Miller and Scout prefer the one in the middle

[Scout 4u]

Trying to supply affordable healthcare to all Americans is the work of a good man.

Since it is still wildly unpopular and seems to have hurt the average American more than helped, it may be a failed policy. That doesn't mean Obama is a bad person.

No, Obama is a good man with a brilliant mind. His liberal views of America are what Conservatives differ with.

The same could be said of George W Bush. He was a grad of Yale, Harvard Business degree, flew fighter jets for the Air National Guard. Served in the US military as a Lieutenant.

What Liberals really hate about him is that he's not a Democrat but rather a Republican.

Perhaps it's time to look in the mirror at your own image first before being so quick to judge others.

Based on what I read here daily....
posters find themselves better qualified to be president than either Barack Obama or George W Bush.

Guess that means you all must have great educational backgrounds, proven leadership qualities, exceptional communication skills, held government office, governed a State, know how to fly an F-102 Jet Fighter and have been president of the United States for at least 8 years.

Has the mirror broke yet?

 

[Duck_walk]

Trying to supply affordable healthcare to all Americans is the work of a good man.

Since it is still wildly unpopular and seems to have hurt the average American more than helped, it may be a failed policy. That doesn't mean Obama is a bad person.

It hasn't hurt the average American
Credibility Zero.

 

[Neutron Monster]

Trying to supply affordable healthcare to all Americans is the work of a good man.

Since it is still wildly unpopular and seems to have hurt the average American more than helped, it may be a failed policy. That doesn't mean Obama is a bad person.

How has it hurt the average American more than it has helped? Do tell.

For the average American the impact is moderate - they are still on Medicare or an employer-sponsored plan which now offers more benefits with continued moderation in the rate of annual cost growth than existed prior to the great recession.

 

[Neutron Monster]

No, Obama is a good man with a brilliant mind. His liberal views of America are what Conservatives differ with.

The same could be said of George W Bush. He was a grad of Yale, Harvard Business degree, flew fighter jets for the Air National Guard. Served in the US military as a Lieutenant.

What Liberals really hate about him is that he's not a Democrat but rather a Republican.

Perhaps it's time to look in the mirror at your own image first before being so quick to judge others.

Based on what I read here daily....
posters find themselves better qualified to be president than either Barack Obama or George W Bush.

Guess that means you all must have great educational backgrounds, proven leadership qualities, exceptional communication skills, held government office, governed a State, know how to fly an F-102 Jet Fighter and have been president of the United States for at least 8 years.

Has the mirror broke yet?

No, people hate Bush because he was a bad President who made choices that profoundly damaged the US for the first six years of his Presidency. He destroyed our budget and put us into the morass of Iraq with no real plan for how to run the country after the initial phase of the war was over. He failed to regulate the banking system by choosing not to enforce laws that were on the books. Those are not liberal comments; those are substantive criticisms of him that exist at all points along the political spectrum.

Further, the last point is a red herring - the choice isn't Bush, Obama or a poster on this board. Plenty of people like Gore, McCain, or Bradley would almost certainly have been much better Presidents than Bush was.

 

[ag-man]

How has it hurt the average American more than it has helped? Do tell.

For the average American the impact is moderate - they are still on Medicare or an employer-sponsored plan which now offers more benefits with continued moderation in the rate of annual cost growth than existed prior to the great recession.

It hasn't hurt?

Tell that to the guy who lost his insurance plan
Tell that to the person that lost their job so their employer didn't have 50 employees
Tell that to all the part time people that cannot get a full time job because their employer doesn't want to provide insurance.
Tell that to the guy whose plan went up to cover maternity, breast exams etc.etc.

I am tired of doing research for everybody else. If you guys think obamacare is popular and a complete success, so be it, I don't care.

 

[Duck_walk]

.

It hasn't hurt?

Tell that to the guy who lost his insurance plan
Tell that to the person that lost their job so their employer didn't have 50 employees
Tell that to all the part time people that cannot get a full time job because their employer doesn't want to provide insurance.
Tell that to the guy whose plan went up to cover maternity, breast exams etc.etc.

I am tired of doing research for everybody else. If you guys think obamacare is popular and a complete success, so be it, I don't care.

It hasn't hurt?

Tell that to the guy who lost his insurance plan
Tell that to the person that lost their job so their employer didn't have 50 employees
Tell that to all the part time people that cannot get a full time job because their employer doesn't want to provide insurance.
Tell that to the guy whose plan went up to cover maternity, breast exams etc.etc.

I am tired of doing research for everybody else. If you guys think obamacare is popular and a complete success, so be it, I don't care.

You are really a dumb ass.

