing to do with the central issue, but
 * nevertheless, it has become the unofficial "title" of the incident, so I fear I must vote to keep it.
 * Gzuckier 01:53, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I believe moving the text to the article itself makes the most since. The picture doesn't need to be cluttered. Falphin 23:39, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I would rather see the same scene but instead replace it with the moment he was informed of the attacks...otherwise it does look like he is hoping his "Depends" don't leak when he does eventually leave. Basically, it doesn't matter as all we have is a still photo from a video which also appeared in that "movie". I have lived through a lot of Presidents in my time...and none of them were perfect, as no human is. It isn't a defining moment one way or the other...to not have the picture here would be negligence on our parts...how we interpret it by way of the wording of a caption is the area which becomes more tricky to navigate.--MONGO 03:27, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Is Bush still a Methodist?
Is Bush still a Methodist?

His home church's pastor and his Bishop both have a boatload of problems with him.

http://theymustrepent.com/

This is moronic... there is no central, universally accepted dogma in the Methodist Church (quite       the opposite of say the Roman Catholic Church). If Bush says he is Methodist, that is all that is needed, not the opinion of one preacher

Well maybe I'm reading it wrong but it looks to me like the entire higherarchy of the church is angry with Bush.

Tax revenue as a percentage of GDP
"According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, by 2003 these tax cuts had reduced total federal revenue, as a percentage of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), to the lowest level since 1959."

Should we now include the numbers for 2004? With a GDP of 11.75 trillion, and 1.88 trillion in federal tax reciepts for 2004 (http://www.nber.org/palmdata/indicators/federal.html), it has gone from 8.6% to 16%. Seems like the newest should be added on to this section, or perhaps restructured somehow. -bro 172.164.13.81 11:11, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * There are several different ways to calculate GDP, and several different ways to calculate federal revenue. I doubt that there's any consistent measure by which federal revenue as a percentage of GDP has nearly doubled in the course of one year, with no major tax increases (and, I think, with some of the earlier tax cuts still being phased in).  Find a source that says that's happened, and we can include it.  (Given the numbers you use and the assumptions you make, GDP in 2003 would have had to be $20.724 trillion, meaning that, in one year, Bush presided over a 43% drop in GDP.  The economy's been bad, but not that bad.)  Part of the problem is the difference between federal income tax receipts and all federal revenue.  The CBPP paper gives both numbers, but your comparison is apples and oranges.  (Note that the NBER source you cite gives total receipts, not just income tax receipts.)  The CBPP's figure of 8.6% is income tax receipts as a share of GDP in 2003.  That same year, "total federal revenues as a share of the Gross Domestic Product dropped to 16.6 percent. The last time  that total revenues as a share of the economy fell below 17 percent was in 1959, near the end of the Eisenhower Administration."  So, if your figure of 16% in 2004 is correct, then total revenues as a percentage of GDP, which in 2003 hit the lowest level since 1959, hit an even lower level in 2004.  That, in fact, is what I'd expect, given the phasing in of more of the estate tax cut and possibly other tax cuts. JamesMLane 11:27, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Honestly, I really don't care about the politics of it, just noticed a 2003 figure and figured that there had to be an updated one available. Thanks for the explanation though, I was indeed confused. I did find a similar statement regarding 2004 here. http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=6060&sequence=5 If someone wants to take a go a pop that in there instead of the outdated one, I think it would be a good idea. On a side note, why is it that adding information from a provided link, in direct reference to the subject at hand, especially in a case that explains the previous statement (the "I haven't denied anything" remark) is being deleted? Secondly, do you not find the part bolded in this statement to be redudant? At the least this could be rephrased into "a difference of 540,000 votes". The "but" statement isn't refuting anything, or even adding anything thats not present before it, that gore recieved a greater percentage. -bro 172.134.132.223 12:16, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * In 2004, receipts of individual income taxes equaled 7 percent of GDP--1 percentage point below their postwar average of 8 percent. The level of those receipts in 2004 was lower as a percentage of GDP than in any year since 1951.
 * Neither candidate received a majority of the popular vote -- Bush took 47.9 percent; Gore, 48.4 percent -- but Gore received about 540,000 more of the 105 million votes cast.


 * Taxes: The figure for total federal revenue is more meaningful than the one just for income tax receipts. (Bush's tax cuts affected the estate tax, for example, and there's lately been discussion about changes to the FICA tax, which I think is also excluded from the income tax figure.)  Should we substitute the 2004 data on total revenue?  I don't think so.  The 2003 information isn't outdated when you consider its context.  It arises in the discussion of the federal deficit.  The first time the deficit hit a (current-dollar) record under Bush was 2003, so, as long as we're giving that 2003 deficit figure, it's worthwhile to note that the major factor was lower revenues rather than higher spending.  We could give the information for 2004 as well as that for 2003, but I think that would be too much detail, given that there was no huge change from 2003 to 2004.


 * Ok, I'm confused again, my first comment on the section in question had the info for total revenue, which was again lower as a percentage, than even the year before, but we dont' want to sub or add that in...Now the second comment, in regards to income tax receipts which is what I thought you wanted shouldn't be subbed or added in? If the reasoning is that we are recording the record reached, then the 2004 numbers should at least be added as they too are a record.


 * Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. I don't think we should use the income tax figures.  What we have now is the decline in total revenue, as a share of GDP, as of the time the overall deficit first reached a record under Bush (FY 2003).  The important figure is the deficit.  Revenue as a share of GDP is included only by way of explaining the basic deficit figure -- specifically, that it's not primarily attributable to any post-9/11 economic slowdown.  (By 2003, GDP was rising each year.)  You're right that we could repeat the statistic for 2004, using the CBO calculation.  I'm not strongly against it; I just feel that it's an unnecessary level of detail.  In 2004, the overall deficit was a record high but revenues as a share of GDP was not a record low, only a post-1959 low. JamesMLane 01:49, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Drug use: The reason the statement keeps being deleted is that some people want to provide the reader with little or no information about issues concerning Bush's drug use. That's being discussed further up this page, at Presentation of substance abuse issues.  You can look at the material there and offer your comments and/or your preference in the poll.  You will note, from Version 3 and from Version 4, that Bush has denied using cocaine since 1974 but has refused to comment on his pre-1974 use.  I personally consider that an important fact that should be included in this article, but some people want to suppress it; it's omitted from Version 1 and from Version 2.  The purpose of the RfC and the above-linked discussion was to get around the edit war problem, of people constantly changing the article to reflect their preference, which results in a constant back-and-forth.  While the RfC is going on, the proponents of providing less information have continued to revert to their preferred version, which includes excluding even a link to the daughter article (George W. Bush substance abuse controversy) where both sides are presented.  You shouldn't assume, however, that this is the "baseline" status of the George W. Bush article.  It's just that MONGO, who is practically alone in favoring such total suppression of the information, has been more willing to engage in the revert war than the rest of us.
 * That is another misconception in that according to the Rfc, most prefer only a link to the article you created...--MONGO 02:40, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * That's a bummer. I have read through this incredibly long page,  but since the discussion/vote has taken place a pretty good while ago, and is buried rather deeply at this point, I rather doubt my voting on a poll (which I don't like the idea of anyway, information should be able to be added/deleted as is neccessary to make the article a -good- one, no matter what a group of people agree to at one point to put into the article) would do any good.  Mongo has so far reverted without cause, deleted without comment or even edit summary, I don't think that is very proper.
 * Well there are four versions as listed above in the Rfc...perhaps you need to read through them and offer your comment...nothing here is written in stone but it would be better for us if you adopt a user name and timestamp your posts.--MONGO 02:40, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Uh, Mongo, I have both used a name 'bro' and signed my posts, all of them. Secondly, my comments are here, and if you had read them, you would read that I -have- read all the above.  I couldn't care less about your attitude toward nonlogged in users, deal with the edits, period.  The part added is sourced, relevent, and clarifying.  I again, will mention as I did before, that I don't much care for the 'choose one of these' votes.  The articles should be edited to improve content, there should be no baselines or untouchable sections.  If you wish you can continue to remove sourced, relevent, clarifying material.  But it would be wonderful if you wouldn't just revert, or better yet, post a reason. -bro 172.149.84.231 05:26, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * You don't appear to have a user name. Your addition is redundant and unnecessary as it can be easily linked to in the articles referenced. It's hard to see your edits as being ones made solely in good faith without a proper user name...and it is a lot easier for all parties involved to remember who you are...it's quite easy. You're comment that I need to deal with it is the same back as I said nothing here is written in stone and I can revert your edit with good faith based on the fact that you are just using your IP address as an identifier...and also that this section is in Rfc and both JamesMLane and I would sincerely appreciate your comments there.--MONGO 06:21, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Using your logic, the whole section is redudant as it can be referenced in the link provided. The added text is not used elsewhere, and is needed for context. as for this I can revert your edit with good faith based on the fact that you are just using your IP address as an identifier  You may want to rethink that.  There is a reason why its not required to have a logged in account to make edits, and its certainly far from being in 'good faith' to ignore the edit, and revert based on -your- bias towards nonlogged in editors.  If you have a hard time remembering who I am, thats not my problem, and shouldn't be yours.  Deal with the edits, who makes them are inconsequential. -bro 172.149.84.231 07:08, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No one, especially me will take your efforts seriously without a user name...perhaps this allows you to avoid violating 3RR. I do not have to deal with your edits if you are too lazy or unwilling to contribute in a civilized manner to the Rfc on the issues or by creating a user name...perhaps you are only a sockpuppet.--MONGO 07:15, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Mongo, do not state that "no one will take [someone's] efforts seriously without a user name" -- it is the content that matters, not the user. --TouchGnome July 2, 2005 20:39 (UTC)
 * The content added by a user will be better received if he/she adopts a user name...see Accountability.--MONGO 3 July 2005 18:28 (UTC)
 * What I see there is that users who create user names are still anonymous, and that "many Wikipedians" (this does not say "all", which is what I objected to in your statement) prefer that people log in before making drastic changes, and that the reason is that it is harder to contact them to discuss a disagreement. Although I don't know the extent of your dealings with this user, what I've read here does not imply that his changes were drastic.  Moreover, I contribute to at least one page which is comprised mainly of edits by a multitude of IP-only users.  This does not make their edits any less useful.  I have found the content to be quite adequate regardless of whether a user has a name or not.  The only exception to this are trolls and vandals, some of whom nevertheless have user names.  Again, I say it is the content that matters, and that you should not make such a sweeping generalisation as the phrase "no one".  I, for one, take anonymous edits as seriously as anyone elses, even on the occasions where such a user has changed the meaning of passages I've written.  --TouchGnome 4 July 2005 01:35 (UTC)
 * Not sure what page that is...if you check the edit history of this page, you'll see that the vast numbers of vandalsms are performed by anon's. The passages this editor was altering was in Rfc and over 20 people responded to the Rfc and not one of them made a single alteration to the section, aside from the anon and one I did which was done to ensure there was a link to the daughter article. I for one, give much more credance to those that create a user name...if you feel otherwise, then that is up to you.--MONGO 4 July 2005 05:05 (UTC)
 * Yes, the section for RfC responses is a while back, but the RfC itself still links directly to it, so anyone coming in response doesn't have to slog through the whole page to find it. We're still waiting, giving more time for people to respond, so I think it would be useful for you to offer your thoughts in that section. JamesMLane 01:52, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 2000 vote: The added information is the total number of votes. If we gave only the percentage figures, and gave Gore's vote margin, someone with enough math savvy could work out the approximate total number of votes, but it would be a bit off because of rounding, and anyway not everyone has even that much math savvy.  The point of the "but" is that no candidate had a majority but Gore had a plurality.  Many of the readers who couldn't figure out the total number of votes are also not sound on the distinction between "majority" and "plurality" and would say, looking at the numbers, that Gore had a majority because he had more than anyone else.  I don't think we need to explain these terms here, or even introduce the term "plurality", but it is worth phrasing it in such a way as to note that Gore's edge of 540,000 votes does not mean that he had a majority. JamesMLane 19:10, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * If you wanna keep the 540,000 number in that sentence, I think that would be fine, but I think it should at the -least- be rephrased. As it is its more the clumsy and less than redudant.  The mention of Gore recieving a plurality is actually below the section with the percentages, and would be unaffected by any change on such.  Thanks for your time in responding James. -bro 172.140.156.147 22:23, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * My preference is to keep the 540,000 and the 105 million, even though there's a slight redundancy. If you want to rephrase the passage, please consider keeping those facts in. JamesMLane 01:54, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I wouldn't dare to actually change the wording, and thats not a dig at you. For there to be this friction when adding a following quote from a source already in the article thats been used, I couldn't imagine what I might run into by trying to rework actual content (again, not in regards to you).  I was more trying to throw the idea out there and hoping someone would grab on and go.  I do appreciate your time james, I'll see you around. -bro 172.149.84.231 05:33, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Blanking
What do you mean, Falphin? (And what is blanking?) All I did was change the line about a "controversial and close election" to say that he lost the popular vote. This is not a matter of opinion, because whatever the actual Florida vote, GWB lost the popular vote. --Micler 22:40, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * I figured you did it on accident so I will show you. Falphin 22:45, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I don't disagree with your wording change. Falphin 22:48, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * If you don't disagree, why did you revert it? Micler 22:50, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Did you read the two all the way down. When you made the edit you blanked the rest of the page. Falphin 23:01, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I see. In both IE 5.1 and Netscape 7.0 for Mac OS 9, this happens.  Is there any way t avoid it, or another browser to use that doesn't do this?  (iCab doesn't like Wikipedia at all.)  Micler 23:42, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * I might try using the edit on right. I use firefox which has no problems in that regard. I would suggest asking the same question at Help desk. Falphin 23:46, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Disputed quote
172.49 asked me to give an opinion on this. I don't see the problem with this if it was part of the same conversation. It's relevant and properly sourced. The only thing I can add is that I'd present it differently. The edit was: "When Wead reminded Bush that the latter had publicly denied using cocaine, Bush replied, "I haven't denied anything." "I am just not going to answer those questions," he said. "And it might cost me the election." I'd say - He added: "I am just not going to answer ..." to make it clear that it was part of the same conversation. Or if he said it just after the previous words, I'd write ... instead of starting a new quote. Hope this helps. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:13, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that quote was actually my second try at trying to figure out why it was being blind reverted, I thought it may have been something to do with my original one which was He said that he would continue to refuse to comment on allegations of drug use. which is also from the same source. I personally like the bolded one better by far, but hey, thought a direct quote might be more acceptable.-bro 172.149.84.231 08:22, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Either would do, so long as it was part of the same conversation. If he said it elsewhere, you'd want to add another source, as in: He later told xxx that ... SlimVirgin (talk) 08:28, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Both are from the same reference/cite as the other quotes in that section. -bro 172.149.84.231 08:47, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with SlimVirgin that a related comment from a different conversation would have to be separately attributed. This is done in Versions 3 and 4 where different quotations from Bush are summarized:
 * Bush has said that he did not use illegal drugs at any time since 1974. He has denied the allegation (Hatfield, 1999) that family influence was used to expunge the record of an arrest for cocaine possession in 1972, but has declined to discuss whether he used drugs before 1974.
 * These other statements were made in the context of political campaigning, unlike the conversation with Wead. I think they make the point more clearly.  The addition to the Wead paragraph suggested by 172 would be an improvement, but it would be rendered unnecessary if we included these other statements instead. JamesMLane 12:08, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Agreed. If the above is in the article, the quote from the link isn't neccessary.  The main reason I felt it was neccessary in the original, is the wording conveyed an altieror motive for the 'I didn't deny anything' remark.  That motive may exist, but I believe we should leave it to the reader to decide, thats why I placed GWB's reasoning for not denying. -bro 172.147.73.11 22:49, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Already you have now a third IP...is there a purpose for not creating a user page? How about contributing to the Rfc on these issues?--MONGO 00:14, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Before the night is over I will probably have a fourth, that again, is what happens when you are on dialup. I have answered the rest previously. -bro 172.147.73.11 00:52, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I must admit to being confused as to why anyone would object to the addition of that sentence, given that it's relevant and it's sourced. Now we have 3RR and vandalism accusations flying around because of it. Could those who object - Mongo, for example - explain why? Also, please note that 3RR applies whether you're right or wrong. The only time you can violate it is in cases of simple vandalism, but the addition or deletion of the disputed sentence doesn't count as vandalism. See Three revert rule. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:12, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * There is a standing Rfc on these passages and he has been repeatedly requested to comment there, yet he will not voice any opinion there, instead avoiding it outright. 172 also refuses to set up a user page, instead depending on his term "Bro". As it turns out, this is a heavily vandalized page and the content he wishes to have would be more accepted in this article if he would discontinue his obstenancy and create a user page. It appears he won't do this so he can skirt around 3RR. Nevertheless, he is free to edit as he wishes of course, but as I have mentioned, his behavior appeared at first at least to be vandalism due a combination of causes. The passage he wishes to see in the article is also found in the linked test, and doesn't provide any more insight or clarification than what was already achieved with less redundancy. As an advocate against inclusion of much of the text, I also added a link to the daughter article on the issues as a show of good faith and in respect to the apparent concensus...even though I have been vehemently opposed to the link.--MONGO 06:34, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Refusing to get create an account, yep, and? Skirt around the 3RR, untrue, unfounded.  Appeared as vandalism, no, as you so eloquently commented earlier, you were reverting due to the lack of an account, that appears as vandalism.  As for the actual content of the edit, I am overjoyed that you decided to address it, I have given the reasons many times here, and in the edit summaries.  You appear to be alone in your idea that certain quotes from a reference are useful, and others that relate directly to the ones used, are not.  I have no preference in regards to the sister article, you did that of your own violition as you say.  At this point, unless further improvement is needed on a passage, I am going to step away.  Toodles, "MONGO". -bro 172.147.73.11 06:45, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * If you bothered to read the Rfc you would see that I most certainly not alone...you are acting outside of the norm for these highly contested passages, refusing to engage in civil discussion in the Rfc on these passages and refusing to open a user account. SlimVirgin has asked you below to explain why you will not open a user account. Everyone here, including myself has been more than pleasant with you so there is certianly no reason for you to continue to agitate this article or the people that contribute here.--MONGO 06:56, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Asked and answered. -bro 172.147.73.11 07:26, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I do understand wrt the 3RR, as I've stated on the page, if its decided I was in violation, I will certainly take the block without a fight. I do question that blind reverts based solely on them being made by a nonlogged in user isn't vandalism though.  But I will bow to your knowledge on the subject. -bro 172.147.73.11 01:26, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * In regards to the vandalism, from the wikipedia entry:


