Quote: Cedric wrote in post #73

---

Quote: Frank Cannon wrote in post #70

---

dislike the Bush's for generally making piss poor decisions or setting things in motion that end up being devastating to the country when they are in power....

---

Yeah, Michael Dukakis, Algore and John Kerry would've done much better, right Frank?

---

Quote: musiclady wrote in post #74

---

My citing the facts about the Bush's was in direct response to nerd's continual accusation that they all felt they were owed a career in politics.

The facts don't back that up.

The decisions they have made is an entirely different subject, though I think I can point to a number of good decisions made by some of the Bushes.

However in light of the thread subject, George P.'s decision to work for Ted Cruz seems like a good one worth consideration, and since that insight indicates that he might make good decisions, we have no reason to be against him yet...........

Do we??

---

Quote: Palinista wrote in post #75

---

Quote: musiclady wrote in post #74

---

My citing the facts about the Bush's was in direct response to nerd's continual accusation that they all felt they were owed a career in politics.

The facts don't back that up.

The decisions they have made is an entirely different subject, though I think I can point to a number of good decisions made by some of the Bushes.

However in light of the thread subject, George P.'s decision to work for Ted Cruz seems like a good one worth consideration, and since that insight indicates that he might make good decisions, we have no reason to be against him yet...........

Do we??

---

Who was the last candidate who ran as land commissioner in Ohio that you followed with interest, musiclady?

I haven't followed one in my state, to be honest. It isn't an office that draws my attention.

The only reason anyone cares about this is because it is George Prescott Bush who is running. The famous one. The political celebrity.

And you can all talk about what a nice, good looking young man he is. His career in the military. His time in college. His marriage. His family. His grandfather, the president. His grandmother, the first lady. His uncle, the president. His aunt, the first lady. His father, the governor. His mother.

What about his arrest at the age of eighteen? What about when he broke into his girlfriend's house? You don't talk about that do you? The girlfriend's parents didn't press the issue. His father managed to hide it for years. The press didn't push it in the media when it happened because the Bush family managed to hide it when it happened.

The young man comes from a family of wealth and privilege. He will win this office because he has the advantage of name recognition and the Republican, Bush family dynasty name backing him in the home state of Texas. There is no way he's going to lose because he wins by virtue of his protected class. And no amount of denial changes that.

The fact that so many here rush to defend this young man is laughable. He doesn't need it. He has come to expect it. That's how he can run for this office after committing burglary.

---

Quote: Palinista wrote in post #75

---

Quote: musiclady wrote in post #74

---

My citing the facts about the Bush's was in direct response to nerd's continual accusation that they all felt they were owed a career in politics.

The facts don't back that up.

The decisions they have made is an entirely different subject, though I think I can point to a number of good decisions made by some of the Bushes.

However in light of the thread subject, George P.'s decision to work for Ted Cruz seems like a good one worth consideration, and since that insight indicates that he might make good decisions, we have no reason to be against him yet...........

Do we??

---

Who was the last candidate who ran as land commissioner in Ohio that you followed with interest, musiclady?

I haven't followed one in my state, to be honest. It isn't an office that draws my attention.

The only reason anyone cares about this is because it is George Prescott Bush who is running. The famous one. The political celebrity.

And you can all talk about what a nice, good looking young man he is. His career in the military. His time in college. His marriage. His family. His grandfather, the president. His grandmother, the first lady. His uncle, the president. His aunt, the first lady. His father, the governor. His mother.

What about his arrest at the age of eighteen? What about when he broke into his girlfriend's house? You don't talk about that do you? The girlfriend's parents didn't press the issue. His father managed to hide it for years. The press didn't push it in the media when it happened because the Bush family managed to hide it when it happened.

The young man comes from a family of wealth and privilege. He will win this office because he has the advantage of name recognition and the Republican, Bush family dynasty name backing him in the home state of Texas. There is no way he's going to lose because he wins by virtue of his protected class. And no amount of denial changes that.

The fact that so many here rush to defend this young man is laughable. He doesn't need it. He has come to expect it. That's how he can run for this office after committing burglary.

---

Quote: Frank Cannon wrote in post #77

---

Quote: musiclady wrote in post #74

---

My citing the facts about the Bush's was in direct response to nerd's continual accusation that they all felt they were owed a career in politics.

The facts don't back that up.

The decisions they have made is an entirely different subject, though I think I can point to a number of good decisions made by some of the Bushes.

However in light of the thread subject, George P.'s decision to work for Ted Cruz seems like a good one worth consideration, and since that insight indicates that he might make good decisions, we have no reason to be against him yet...........

Do we??

---

No. But I am not a knee jerk hater. I have plenty of specifics from everyone named Bush to distrust them.