 

[Scout 4u]

No, people hate Bush because he was a bad President who made choices that profoundly damaged the US for the first six years of his Presidency. He destroyed our budget and put us into the morass of Iraq with no real plan for how to run the country after the initial phase of the war was over. He failed to regulate the banking system by choosing not to enforce laws that were on the books. Those are not liberal comments; those are substantive criticisms of him that exist at all points along the political spectrum.

Further, the last point is a red herring - the choice isn't Bush, Obama or a poster on this board. Plenty of people like Gore, McCain, or Bradley would almost certainly have been much better Presidents than Bush was.

Can't disagree with any of that, legitimate counter points.

Do however believe that those who put the "killer" name behind Bush for letting 4,100 die in Iraq forget or "were not alive" at the time when Democrat John F Kennedy let 58,000 die in Vietnam.

As I said before...
War is complicated, unpredictable, unforgiving, heartbreaking, joyless, damaging, senseless and in the end sometimes pointless but...
If you truly believe your in the right then the sacrifices you make are worth making.

To set the record straight, I really do not blame John F Kennedy for Vietnam nor the Democrat Party. I blame the enemy....
The Soviet Union.

Likewise, I do not blame George W Bush for Iraq, I blame the enemy...
Saddam Hussein.

"Decades" were spent creating a chain of events that with the right president under the right circumstances could only end up with one result, war.

If there is any one thing Americans should agree on it's the point that the enemy is not US.

 

[ag-man]

.



You are really a dumb ass.

Nice rebuttal friend

 

[Neutron Monster]

It hasn't hurt?

Tell that to the guy who lost his insurance plan
Tell that to the person that lost their job so their employer didn't have 50 employees
Tell that to all the part time people that cannot get a full time job because their employer doesn't want to provide insurance.
Tell that to the guy whose plan went up to cover maternity, breast exams etc.etc.

I am tired of doing research for everybody else. If you guys think obamacare is popular and a complete success, so be it, I don't care.

You are repeating talking points that are not borne out by data.

For example, the entire net change in jobs since the passage of the ACA has been full time jobs. There have been nearly 13 million jobs created since 1/1/2010. The net change in part time employment since then has been zero. That's not to say there isn't any impact, but it has been severely overstated by those on the right.

Further, you asked about the average person. The average person in the US already had employer insurance or Medicare. If you want to talk about exceptions that are net losers, you have to also acknowledge that millions of people who were previously uninsured now have insurance. The law picks winners and losers. No one is denying that. But so do nearly all laws. You have to look at the overall impact of the law, not just focus on the negatives. For example, how about the woman who now has maternity care? She's just a big winner.

The health system prior to the ACA had serious failings. The law addressed some of those but also created some new failings. I would argue the system is a little better off due to the fact that we have added millions of people to the rolls of the insured and we have closed some of the worst gaps, such as the lifetime maximum without creating a significant increase in the cost of care in the US.

Could the ACA have been better? Of course. That's a reason to try to fix it. But that's not a reason to act like it is the worst piece of legislation ever written or to reject the parts of the law that are the most well-designed

 

[Neutron Monster]

Can't disagree with any of that, legitimate counter points.

Do however believe that those who put the "killer" name behind Bush for letting 4,100 die in Iraq forget or "were not alive" at the time when Democrat John F Kennedy let 58,000 die in Vietnam.

As I said before...
War is complicated, unpredictable, unforgiving, heartbreaking, joyless, damaging, senseless and in the end sometimes pointless but...
If you truly believe your in the right then the sacrifices you make are worth making.

To set the record straight, I really do not blame John F Kennedy for Vietnam nor the Democrat Party. I blame the enemy....
The Soviet Union.

Likewise, I do not blame George W Bush for Iraq, I blame the enemy...
Saddam Hussein.

"Decades" were spent creating a chain of events that with the right president under the right circumstances could only end up with one result, war.

If there is any one thing Americans should agree on it's the point that the enemy is not US.

Kennedy let 58,000 die in Vietnam? I must have missed that one.

LOL at blaming the enemy for Iraq, when the end result of the war was creating a client state for Iran and ISIS. We created a worse enemy than we had, at the cost of over a trillion dollars and thousands of lives!

Not only was the result bad in Iraq, but the entire process deserves heaps of criticism. No one had any real plan for what to do after taking out Saddam. That is incredible

 

[3Rfan]

Kennedy let 58,000 die in Vietnam? I must have missed that one.

LOL at blaming the enemy for Iraq, when the end result of the war was creating a client state for Iran and ISIS. We created a worse enemy than we had, at the cost of over a trillion dollars and thousands of lives!