 * Vandalism is any indisputably bad-faith addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia....Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature explicit and inarguable are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia. Committing vandalism is a violation of Wikipedia policy...
 * Mongo's bad faith were made explicit in both his edit summaries, and his statements on this page. That he has, and would continue to revert due to my not being a logged in user. -bro 172.147.73.11 01:48, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The deletion or addition of that sentence isn't vandalism; it's a genuine content dispute. Whether you have a user name or not is irrelevant. Your edits must be judged on merit. However, do be careful not to violate 3RR; whether you're right or wrong, now that people have been warned about it, anyone violating it is likely to be blocked for 24 hours. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:18, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Again, me being right or wrong on the inclusion of the material is rather irrelevent as I've stated I understand that I may be blocked if my edits were considered reversions. I did dispute that I was reverting vandalism, but I see thats not the definition regardless of the article on it here.  For future reference, I will remember that deletions of information from an article, based solely on a users anon status isn't vandalism. -bro 172.147.73.11 03:11, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Having said that, 172, you'd be saving other people and yourself some trouble if you'd set up an account, and I can't see any reason you wouldn't want to. It makes communicating with you difficult for one thing, because you don't have a fixed talk page. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:22, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * I understand the inherent disadvantages, and as mentioned before if you'd like me to elaborate on my reasons for not creating an account I will do so. I do watch the pages created for my IP's for a day or so after editing on them for information, and when talking to a user I watch their page for their comments.  Regards -bro 172.147.73.11 03:11, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Why won't you create an account? SlimVirgin (talk) 06:38, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * Replied on your talk page. -bro 172.147.73.11 07:20, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"American" versus "of the United States"
"American" might be informal, but "an United States" is even worse. Also, "American" is used in approximately 99.9% of other WP articles about U.S. citizens. I removed it entirely because "president of the United States" implies "American".&mdash;chris.lawson (talk) 22:08, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Who cares? Why does it matter what you call the people of America? Are they that self important?

