Plans for George W. Bush Presidential Library

Several cities and universities in Texas are quietly (but aggressively) competing to be the future site for the George W. Bush presidential library. There will be the inevitable jokes about whether the library will just house President Bush's books, or whether it also will include the crayons that he used to color them. However, to the cities and schools involved, the presidential library is very serious business that could generate hundreds of millions of dollars in construction spending, and many more dollars in tourist revenue. Some observers expect the President to start discussing possible locations as early as this year. There is an extensive collection of news links about President George W. Bush, Laura Bush and their twin daughters Jenna and Barbara at http://www.100towatch.com/2008/george-w-bush.html.

Like a monument to corporate criminals it will stand, properly cleansed of all national security dangers, like freedom and democracy. And probably most of Bush's history, I wonder if it will mention his family and their extended family, nazis, royal saudis, Bin Ladens, and a laundry listed of convicted and guilty but not convicted corporate and war criminals.

Ah, it will be a day of great joy for our country indeed.

Yes money will flow, a few will truly gain, as some will somewhat benefit, but it will not last, and the poor shall remain poor, and grow poorer.

Leftwood you should put down the coolaid. Wow - is there a conspiracy theory you dont like? I bet you disbelieve that man walked on the moon too?

Na, I wouldn't know, but thankfully you've been there to clear it all up.

What are you calling a conspiracy theory in referrence to the Bush history?

Nothing I've mentioned in this thread is a secret, and its not a theory. But since Mainstream News hasn't covered it as anything but theory and spiteful rhetoric it has no credibility right?

Coolaid?

Maybe you should put down the Bush pipe you've been sucking on. You probably don't think he has a DUI either, and had done cocain for a long time, or has daughters who under age drink with his superior moral knowledge and obvious Christian ways.

Hell, you probably think all corporate tycoons are known for their morals.

Did you not know that the Bush family has business dealings with the royal saudi's, that Prince Bandar was nicknamed Bandar Bush, that Bin Ladens are business buddies, that Prescott had assets seized under the trading with the enemy act even after America's involvement in the war when it was officially illegal, let alone before.

Not to mention the myriad of Banking and general corporate ties, like Kenneth Lay of Enron being Bush's #1 campaign contributer for 2000, but he's a great guy too right? And Ben Ladens got mad at Osama so that doesn't matter, and no one has even tried to make an excuse for the Saudi's funding of terrorism, even Fox News says Bush is contradicting himself on that one.

But again, I know nothing and believe only outrageous theories right?

You can attempt to insult me, however, if I am wrong, then all is well, but if you are wrong......

Perhaps you should try disproving "theories" for a while. I promise you, if you let down your wall for a while, what will happen is not that you will be convinced that all theories are true, but that enough have solid fact, as solid as anything you get now to confuse and possibly scare you.

This happens because there tends to be some truth in all lies. This is why poloticians get away with lying. This is why theories exist and persist.

And the point is that you like myself and everyone else would and should be concerned enough about the facts that do exist to distrust just enough to demand some openness and honesty, just for a change of pace if nothing else.

Unfortunately, Bush's consistency in rhetoric seems to be enough to persuade many to believe he is as honest or conviently ignorant as they come.

So what if Bush is only consistent in helping corporations and war, and even gets caught lying or being conviently ignorant to lies or "bad information" that sends us into an endless war. So what if they pay for people to lie about the underfunded No Child Left Behind, and is cutting Vet benefits while talking about increasing them.

But again, I'm just full of shit right. Only McTex knows the truth, and of course those who agree with him.

Dude, I would give both my nuts to be wrong, but I shouldn't have to and it shouldn't be this much of an argument.

You know what I say is common, that alone should get us to equally desire a way to clear it up, which is what I want, and is why I don't fit into your left or right category.

I don't agree with a secretive government. Especially when they feel it so important to spy on everyone including us, and kill in my name. You kill in my name, I have the right to know who and why and even how. You think I'm just an ignorant bumpkin who can't handle the truth then you've lost touch with society and are blaming them for forced ignorance.

Our democracy is not a democracy if the people/government is uninformed. If you think the system is just so huge and so complicated that laws and ethics are not as valuable or important from one point to the next, well, then you've bought into the lie. And if you are religious don't even bother praying for forgiveness for you sleep with the devil himself.

You see, a government that lies does not need to lie when they conform with ethics and sound laws. They need to hide and lie when the break from that. Its pretty simple really.

Though I understand that people fear what weaknesses will be exposed or exploited, they miss the point of an open government, its open so people can see when weaknesses are abused and exploited. To keep it from happening.

So, McTex, one other question, is absolutely every bit of existing information that is derogatory or unflattering to the Bush's a conspiracy theory to you?

Yeah - like I thought - you never heard a conspiracy theory you didnt like. For example, there is no evidence that Bush ever used cocaine. And the truth is neither I nor you actually know if he did use it. However, you believe he did, do you not? And Im sure theres nothing anyone could ever say that could convince you otherwise. And you probably think all corporate tycoons are corrupt? You want me to disprove every nutty kooky theory that you attempt to articultate but I doubt that would serve any real purpose because, hey Im probably typing this from the White House and a member of Bush's staff, right?