Not only was the result bad in Iraq, but the entire process deserves heaps of criticism. No one had any real plan for what to do after taking out Saddam. That is incredible

Not to mention the enemy at the time was in Afghanistan, NOT Iraq! We pulled most of our resources out of Afghanistan and put them in Iraq. We had a war for cause with Saddam under the other Bush. We drove him out of Kuwait and put him a box afterwards without taking him out. He was NO threat to US!

 

[Veer2Eternity]

Hehe, you are one jealous and sad little man veer

Can you refute what I posted? Why the Ad Homs?

 

[ag-man]

You are repeating talking points that are not borne out by data.

For example, the entire net change in jobs since the passage of the ACA has been full time jobs. There have been nearly 13 million jobs created since 1/1/2010. The net change in part time employment since then has been zero. That's not to say there isn't any impact, but it has been severely overstated by those on the right.

Further, you asked about the average person. The average person in the US already had employer insurance or Medicare. If you want to talk about exceptions that are net losers, you have to also acknowledge that millions of people who were previously uninsured now have insurance. The law picks winners and losers. No one is denying that. But so do nearly all laws. You have to look at the overall impact of the law, not just focus on the negatives. For example, how about the woman who now has maternity care? She's just a big winner.

The health system prior to the ACA had serious failings. The law addressed some of those but also created some new failings. I would argue the system is a little better off due to the fact that we have added millions of people to the rolls of the insured and we have closed some of the worst gaps, such as the lifetime maximum without creating a significant increase in the cost of care in the US.

Could the ACA have been better? Of course. That's a reason to try to fix it. But that's not a reason to act like it is the worst piece of legislation ever written or to reject the parts of the law that are the most well-designed

You have some valid points, as usual NM, I was trying to convey that Obama was a good man, (although I disagree with a lot of his policies) even though the ACA is very unpopular , and has lots of flaws. Maybe where you are from, you are seeing the benefit, but from my standpoint, and visiting with others, it has not been beneficial.

I also do not have time to discuss the ACA in anything but rudimentary terms on a message board. I could write paragraph after paragraph about this given the time but choose not to. I quickly pointed out some of the elementary problems, which while true, you dismiss as "talking points" That is your prerogative .

At least you didn't call me a dumbass like Duck, and that is nice. But for some reason, I can't help but like that fellow.

 

[Neutron Monster]

For the average person, it isn't very "beneficial" or "harmful" in a normal year. That's the thing. When people act like the ACA is such a bad thing, they are generally projecting anti-Obama emotions onto the law, not specific policy objections.

I would have a lot more respect for the R party if they had a plan to make the law better.

 

[ag-man]

Can you refute what I posted? Why the Ad Homs?

 

[ag-man]

Can you refute what I posted? Why the Ad Homs?

1. Research
2. Your point
3. Research
4. Jealous
5. Honorable discharge
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

What's the problem? Don't you want government to pay to provide for their citizens?

Why the Ad Homs ? It is just obvious. It wasn't an attack, just observing that you are a jealous, sad little man. Although in reality , I don't know if you are little, my bad.

 

[Expect2Win]

lol How has it hurt the average American?

1. Research
2. Your point
3. Research
4. Jealous
5. Honorable discharge
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

What's the problem? Don't you want government to pay to provide for their citizens?

Why the Ad Homs ? It is just obvious. It wasn't an attack, just observing that you are a jealous, sad little man. Although in reality , I don't know if you are little, my bad.

New to this board? Veer doesn't want more government.

 

[ag-man]

lol How has it hurt the average American?

New to this board? Veer doesn't want more government.

lol How has it hurt the average American?

New to this board? Veer doesn't want more government.

So he's a Republican ?

 

[Scout 4u]

Kennedy let 58,000 die in Vietnam? I must have missed that one.

LOL at blaming the enemy for Iraq, when the end result of the war was creating a client state for Iran and ISIS. We created a worse enemy than we had, at the cost of over a trillion dollars and thousands of lives!

Not only was the result bad in Iraq, but the entire process deserves heaps of criticism. No one had any real plan for what to do after taking out Saddam. That is incredible

Did I say that there should be no criticism of the Iraq war?

Would you have me replace Kennedy with Johnson or simply blame the Republican Nixon?

Is it helpful to rehash each battle, each death, each tear?

I believe not but you left me with no alternative....

Agreed that the Vietnam War was fought out perfectly with no poor decisions or loss of life....

Tet Offensive 1968
Massacre at Hue, Saigon, Battle of Khe Sanh

Result; The "enemy" used these and other battles as a propaganda tools to shock the American public into ending the war. They took tens of thousands of children, old men and women to be tortured, raped, beaten and finally killed just before dismemberment.