Do we need "Selected quotations"?
Does this even need its own section? Right now we've got two quotes that are basically the same things he keeps saying in every other speech. And there's List of Bushisms and Bush on Wikiquote, so I don't see how Bush quotes need their own section in the article. There's also the problem of possible bias: the quotes are "selected" by whom? What criteria for notability were used to select them?

I don't think this section should be here. In fact, I think I recall a section just like this having been removed months ago, but I'm not completely positive on that. Regardless, I don't see why we need another collection of quotes. Mr. Billion 28 June 2005 06:37 (UTC)


 * I agree completely. Quotations sections are notorious targets for POV pushers and the practice is to use a reference to Wikiquote instead. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 28 June 2005 07:09 (UTC)

Disputed tag removed
I removed the disputed tag that Rdysn5 added due to no discussion as to why it was placed here. Normally this type of tag is either preceded or followed up by a discussion as to why the tag was added.--MONGO 28 June 2005 13:29 (UTC)

Who wrote that?
I really don't know what do to. I was browsing Wikipedia and stumbled on the article about President Bush. What the hell is that?!?!?!?! I'm not even a Wikpedia user, but that "article" about Bush getting killed by Dick Cheney has to go. I just needed someone to see that, and do something about it! I would do something about it but sadly I just don't know way too much about the guy. SOMEONE DO SOMETHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!


 * What article are you talking about? -bro 172.133.83.48 30 June 2005 06:28 (UTC)

This article, anyway, someone fixed it. Thanks

Wikilinks
Jez removed a large number of wikilinks with this comment: "removed some pointless links (one of my pet hates) - eg: is there really any need to link to the United States article every time the phrase pops up?)". Normal style is to link a term only the first time it's used, although, in a long article like this one, it's sometimes appropriate to link the first use in a particular section if the previous link is far above.  Beyond removing duplicate links, however, this edit unlinked quite a few terms -- countries in the coalition (Poland), policy areas (immigration), etc.  I'll relink these unless persuaded that there's a reason not to. JamesMLane 30 June 2005 17:25 (UTC)

Jez has now removed a large number of additional links. I don't agree with the practice of many editors in wikilinking every date and year that's mentioned in an article, but many of the other links would be useful. As a lawyer, I know the meaning of "tort" and "moot", but I doubt that everyone does. We have articles on those legal concepts, so we might as well link to them. I'm reverting this second set of mass deletions, while still holding off on doing anything about the first set to see if there's any dialog here. JamesMLane 4 July 2005 04:01 (UTC)


 * I thought we were supposed to wikilink every date and year so the user could customize his view? --Ampracific 4 July 2005 05:21 (UTC)


 * That consideration applies to dates but not years. At one point, I think, the idea was that something like July 4, 2005 would become 4 July 2005 or 4-7-2005 or 04-07-05 or whatever, but I think it's not implemented in a way that includes the year.  That's why dates and years are separate links.  (I'm not a noob but, as you can tell, I haven't tried to master the details of this point.)  I could go along with linking the July 4 part if people want to accommodate the consideration you mention.  For the years, though, the only purpose of linking that I know of is to facilitate inclusion in a timeline.  Some of the less important years in this article don't need linking.  Anyway, I feel more strongly about the removal of numerous substantive links. JamesMLane 4 July 2005 07:13 (UTC)

Comment on the beetles
I'm referring to the revert by at  20:07, 30 June 2005  (UTC) with the following edit comment:
 * Beetle references are CLEARLY POV. See pages dedicated to this naming. http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/agathidium_bushi_agathidium_cheneyi_and_agathidium_rumsfeldi/

That's a comment by an old mate of mine, PZ Myers, who is definitely to the left of the US political spectrum.

However PZ didn't give these beetles those names and the people who did so are supporters of the gentlemen in question. They intended the dedication sincerely and it was taken in that spirit. In fact President Bush phoned them to say thanks: President Bush calls to say thanks for the slime-mold beetle. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 30 June 2005 21:40 (UTC)

less than Christian
last tusday night in a live important speach President Bush urged young Americans to consider a career in the military, saying "there is no higher calling than service in our armed forces."

Isn't this an insult to all men of the cloth?


 * It's an insult to a lot of people and a lot of concepts. But we're not here to say whether or not it is, merely to describe what others out there in the big bad world do. --W(t) 1 July 2005 01:36 (UTC)
 * I thought it was his way of stating his deep appreciation for those that put others freedom before their own. Besides, many men and women of the cloth also serve in the armed forces.--MONGO 4 July 2005 05:28 (UTC)

Saying that being a cook in the armed forces is more important than being a priest in the service of God is an insult to Millions.

Who's Millions and why the hell should I care what he or she thinks?! Whoever he is, I find his belief that being a priest is more imporant than being a cook an insult to the millions (uncapitalised - I'm refering to a number of people here, not your friend Millions!) starving in the world. Millions may be well-fed; millions aren't. Tell your friend to consider that. And also consider the sacrilious nature of indulging in a gluttinous meal. Mmmm that's good eatin'. --Yoko-onassis 6 July 2005 16:53 (UTC)

the millions that you don't care about are called Catholics m'kay?


 * And the billions that your religion doesn't care about is called the rest of the world. --kizzle July 7, 2005 19:06 (UTC)

'' "And the billions that your religion doesn't care about are called the rest of the world". Here in africa, priests, nuns, and other christians are almost the only ones who help the poor. I am afraid that kizzle here is raving in complete ignorance. Ever heard of Mother Theresa? If not, look her up on Wiki.
 * removing other peoples comments is frowned upon. Also, um... any productive member of society is worth MUCH more than a clergyman. atleast they pay taxes and such, rather than spout myths as facts and try and warp the minds of the populace. IreverentReverend 7 July 2005 19:57 (UTC)

You mean try to help people and at the same time deal with slime in their church that want anything other than to serve god through acts of faith and goodwill.


