Bush Finally Making Sacrifices for the War...

Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Evan!

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2006
Messages
11,835
Reaction score
115
Location
Charlottesville, VA
So many have given their lives in Iraq...it's great to see the commander in chief finally making a sacrifice of his own...

“I don't want some mom whose son may have recently died to see the commander in chief playing golf,” he said. “I feel I owe it to the families to be in solidarity as best as I can with them. And I think playing golf during a war just sends the wrong signal.”

Your commitment to the troops knows no bounds, sir!
 
Aw that's sweet. He probably spent a lot of time deciding whether to dedicate his golf abstinence to the loss of life or horrendous deficit...:rolleyes:
 
Yippee another political thread with the potential for more anti-Bush rhetoric. Why even get this started when it's going to get locked anyway?
 
P'shaw. When I think of golf, I think of Bob Hope. When I think of Bob Hope, I think of the USO. When you think of the USO, you think about the troops.

So, does Bush hate the troops? :confused:
 
Not a huge Bush fan, but I have no problem with that statement at all.
 
So many have given their lives in Iraq...it's great to see the commander in chief finally making a sacrifice of his own...

Your commitment to the troops knows no bounds, sir!

I've followed dubya's lead, and have given up golf until the end of the war. Hopefully it won't last the entire 100 years that one candidate has speculated about, or my game is really going to suffer.

I've also given up catfish noodling, curling, competitive ice carving and midget tossing. We all have to make sacrifices.
 
He is copying Johnson and his father so he MUST perceive Iraq to be like Vietnam.


"Lyndon Johnson refused to let the public see him playing golf during the Vietnam War, believing it unseemly in light of combat deaths suffered by soldiers he sent into battle. Later in the century, George H. W. Bush paid a price for not doing the same. When the Gulf War erupted, Bush stated that he refused to be a prisoner in the White House and would continue to play golf. He quickly rescinded his statement after receiving heavy public criticism."

That might be is father. Who knows, IMHO Bush Sr. was a much better pres.

http://www.golfonline.com/golfonline/features/history/article/0,17742,467830,00.html
 
P'shaw. When I think of golf, I think of Bob Hope. When I think of Bob Hope, I think of the USO. When you think of the USO, you think about the troops.

So, does Bush hate the troops? :confused:


So he hates the troops and black people( good thing he's not running again there will be no one left to vote for him) :D
 
I've followed dubya's lead, and have given up golf until the end of the war. Hopefully it won't last the entire 100 years that one candidate has speculated about, or my game is really going to suffer.

Speaking of 100 years... reminds me of something I've been saying a fair amount...

I assume we'll have troops in Iraq about as long as we had troops in Germany after WWII. I don't see a problem with that, just so long as they eventually stop shooting at us.
 
Ah, we all know it's just an act. Preliminary reports say that POTUS has given up golf only to run downstairs to the WH rec room and turn on Wii Sports. Damn, that stuff is addictive.
 
I love this quote:

— Asked a question that was submitted online about skyrocketing gas prices, Bush said the problem doesn’t have “a quick answer.”

“It took us a while to get to where we are — very dependent on oil,” he said. “So my answer ... is that the best thing we can do is to increase supply and to drill for oil and gas in environmentally friendly ways at home and build more refineries.”

Hmmm, maybe the response to every addiction is just to keep using more! Hey you smokers! Smoke more! Hey you alcoholics! Drink more! Hey you junkies! Shoot up more heroin!

I submit that the solution to being dependent on oil (i.e., using too much of the stuff) is to find other sources of energy. Reducing demand, not increasing supply is the long term solution to the problem.

IB4TL
 
I submit that the solution to being dependent on oil (i.e., using too much of the stuff) is to find other sources of energy. Reducing demand, not increasing supply is the long term solution to the problem.

IB4TL

I'm 100% in favor of finding other sources of viable cost effective energy.

Hey! Maybe there's one in my back yard!!!

Let me go check...
 