Did you know that every administration since FDR has had very close ties to the Saudis? Do you know that the Saudis present no military threat as they are extremely weak militarily? Do I think the ruling Saudi's are the good guys? Hell no but that doesnt mean they arent better than others and have been quite helpful to American foreign policy interests in the past.

You hate Bush and nothing anyone says will alter your view of him. You made up your mind long ago and are always going to believe the worst. The truth is that Bush is human and thus tells lies, however, as politcians go, has been extremely honest - far more honest than his predecessor.

Prove me wrong.....

uh, you proved yourself wrong when contradicting yourself calling him an honest liar.

I had not long since made up my mind, only once I learned more did I fear the worst, again, I would love to be wrong, you are definitely set in your ways at least as much as you accuse me, if it is wrong to call a liar a liar then I am guilty and so are you, if it is wrong to allow it to continue then only you are left to blame.

Its not about who is wrong or right, its about the fact that neither you nor I, as you mentioned, have access to the truth in a definite way. That should be your argument as it is mine.

I don't want to have to argue with you and people of like views, no, I don't like conspiracy theories that show America to be amongst the greatest world threats, I want this bullshit cleared up, and repeating the president has proven not to be the way to do it. So what's left? Something else I would guess.

Stop fighting your fellow americans and go after the source of the problem. That's all I ask.

Your entire argument has been based on trying to generalize mine, I named names and you generalized my argument, this means you have no good rebuttal.

That, to me, would mean that you may be in need of listening a little more than preaching. I know I don't know everything, what about you? Do you care to find out? Even if you don't like it perhaps?

Actually I didn't call Bush a liar. A liar is not merely anyone who tells lies for all humans lie but one that repeatedly tells lies. A liar is one that denies he tells lies. Has Bush or you or I told lies? Of course. Does that automatically mean that we are dishonest people? By no means!

If you believe that America is the greatest world threat then you are exactly the kind of person I desire to verbally battle - you are my ideological enemy and, what I consider, one of the greatest domestic threats this nation has produced.

And you accuse me of being too general? That's my number one complaint with your posts. Yes you are good at making accusations but they are always extremely generalized and rarely contain any kind of supporting arguments. And, to top it off, you never provide any kind of solutions or remedies.

Instead of trying to be so verbose I recommend you make one single accusation and then support it with some facts and let the debate go from there. Also try to include one example for how you would remedy the problem!

WTF? lol

When did I encourage Leftwood to be unbiased? And when did I say that I am not biased? WTF is wrong with you sophists? At least the teenager could present an argument, even if it was based on faulty data.

Lets have some fun and examine your points:

1. What in the hell is your point? lol Bush is a human, yes? All humans lie, yes? Bush then must lie, yes? That does not mean that Bush is a dishonest man nor all humans are by nature dishonest since dishonesty implies a tendency to habitually lie. Are you telling me that you are truly ignorant of this fact?

2. That definition is extremely old being that it comes from the Bible. The wisdom inherent in it is obvious... to most... lol.

3. Are you really 24 years old? Seems more like 14! Am I assuming, hmmm.... I wonder, lol. Am I being biased in my assumption? Probably! Is there a contradiction in my logic? Nope! lol

4. OMG LMFAO! "At the current time, more nations on the planet oppose the US in their political endeavors than support them." Are you seriously trying to argue that a majority is by definition always right? And the funniest part is that your claim is purely subjective and completely unsubstantiated. In fact, the overwhelming majority of American endeavors are not opposed but universally welcomed, promoted and greatly desired. Even Iraq drew the largest coalition of international support that America has ever had during wartime.

Additionally, the US is not one of the most powerful nations - it is the most powerful nation and vastly superior to all others. Just because this is a fact does not logically then make it the worlds greatest threat. You should tread carefully when you attempt to use logic.

And lastly, in case you don't know, all logic is not equal. All arguments are not sound. If two people are verbally debating and they disagree then by definition the possibility that one of them is wrong or arguing using flawed reasoning thus leading to a losing argument is most probable. However, there is the possibility that both arguments are flawed or both are equally true but that still does not prevent them from having a winning or losing argument.

5. Please explain how it is possible to resolve a discussion when one side chooses not to offer any resolutions?

6. You mock but don't deny. Nor does he! lmao Looks like I pegged him correctly, eh? Or do you now want to deny it? Hmmmm?

So lets sum up your points. You have accused me of holding a bias (which I of course do), of not understanding the definition of honesty (which you and Leftwood apparently do not), of using bad logic (when you actually argued that might makes right), that there are no winners or losers in an argument (lol I guess you don't believe anything you wrote was right?), and that its easier to mock than refute. I therefore conclude, based on the above and indisputable logic, that anything you conclude will be likely to make me laugh.

PS When did I request respect? My logic will stand or fall on its own. Actually I don't expect respect when I don't hold much faith that young Americans have even the most basic training in logic and reason. No, in all truth I expect to be responded to by sophists and love it dearly when I am proven wrong (regardless of that person's bias)!

Since I only have a little time again at the moment I will try to at least address a fallacy you have claimed again of me McTex.