 * No, I meant what I said. Through out history religion has attempted to withhold education, manipulate people, and fight science. Take a look at the intellegent design nuts fighting teaching science in the classroom. Churches are tax exempt, a waste of time, and attempt to destroy education. Due to the religous nuts, we now have "dubya" in office, the FCC censoring things, reduced rights, and a bunch of religious nuts attacking the US and england. religion has caused more war, more suffering, and more death than any other reason throughout history. Just about any one is better than a person that is continuing this needless tradition.IreverentReverend 7 July 2005 20:14 (UTC)

This is a place for discussion of the George W. Bush article. Please keep on topic. DJ Clayworth 7 July 2005 20:18 (UTC)

Than you for pointing out that I had allowed antagonists to get get the better of me.

I also apologize. Drives me nuts when religious bigots get going. IreverentReverend 8 July 2005 06:00 (UTC)

so does Bush's statement have a place on wikipedia?
so does Bush's statement have a place on wikipedia?

I think so.

Bush's war is based on his faith
this prooves that, and so it should be IN the article, please PROOVe to me why it shouldnt be there ,adn then wait for a response before deleting, this is the EXACT quote, with a cite, so this time would people please show me the respect of trying to talk about this before RUDELY wholsale deleting what i post???

heres the post

It would seem that Bush's War in Iraq is based on his faith as well, for he said "God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them." 1

please note that im putting this back in the page, and if you would please follow procedure, id like that. Gabrielsimon 1 July 2005 02:14 (UTC)


 * Please don't put it in the article. It is not an exact quote - it comes secondhand through Mahmoud Abbas. Do you trust the Palestinian president to accurately report what George W. Bush says? I don't. Rhobite July 1, 2005 02:18 (UTC)
 * I agree with Rhobite on this. Ampracific 1 July 2005 05:13 (UTC)
 * I third Rhobite's comments, this does not belong. -bro 172.138.4.162 2 July 2005 03:54 (UTC)

this is out of an israli newspaper site, and besides, why would you want to try and say you dont trust a goverment official, no matter what the government is? it should stay, becasue it is factual.

Gabrielsimon 1 July 2005 02:20 (UTC)


 * This is a better article about the quote's dubious origins. Please keep the quote out of this article. Rhobite July 1, 2005 02:21 (UTC)


 * From the article you posted:


 * Even then, there's uncertainty. After all, this is Abu Mazen's account in Arabic of what Bush said in English, written down by a note-taker in Arabic, then back into English.


 * That's as best as I can find in terms of describing the dubiousityisness of the quote... is there a more detailed description of why the quote is a fake? --kizzle July 1, 2005 20:32 (UTC)

you know s well as anyone that the washingbton post is as close to a pro goverment propagandist paper as is leglaly allowed,  hence, if trust is the issue at hand, then that paper has no cause to be trustworthey. Gabrielsimon 1 July 2005 02:23 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about? Aside from the NY Times, the Washington Post is one of the papers which are most frequently accused of liberal bias. Maybe you're thinking of the Washington Times. In any case, even your Haaretz article notes that this is not a direct quote from Bush. Either you failed to read it carefully, or you are being deceptive. Rhobite July 1, 2005 02:29 (UTC)
 * Please remember to assume good faith unless you are given a reason to assume otherwise. Jtkiefer July 1, 2005 02:33 (UTC)


 * This is the same guy who had a huge edit war in United States because he repeatedly wrote that the U.S. "stole" the country from the Indians. He's been blocked for 3RR a couple times. Add in his mudslinging here, and I'm sorry - Gabrielsimon's good faith is all used up. Rhobite July 1, 2005 02:37 (UTC)

I am not going to take a side on this, however I suggest that this be resolved here rather than in an edit war that will result in nothing but trouble and 3RR violations. I have no problem mediating such a discussion if desired.Jtkiefer July 1, 2005 02:27 (UTC)

i think people who are trying to make this quote go away are politically motiated. hence i do not feel inclined to pay them any heed. though iam trying to follow procedure. Gabrielsimon 1 July 2005 02:31 (UTC)


 * As always I won't assume motivation, however I would note that procedure would include discussion such a large change on a controversial article in the talk page before making the change to avoid an edit war and/or a situation such as this one. Jtkiefer July 1, 2005 02:44 (UTC)


 * Gabrielsimon also added this short paragraph: "It has been contended that bush wanted to put an oil pipeline from an oil field trough iraqi territory to a port thats none to far away, and Iraq's objection was thier true motive. This is supported by the simple fact that there never were any weapons of mass destruction of either chemical, nuclear nor biological nature." The paragraph was in the article for a surprisingly long time, so I wanted to bring it up here. First, this allegation is already discussed in Popular opposition to war on Iraq. Individual criticisms and theories about the Iraq war don't deserve whole paragraphs in this article - it's already too long. Second, the paragraph is unsourced and makes a POV conclusion. In essence, Gabrielsimon is stating that the simple fact that there were no WMDs found is enough to conclude that Bush wanted to build a pipeline in Iraq. The logic does not follow - the Bush administration genuinely thought there were WMDs, based on the poor intelligence they received. Also, the premise is false: Saddam did have WMDs at some point. He did not have them at the time of the 2003 invasion, but he certainly had them during the Iran war. It is false to say that there "never were any" WMDs. Rhobite July 1, 2005 02:51 (UTC)
 * This too, of course, does not belong in the article. -bro 172.138.4.162 2 July 2005 03:54 (UTC)
 * Also, three out of the five sources cited in that paragraph don't pass muster at first glance, IMO. One of them is titled at the top, Bush Bashing, and the two I find credible provide only basic factual claims (Iraq has a lot of oil, and the Bush administration admitted to not having found WMD). A &#1080; D &#1103; 01D  TALK  EMAIL  July 1, 2005 02:55 (UTC)

moe cites have been added. Gabrielsimon 1 July 2005 02:59 (UTC)
 * The new cites are all editorials. A &#1080; D &#1103; 01D  TALK  EMAIL  July 1, 2005 03:26 (UTC)


 * Point of interest - don't get mad, this isn't a personal attack, but frankly I'd lean more towards someone who actually knows how to type and spell than Gabrielsimon. Really, honestly, no offense, but before you try doing things to articles, all of us at wikipedia could ask for a little grammar and spelling ability, such as capitalization, not missing letters in words, and punctuation. And I stand corrected if this is considered a personal attack.Stanselmdoc 1 July 2005 17:54 (UTC)

ARTICLE PROTECTED
Please note that this article is now protected until further notice. Do not edit it directly until disputes have been resolved on this talk page. Thanks. Fuzheado | Talk 1 July 2005 03:00 (UTC)


 * I would prefer it if Gabrielsimon were simply blocked for his 3RR violation. This isn't a significant dispute - he is simply an overzealous contributor whose contributions fall far short of Wikipedia's editorial standards in terms of POV, verifiability, and grammar. Rhobite July 1, 2005 03:02 (UTC)
 * I concur with Rhobite. A &#1080; D &#1103; 01D  TALK  EMAIL  July 1, 2005 03:04 (UTC)