---

I think that I will be contributing to his competitor in the race, a Ms. Sue Ellen Ewing. She recently lost the Governor's race due to a late leak that she pressured the ME to suppress information damaging to her son (Jon Ross) in a criminal investigation. She also gets my sympathy for the loss of her estranged husband, J.R. Ewing, who was apparently shot under mysterious circumstances in Mexico.

Quote: musiclady wrote in post #79

---

Actually, I've never talked about George P. Bush much at all until this thread.

And my only reason for continuing to post is in response to those who say he shouldn't be running JUST BECAUSE his name is Bush.

I'm not defending "the man" per se, but the principle.

I hope you're wise enough to see the difference, Palinista.

I think you are.

(Other than wondering why you posted the thread in the first place........)

---

Quote: Frank Cannon wrote in post #76

---

Quote: Cedric wrote in post #73

---

Quote: Frank Cannon wrote in post #70

---

dislike the Bush's for generally making piss poor decisions or setting things in motion that end up being devastating to the country when they are in power....

---

Yeah, Michael Dukakis, Algore and John Kerry would've done much better, right Frank?

---

Just because the two Bush's were not straight up Marxists, doesn't mean they were swell guys. Progressive ideas are just as damaging to the country as anything Zero is doing. It just takes longer to see their disastrous results. Can you defend any of these Bush I and II policies?

Agenda 21 I

Law of the Sea treaty II and I

Taking over the car companies. II

TARP II

Raising personal taxes I

Automobile Gas Guzzler tax I

Expanding Medicare II

No Child Left Behind II

Homeland Security II

TSA II


And those are just the ones I can remember off the top of my head.

---

Quote: algernonpj wrote in post #83

---

...
Starting an open ended war on terror, instead of properly identifying the enemy as violent Jihad

---

Quote: Palinista wrote in post #82

---

Quote: musiclady wrote in post #79

---

Actually, I've never talked about George P. Bush much at all until this thread.

And my only reason for continuing to post is in response to those who say he shouldn't be running JUST BECAUSE his name is Bush.

I'm not defending "the man" per se, but the principle.

I hope you're wise enough to see the difference, Palinista.

I think you are.

(Other than wondering why you posted the thread in the first place........)

---

I posted it because it was breaking news on Drudge with a pic of his father and his uncle. That's where I get most of the articles that I post.

George P. Bush will win the seat and become land commissioner because he is a member of the Bush dynasty and he knows this.

I also believe that his father knows he will not be president. The dynasty only has so much power.

RFK could have been president, but Jeb is not RFK.

---

Quote: Justme wrote in post #84

---

Why does this seem to have become personal? On ANY level?

---

Quote: algernonpj wrote in post #83

---

Quote: Frank Cannon wrote in post #76

---

Quote: Cedric wrote in post #73

---

Quote: Frank Cannon wrote in post #70

---

dislike the Bush's for generally making piss poor decisions or setting things in motion that end up being devastating to the country when they are in power....

---

Yeah, Michael Dukakis, Algore and John Kerry would've done much better, right Frank?

---

Just because the two Bush's were not straight up Marxists, doesn't mean they were swell guys. Progressive ideas are just as damaging to the country as anything Zero is doing. It just takes longer to see their disastrous results. Can you defend any of these Bush I and II policies?

Agenda 21 I

Law of the Sea treaty II and I

Taking over the car companies. II

TARP II

Raising personal taxes I

Automobile Gas Guzzler tax I

Expanding Medicare II

No Child Left Behind II

Homeland Security II

TSA II


And those are just the ones I can remember off the top of my head.

---

In fact one could rightly argue that because the damage takes longer to see, and because they are given a pass because of the R after their names, such progressives are more dangerous that those who like Obama up front trash the Constitution fro not redistributing wealth. Such progressives actually resemble Cultural Marxists of the Frankfurt School in that their work is slow, patient and insidious.


To the list add:
Raising domestic spending,
Calling those who demanded secure borders vigilantes,
Pimping for amnesty,
Abandoning Ramos and Compean,
Calling Islam a religion of Peace, ignoring the definition of Peace as a world wide caliphate under Sharia,
Starting an open ended war on terror, instead of properly identifying the enemy as violent Jihad

---

Quote: FP123 wrote in post #85

---

Quote: algernonpj wrote in post #83

---

...
Starting an open ended war on terror, instead of properly identifying the enemy as violent Jihad

---

We have seen the "fruits" being harvested by the seeds sown by the "war on terror," and unfortunately the harvest will be more and more "bountiful" each year coming.

---

Just noting that this thread has been hijacked and is no longer about George P. Bush's run for political office.

See ya!