Hmmm, maybe the response to every addiction is just to keep using more! Hey you smokers! Smoke more! Hey you alcoholics! Drink more! Hey you junkies! Shoot up more heroin!

Hmm from a 3:rd person perspective....Afganistan -drugs, Iraq - oil. Seems you got it all covered ;)

/
H
 
I'm 100% in favor of finding other sources of viable cost effective energy.

Hey! Maybe there's one in my back yard!!!

Let me go check...

I'm like the comic I heard on Bob & Tom last week.

QUOTE
" people say we can't drill in Alaska because it would have too much effect on the environment, but for cheaper gas prices I'd drill into the skull of a Panda bear" :D:D;)
 
Hopefully it won't last the entire 100 years that one candidate has speculated about, or my game is really going to suffer.

You really need to put that quote into perspective.

IE- Korea, Japan, Germany.....
 
I love this quote:



Hmmm, maybe the response to every addiction is just to keep using more! Hey you smokers! Smoke more! Hey you alcoholics! Drink more! Hey you junkies! Shoot up more heroin!

I submit that the solution to being dependent on oil (i.e., using too much of the stuff) is to find other sources of energy. Reducing demand, not increasing supply is the long term solution to the problem.

IB4TL

While I agree that being dependent on oil is A problem I do not believe it is THE problem in the context of that question.

The question related to rising gas prices. In that context, driving up supply in order to collapse prices in the short term is a solution. Doesn't solve the long term problem but does give some relief in the short term while getting together a toolset together to resolve the longer term issue.

It's kinda like the nicotine gum or patches. Gives some relief from the drug addiction while the bad habits are gotten rid of.

Ultimately we need both a short term solution and a long term solution.
 
While I agree that being dependent on oil is A problem I do not believe it is THE problem in the context of that question.

The question related to rising gas prices. In that context, driving up supply in order to collapse prices in the short term is a solution. Doesn't solve the long term problem but does give some relief in the short term while getting together a toolset together to resolve the longer term issue.

It's kinda like the nicotine gum or patches. Gives some relief from the drug addiction while the bad habits are gotten rid of.

Ultimately we need both a short term solution and a long term solution.

I agree that we need a mix of energy sources that isn't so heavily reliant on oil. But I disaggree that high gas prices are really a "problem" that needs to be addressed by the government. Its those high prices that are the driving force for change, causing Americans to make real changes (like buying fuel efficient cars and driving less) that governmental policies were ineffective at promoting. The market is achieving what the government could not in this case. I know that high gas prices are painful to some individuals, but they are causing changes that will be good for the country in the long run.

Short term solutions that artificially drive down the retail price of gasoline are counterproductive because they lull Americans into a false sense of security about the real price of gas and cause a delay in real change occuring. Not to mention the economic distortions.

I find it funny (ironic) that people who normally decry the government as overly paternalistic, ineffective, and wasteful begin whining that its the government's job to keep gas prices low when they realize it costs $200/month to keep their SUV on the road now.
 
I agree in spirit but not in the details. Yes, we need to allow some pain to occur in order to facilitate change. However, the transition to a mixed system, particularly one that might require some change in consumer behavior might be in need of some regulation in order to avoid driving ourselves into a (more) significant recession.

At this point I'd venture to guess that we're on the same side of this discussion and merely quibbling over details.

I also find that irony somewhat humorous.
 
You really need to put that quote into perspective.

IE- Korea, Japan, Germany.....

As long as we're talking perspective, our presence in those countries doesn't inspire generation after generation of religious fanatics to attack us and our interests all over the globe. In fact, for the most part, we are welcome in those nations, or at least tolerated.

Our military presence in the middle east will NEVER be welcomed in the same manner. Not in a hundred years, not in a thousand...as long as we are there, they will be trying to kill us.
 
They will be trying whether we are there or not. It will never end till we submit.

Can you define "submit?" If you mean weaning ourselves off their oil and washing our hands of the filthy place, maybe it's not such a bad idea. However, we're going to have to sacrifice more than our tee time. I'm up for it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top