 * Sigh, it seems that page protection might be broken in 1.5beta of MediaWiki. It says it's protected, but it's not taking. By my count, User:Gabrielsimon has reverted no less than six times. I don't like the 3RR, but 2 x 3RR seems excessive. Fuzheado | Talk 1 July 2005 03:06 (UTC)
 * Hoo boy, don't let that get out. The trolls would have a field day... A &#1080; D &#1103; 01D  TALK  EMAIL  July 1, 2005 03:12 (UTC)


 * The page is protected from page moves already. So I believe you'd need to unprotect it, then protect it from page moves AND edits. But please don't! Just block Gabriel for 24 hours. I know you don't like 3RR blocks but he literally violated it 2 days ago on God and just came off a block. So 24 hours seems prudent. Gabriel, you reverted the "God told me" section at least four times. See WP:AN/3RR. Rhobite July 1, 2005 03:13 (UTC)


 * Rhobite, thanks for the explanation. Seems like we need to have a better interface for figuring out the disposition of a page. :) Fuzheado | Talk 1 July 2005 03:24 (UTC)

and how the hell is anything i worked on supposed to actually be viewable if you keep removing it? i procedure is DISCUSS, then delete, your not following that edict. its getting rather aggravating. hence i will say this once and once only, return my work, THEN discuss. Gabrielsimon 1 July 2005 03:08 (UTC)

also, if you guyes would follow the actual procedure as described to me when i first got her, oi wouldnt be reverting your changes. im not evenvandalizng, you people are just being jerks, knock it off. Gabrielsimon 1 July 2005 03:08 (UTC)
 * There is no set procedure for adding controversial content to an article. Your edits are poorly structured and sourced, so I'd prefer we discuss them on this talk page before they get added to the main article, if they do at all. Also, WP:NPA. A &#1080; D &#1103; 01D  TALK  EMAIL  July 1, 2005 03:12 (UTC)

six times, yes, but on three different issues. its only 3rr if you do the SAMe text three times, which i havent Gabrielsimon 1 July 2005 03:09 (UTC)


 * Same page, not same text. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 1 July 2005 03:12 (UTC)

Purely, on they're technical merits regarding wikipedia policies (someone please link to right policy here) here are the issues with those paragraphs:


 * Unsupported: statements should always have fact to back them up, several of your statements could be considered conjecture. i.e. the pipeline claim.
 * Uncited, quotes should be cited by who said them and should be properly sourced (you were beginning to fix this)

anyone please feel free to add to this list if you think of anything else. Jtkiefer July 1, 2005 03:18 (UTC)


 * It's been widely remarked that Bush invokes God a lot. If we want to cover the point, there are better sources than Abbas -- undisputed Bush quotations, people who've counted the references to God in his State of the Union speeches, Falwell types who've praised him as a man of faith (implicitly or explicitly contrasting him with the godless heathen Democrats), and secular liberals who've criticized him for setting himself up as divinely appointed to govern.  I agree with not relying on what Abbas says Bush said. JamesMLane 1 July 2005 05:49 (UTC)

Regarding Arbusto Energy
Can someone please explain to me what the following means:

Bush began his career in the oil industry in 1979 when he established Arbusto Energy, an oil and gas exploration company he formed in 1977 with leftover funds from his education trust fund and money from other investors.

If he formed the company in 1977, then doesn't that mean he started his career in the oil industry in 1977? I'm going to change it to: "Bush began his career in the oil industry in 1979 when he established Arbusto Energy, an oil and gas exploration company he formed with leftover funds from his education trust fund and money from other investors" pending further notice.

(I also looked at the seperate Arbusto Energy article that says the company was founded in 1977.)

More rumors
This article shouldn't be built on rumors such as this edit []. The edit even ends by saying that no connection was made between the Bush campaign and the rumors being spread about McCain. Ampracific, do you feel that this is helpful in creating a fact based and neutral account of Bush? If so, please explain why.--MONGO 2 July 2005 07:16 (UTC)
 * I'm uncertain as to what exactly you are disputing. I cited three separate sources    regarding the smear campaign against McCain.  One of them was Frontline, which I personally believe is just about as good as you can get for a top-tier source.  Also, here  is an article written later on by McCain's campaign manager, where he talks about push-polling and an email sent in order to spread the rumor that McCain fathered a black baby out of wedlock.  A Minneapolis Star Tribune article  listed a question from the push poll: “Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for John McCain for president if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?”


 * That there was a smear campaign does not seem to be in dispute. The only part in dispute is whether the Bush campaign was behind it.  Here is what the Wikipedia entry on Karl Rove says (I didn't write this):
 * "A reporter named Wayne Slater alleged in print that Rove was behind a push poll and whisper campaign before the South Carolina primary, suggesting John McCain had fathered an illegitimate black child; Rove denied any involvement and no-one has produced evidence to substantiate this allegation.[3] Bush went on to win South Carolina, the Republican nomination, and the presidency."
 * Here is a link to a Frontline interview with Slater, where he describes the smear campaign, says that McCain believed that Rove was behind it, and alleges that this is consistent with other political campaigns which Rove has run. The New Yorker article (repeating the link from above for convenience ) also says that McCain felt that Rove was behind the attacks.  Since both McCain and Slater felt that Rove was behind the smear campaign, it's fair to say that "Some observers believed that Karl Rove, Bush's campaign manager, was responsible for the rumors", which is what I wrote. --Ampracific 2 July 2005 08:26 (UTC)
 * It looks to me to have more to do with Karl Rove than George Bush in that, the allegations of the smear campaign against McCain are attributed to Rove...of course I know they may have worked together. While I would agree that frontline is fair, it doesn't say that Rove or Bush were behind the "whispers". The other two, especially the Nation, are fairly left leaning. The edit concludes that no connection was ever made, which allows the information to appear NPOV. Does the information in your mind that these allegations were spread support the basic reason behind the surge in the primaries by Bush over McCain or is it attributable more to other causes? The way it is written it appears that the surge in the primaries was causal to these alledged allegations by Rove.--MONGO 2 July 2005 08:41 (UTC)
 * "of course I know they may have worked together" Rove was Bush's campaign manager.  They definitely worked together. "or is it attributable more to other causes?" It's never possible to say 100% why a particular candidate won a race.  The best we can do is to list the most probable reasons. I can try to add some information about Bush's campaign strategy in South Carolina, but I don't want to go too long either.  Maybe a sentence regarding turning out religious voters, etc.? --Ampracific 2 July 2005 09:09 (UTC)