I have offered solutions, and they were indeed general, other than one basic point. To change this system of breeding corruption, we must make it the open system it was designed or should be.

By that I mean it must be the public office it was built as with our ability to see what the government does, when and how. Not have highly controversial and important information classified for years or indefinitely, nor give the opportunity for it to be altered.

Plenty of court ruled, but highly downplayed in significance and pecking order, legally deemed conspiracy has been proven guilty, such as Iran Contra (which I will add that many of the same very significant and important people in or associated with the White house now and then are the same, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, possibly Cheney at the time I'd have to double check on specifics since you will undoubtedly never bother to.)

A point being that even though you skoff at conspiracy it is not a word reserved for freakish and outlandish theory, it is one used for court proceedings more often than I care for. Especially in referrence to our government.

You want more evidence, it would take pages and hours and days because there is so much, its basically the flip-side of history. Do some searches educate yourself. Don't be beligerant in your assurance, you do nothing possitive for anyone by blowing off facts that don't appeal to you.

Again, the solution is simple, it is used in many professions and situations, its often called "Going back to basics", instead of rewriting the constitution and bill of rights we need to re-instate them, as well as take the lid of secrecy off of the source of corruption, which is posistions of power and influence, which is not the people anymore, but government, corporations, mainstream media, and central banks.

The fact that you consider me a threat because I have lagitimate questions based on just as lagitimate facts, regardless of how aware of them you are, is in itself a reason why our country is dangerous. Our system is a system born of reasonable dissent, to call a dissenter a threat is a threat and anti American, you call me the threat to America and yet you are fighting against America's greatest traditions and saving graces. But I'm sure you will somehow convince yourself that it is I who am anti-American.

As for Bush and lies, well, you would undoubtedly call his evident lies mistakes or bad intelligence because that is the line you have bought. When plenty of dissenting arguments of other than and even including Bush's inside group have said many things, including pre plannings for war, cherry picking intelligence knowing full well that the claims were false, etc. etc. etc.

Again I would love to saturate you with examples and evidence, but perhaps you should find it yourself. Because its not in a neat pile in from of me and you wouldn't believe me anyway.

Hey deceivius,

You tried to show that I was being a hypocrite, but you failed. Let me help you out a bit. To expose 'hypocrisy' you need to first accurately expose the person's actual intentions, accusations or beliefs and then show that the person is not minding their own standards. Instead you used the good ole strawman by accusing me of saying something I never said and then showed I practiced the very thing you said I accused of others when I never had.

BTW, I loved the link. Thank you. It sums up quite nicely many of my previous objections to Leftwood's debating style and your previous post. I am curious, have you actually read it...? And I'm being serious, have you? If you had you would recognize that you used # 1, 2, 4 and 7. Leftwood is particularly good at # 2, 3 and 5.

Like John Harkins, I have also spent many years debating Lefties and must deeply agree with his conclusion that, because the Left prefers to reason from emotion, they inevitably fall back on such stupid tricks when losing an argument.

I'm not sure why this had to degenerate into a partisan slugfest.

Leftwood, you are doing better - this post was better written, offered some explanation - however it is still too verbose and too general. Try to take one specific example and explain it fully - then stop and allow it to be debated.

Now you want to open the system up more the way it was 'designed' to be. OK. But did you know that at the time of our founding all sessions of the Senate were done behind closed doors and no written records were kept. It employed complete secrecy. Also, the Executive had far less Congressional oversight and the 4th Branch of Gov, I would argue, was far less powerful and did not have the technology comparable to what they have today that allows them to expose the Gov.

You used the example of Iran Contra. First you need to understand that no laws were broken during Iran Contra - but a Congressional rule or mandate was violated. However, the constitutionality of that rule has not yet been court argued and the SC has not yet rendered any rulings. In truth, I think that the SC, if following the Constitution, would have to side with the Executive since it is their responsibility to govern foreign affairs, not the Legislative's.

Lets also attempt to stop all the strawmans. I did not say that you are a threat because you have legitimate questions based on just as legitimate facts. Go back and reread what I said!

Re: Bush and lies: don't tell me how I would respond, simply state your evidence. What lies has he told. If you cant then acknowledge that you have no evidence that he has lied.

Finally, you do not have to saturate me with facts. Just give one or a few. Substantiate your accusations with logical evidence that could perhaps sway me or others.

Good question teen,

My simple answer is because the Left is so convinced they are right and, arguing from emotion, is not prepared to lose an argument. Although I am not sure by what you mean by partisan. We are all partisans and should not be ashamed of it. I surely am not. Do you think that you are not a partisan?

"My simple answer is because the Left is so convinced they are right and, arguing from emotion, is not prepared to lose an argument."

What like when Bush was unable to name a single of his mistakes at the presidential debate? That was a blatant example of self-deceiving and pitiful pride because he couldn't admit he was WRONG. Which is exactly losing an argument is.

I think the Right is just as prone to believing they are right. And while the left's main emotion is sympathy, I think the right's is nationalism and xenophobia. Just listen to any number of right wing radio hosts or Norquist a prominent Republican party strategist.

"Do you think that you are not a partisan?"
I don't have a team.