 * Interesting side note on this issue -- Al Franken, in his book, "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them" quotes from a February 12, 2000 C-SPAN broadcast (some here may not realize that Franken is incredibly meticulous about his facts):
 * Senator Fair: You haven't hit his soft spots.
 * Bush: I know. I'm going to.
 * Fair: Well, they need to. Somebody does, anyway.
 * Bush: I agree. I'm not going to do it on TV.
 * Little slip of the lip there? :) --Ampracific 2 July 2005 09:09 (UTC)
 * What I meant to say was they may have worked together to spread the rumours...we both know that Rove was Bush's campaign manager....--MONGO 2 July 2005 16:01 (UTC)
 * I don't think your references prove that McCains loss in South Carolina was attributable to gossip. As S.C. is definitely part of the bible belt, no doubt that McCain's more moderate republicanism in terms of items that are important to denizens of the bible belt, as compared to Bush's clamnant of being a reborn Christian are the real reasons he lost that primary. I don't doubt that Franken is meticulous with his facts, but his voice is just as radical to his POV as Rush Limbaugh is to the right. The C-span recitation doesn't prove anything other than there was a typical campaign conversation between Bush and Fair. Candidates oftentimes discuss their political battles as being just so.--MONGO 2 July 2005 09:25 (UTC)
 * You've made some good points. I do think that the smear campaign (or push-polling) bears mention, but I've given it too much of an emphasis, and I've given short shrift to other factors which came into play in S.C.  I will try to rewrite and maybe make it smaller in the process.  But, I don't have time to do it now, so I'm removing my change since I'm not that happy with it either. --Ampracific 4 July 2005 05:15 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I certainly didn't mean to chase it off. I think since it is referenced and certainly news to me that it deserves mention. I also responded on your talk page.--MONGO 4 July 2005 05:30 (UTC)

Approval Ratings
I think that Bush's approval ratings prior to 9/11 should be included as part of the approval ratings section of this article.


 * If this is done, I think that the idiosyncratic pattern of his approval ratings, namely the spikes on 9/11, iraq, and capture of saddam, should be noted as well, and the record lows that he is currently experiences, if that is not already mentioned. Kevin Baastalk: new July 4, 2005 13:17 (UTC)


 * Not to be political, but to be fair, calling his current approval ratings "record lows" is a little misleading. They may be a record for him, but just about every president in the past 50 years has had ratings this low, if not lower. Just saying is all. And besides, what do I know? I can't even kill a little kid. --Lord Voldemort 4 July 2005 20:44 (UTC)


 * I think it would be a good idea to follow precedent on this one. If yearly approval ratings are in previous presidential articles, it should be included, if not, I'd be against it. -bro 172.157.33.19 5 July 2005 01:35 (UTC)


 * Well since his highest approval ratings are recorded but not his lowest approval ratings, I would say that either the approval ratings section should be removed entirely (which I don't think would be appropriate at all) or they should be modified to give a balanced view of his approval ratings. It is an undisputable fact that Bush had very low approval ratings prior to the intense feelings of national pride that followed 9/11. I don't think any historical article on Bush's precedency will record him as he being an exceptionally popular president, whatever your view of the man may be, and therefore I think it's grossly misleading to ignore the period near the start of his precedency were his approval ratings were low. --Lord and Master of the Known Universe 5 July 2005 18:26 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the specific item of interest might be the incredibly regular clocklike sinking of his approval ratings at 1.6% per month, punctuated by spikes of war patriotism, since that was in fact a topic of some interest, covered by the national news media. (Not intended to be a Bush bash, just a clinically objective suggeston regarding the question of whether Bush's approval ratings are germane to the article or not). Gzuckier 5 July 2005 18:58 (UTC)


 * I think we should follow our most basic standard on this one: Any of Bush's approval ratings that are notable can recieve mention. I don't think it's out of place to mention a president's highest and lowest ratings, or to mention the approval ratings during major events during the presidency (if there's an notable correlation between the event and the approval rating). In Bush's case, it certainly deserves mention that his approval rating skyrocketed following 9/11, and likewise it's perfectly notable to say what his approval ratings were before the 9/11 spike. Approval ratings in the context of the Iraq war are also perfectly notable, as they've recieved much press, particularly regarding support at the outset of the war and after a lengthy period of occupation. I don't think we should just follow a template of past Presidents, because not every Presidency is the same. -Eisnel 5 July 2005 23:48 (UTC)
 * Certainly not every president is the same. However, every president does have 'notable' events in their presidency.  Which is why I think we should follow precedent in this case, if such things are included in past articles, then we should include it, if not, then it shouldn't be included, even the high ones. -bro 172.139.207.115 6 July 2005 03:22 (UTC)
 * My mistake. I came off sounding like a huge Bush supporter there. I was just trying to correct the possible misleading statement of my fellow Wikipedian. I have no problem including any of Bush's approval ratings, but only when notable. I haven't looked at other presidents articles too much, but I suppose there should be some continuity between them. Also, to say Bush's low numbers right now are a direct result of the War in Iraq is also misleading. Many people, including many Republicans, are upset with his stance on the border, Social Security, etc. Life in 2005 is not all about Iraq. Feel free to quote me on that. --Lord Voldemort 6 July 2005 15:07 (UTC)

I Agree
Adding his early approval ratings, as Michael Moore did in his documentary would give an honest and complete record of his approval records and expose the tyrant for who he is!

Voice of Bush's thoughts: "I am the senate'!

Revelatory photo
Now here is a photo that shows GWB, orator, in a new light -- and I don't just mean (what appears to be) the Japanese flag. It's AP and presumably it's conventionally copyrighted. Pity. -- Hoary July 5, 2005 10:03 (UTC)
 * Don't be silly. It's obviously the flag of West Virginia. Rama 5 July 2005 10:33 (UTC)

Mergefrom Impeachment
I have placed a tag to suggest a merge from Impeachment_in_the_United_States, as to me it looks to be more suitable here, and also in need of POV checking as it sounds a bit like advertisement for a set of petitions. Unfortunately it got lost in the middle of a (lot) of vandalism reverts so I'm placing the suggestion here too. --Nabla 2005-07-07 03:36:54 (UTC)
 * It would be more suitable in the additional reading section or in links, but not at the top of the article...reasons: Not the Downing Street Memo, and anything else that has come to the surface so far would be sufficient enough for congress to commence imeachment proceedings...besides, with a republican controlled congress, it is doubtful it would ever make it to the floor. Furthermore, the Democrats that are considering replacing him wouldn't think of risking the notority of this action without a lot more evidence since it would probably alienate many centrists.--MONGO July 7, 2005 04:32 (UTC)
 * I think corroboration of the Downing Street Memo with what Richard Clarke and Paul O'Neill said is enough to warrant beginning the process. Unlike rathergate, there is no question of its authenticity this time. --kizzle July 7, 2005 05:42 (UTC)
 * There may be enough evidence, but that is besides the point in a sense. If the democrats or anyone goes after an impeachment of Bush, they will probably end up looking like they are seeking revenge for Clinton, for the two elections and may feel that unless there is more substance, it isn't worth the risk to their political careers. Even if an article of impeachment is presented, with a Republican controlled congress, it isn't likely to go far, unless there is more substance. I don't argue that there is a case, but as all lawyers and those in legal teams know, it isn't what they know, but what they can prove in a big legal battle as this would be. I think it would be a bad idea for the Democrats to back this unless more comes to light.--MONGO July 7, 2005 06:39 (UTC)
 * If we are gonna get into discussing the particulars, the DSM itself is nothing. It only confirms what was being said at the time publicly.  The hoorah around it is rather mystifying.  As for Clarke and O'Neill, I'm afraid I don't know what you mean.  Oh, and about rathergate, psst, there was no question. -bro 172.168.154.58 7 July 2005 07:16 (UTC)
 * Huh, I didn't realize Bush was publicly justifying the war by "fixing" facts around policy? Read Against All Enemies and Price of Loyalty, then you'll know.  O'Neill and Clarke were saying the same things about plans for Iraq pre-9/11.  And not sure what you mean about no question about rathergate... are you saying the Killian documents were authentic? --kizzle July 7, 2005 17:37 (UTC)
 * Depends on which 'facts' you are referring to. I tend not to enjoy reading books by axe grinders, so I still don't know what you are referring to there.  Killian documents, no question that they were fake. -bro 172.172.46.106 7 July 2005 22:36 (UTC)
 * It's too bad you have to resort to ad hominem attacks on the authors rather than discuss their arguments. (psst, both of them were Republicans) --kizzle July 8, 2005 00:50 (UTC)
 * If you wish to argue that they aren't ax grinders, fine, go to it. Other than that you haven't presented any argument from them for me to discuss.-bro 172.165.157.184 05:02, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * See, its one thing to discuss someone's ulterior motives. Unfortunately, you actually have to say what about their stories is false which you have yet to do, otherwise all you are accomplishing is a ad hominem logical fallacy.  Our standards should be slightly higher than Fox News here. --kizzle 05:29, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Sigh, unfortunately, I've asked twice now without success for whatever these arguments are. The issue of their status as ax grinders, I'll leave as a personal decision.  However I must point out the inherent humor in your reference to fox news, when complaining about me talking about someones ulterior motives.  It seems that you've gotten the wrong idea of my political persuasion, which isn't too odd, it is hard to tell these things over limited contact such as wikipedia.  Jabs at Fox, or using 'they are republicans' as someones bonafides isn't going to get you far with me, as I hold neither in high regard.  Now, about those arguments.... -bro 172.165.157.184 10:31, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * First,I placed the tag on he top of the article. That does not mean that the subject should be placed there. Yet if it is important, and even a serious threat of impeachmenet looks like so, it should be placed somewhere. You would know much better than I where to put it.
 * Second, please take a look at the section I've pointed to as it is growing to look more and more as a campaign pro-impeachmeant, and it also looks out of context there. -Nabla 2005-07-07 16:28:26 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, Bush merits impeachment. In fact, the only close question is whether, under the Nuremberg Trials precedents, he also merits death by hanging for the crime of planning, initiating and waging a war of aggression.  Nevertheless, it's not relevant to this article for us to determine whether he deserves impeachment, or whether it would be politically risky for the Democrats to push for it.  The only question is whether there's a serious threat of impeachment, so as to make it notable in Bush's biography.  Right now there isn't.  The impeachment of Clinton for a comparative trifle was less justified but more significant, simply because the Republicans did indeed press it.  Impeachment of Bush doesn't deserve mention in this article unless and until it gains some traction beyond a few lonely, honest voices.  Mention of it in the impeachment article is much more appropriate.  It's an illustration of how the availability of the impeachment mechanism plays a role in the political process, by giving the opposition party a hook for presenting criticisms of an incumbent President. JamesMLane 7 July 2005 17:11 (UTC)
 * Agree with James about inclusion of impeachment. If it becomes an actual threat, the article will reflect this, but until then lets just keep watching. --kizzle July 7, 2005 17:43 (UTC)

bush's bike accidents
the # of GW bike accidents constitutes evidence of his having brain damage from substance abuse.

so how many has hed had? (unsigned comment)

id say his chocking on a soft pretrzel is clear demonstration  of brain damage as w ell, i mean, how do you choke on something soft?? Gabrielsimon 8 July 2005 17:40 (UTC)


 * By not paying attention to what you're doing. Seriously, Gabe, you know I'm not a supporter of the little twerp, but there's no need to damn him with stuff that isn't strictly true. Watch yourself, 'kay? DS 8 July 2005 22:58 (UTC)

he did actually choke on it, i saw it on the news a while back. as for drug use and such id say his demenor is much like an ex coke hads. Gabrielsimon 9 July 2005 15:49 (UTC)

village idot and phrophecies of nostradamus
i read somewhere that nostradamus said that " when the billage idiot runs the largest millitary on the planet, the aocalypese comes soon after" or something like that.... Gabrielsimon 06:03, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I say we invade France in retaliation for those remarks.. —Cleared as filed. 06:05, July 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * i wasnt kidding tho, its in the phrophecies from what i read... can anynoe substantiate this?

Gabrielsimon 06:06, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you're thinking of the hoax described in the Nostradamus article. —Cleared as filed. 06:17, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

nope. Gabrielsimon 06:24, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


 * You aren't even old enough to run for President yet are you? :D -bro 172.138.11.74 07:32, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

im 23, so technically, i am, but whas  that got to do with anything? Gabrielsimon 07:33, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Heh, sorry, I was trying to lighten the mood. Sorry if that didn't come across. By the by, any chance to get some of this talk page archived, it's crazy big right now.-bro 172.138.11.74 07:42, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmm. Actually, according to the Constitution, you have to be 35 to run for President, at least of the United States. —Cleared as filed. 07:38, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

i thought it was the age of majority... whoopsies! Gabrielsimon 07:42, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Plus, you have to be a natural born citizen... which I'm going to assume Gabrielsimon is not. But who cares anyway. --Lord Voldemort 13:37, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Maybe we should archive the talk page again?
"By the by, any chance to get some of this talk page archived, it's crazy big right now.-bro 172.138.11.74 07:42, 15 July 2005 (UTC)"
 * Yeah, it is 418 KB to be exact. It is taking too long to load, and should be archived again. --pile0nadestalk 07:55, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


 * The trouble is that, with other issues having come up, we still haven’t resolved the substance abuse question. I hate to archive things out of chrono order.  One possibility would be: Move “Born and raised...” down to its chrono position, then archive the first three topics, which consist of the RfC and two follow-ups to it.  The drawback is that anyone wanting to look at the RfC responses would have to open the archive, but we have kizzle’s summary to give a rough idea of how the comments fell out. JamesMLane 08:09, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

do it. :) Gabrielsimon 08:12, 15 July 2005 (UTC)