In the name of slowing down the "Enemy" from advancing deeper into South Vietnam the Tet Offensive was ruled a strategic military success...

(7) more years would pass and thousands more would die before the US would finally leave Vietnam. The "Enemy" would then "take back" all US gains of that decade.

Later "The Enemy" would be able to once again shock the US public with their brutality.

A movie was made about it,
"The Killing Fields"...

US Totals
58,000 + dead
Tens of thousands wounded
Thousands MIA

The "Enemy"
100's of thousands

Civilians;
Countless

The only true winners in war are for those who do not value human life.

Please don't lecture anyone who lived through those days, lost friends or family members.

Seeing your draft number scroll across the TV screen or death counts compound by the hundreds daily is remembrance enough.

 

[Expect2Win]

He's a conservative. You Republicans want to spend tons on war, and tax cuts for the rich and companies. He doesn't want any wars

 

[Veer2Eternity]

So he's a Republican ?

Republicans add more government than anyone if you haven't noticed. Surely you don't buy that fiscal conservative bs they spout? Tell me you're smarter than that.

You don't know if bush is a good family man or quit drinking. You think they're gonna tell people if he is still the same piece he was?
You said bush was a pro-life christian. Bull. BY DEED he is not.Abortion still legal andhe didn't even go to church while in the WH. What kind of Christian role model is that? He talks the talk. So very republican.
Jealous? No. I earned what I have by my own blood, sweat and tears. People that have stuff handed to them don't appreciate it. Fact is he didn't earn anything. His last name did.
Ya he got an honorable discharge. If KERRY had the same circumstances surrounding his service you hypocrites would be HOWLING about it. At least kerry had the balls to leave the country instead of doing coke and going AWOL. Bush's daddy saved him again. Guys like my old man went over there and got blown up so cowards like him and cheney could stay here and party. And then send more young men to the meat grinder. Special place in hades for those clowns

 

[3Rfan]

So he's a Republican ?

Now that's just asking for a fight ag.

 

[Veer2Eternity]

Did I say that there should be no criticism of the Iraq war?

Would you have me replace Kennedy with Johnson or simply blame the Republican Nixon?

Is it helpful to rehash each battle, each death, each tear?

I believe not but you left me with no alternative....

Agreed that the Vietnam War was fought out perfectly with no poor decisions or loss of life....

Tet Offensive 1968
Massacre at Hue, Saigon, Battle of Khe Sanh

Result; The "enemy" used these and other battles as a propaganda tools to shock the American public into ending the war. They took tens of thousands of children, old men and women to be tortured, raped, beaten and finally killed just before dismemberment.

In the name of slowing down the "Enemy" from advancing deeper into South Vietnam the Tet Offensive was ruled a strategic military success...

(7) more years would pass and thousands more would die before the US would finally leave Vietnam. The "Enemy" would then "take back" all US gains of that decade.

Later "The Enemy" would be able to once again shock the US public with their brutality.

A movie was made about it,
"The Killing Fields"...

US Totals
58,000 + dead
Tens of thousands wounded
Thousands MIA

The "Enemy"
100's of thousands

Civilians;
Countless

The only true winners in war are for those who do not value human life.

Please don't lecture anyone who lived through those days, lost friends or family members.

Seeing your draft number scroll across the TV screen or death counts compound by the hundreds daily is remembrance enough.

Most of your leaders opted out and had 'better things to do' than Vietnam.
Funny how all the armed forces guys forget that.

 

[Veer2Eternity]

For the average person, it isn't very "beneficial" or "harmful" in a normal year. That's the thing. When people act like the ACA is such a bad thing, they are generally projecting anti-Obama emotions onto the law, not specific policy objections.

I would have a lot more respect for the R party if they had a plan to make the law better.

GOP has no vision .

At least none based in reality.

 

[Scout 4u]

He's a conservative. You Republicans want to spend tons on war, and tax cuts for the rich and companies. He doesn't want any wars

No one wants war but when the fight comes to you, do you draw a RED LINE then simply walk away or do you stay and fight, that is the question ???

 

[Veer2Eternity]

No one wants war but when the fight comes to you, do you draw a RED LINE then simply walk away or do you stay and fight, that is the question ???

Reagan ran like a coward from Lebanon after stating he wouldn't.

 

[Neutron Monster]

GOP has no vision .

At least none based in reality.

Oh, I think the donor class has a vision based in its reality - low taxes on the welfare and a lot of corporate pork. They just have the base snowed.

 

[Neutron Monster]

No one wants war but when the fight comes to you, do you draw a RED LINE then simply walk away or do you stay and fight, that is the question ???

You can question the red line comment. Certainly, I do. I think it was a big mistake.

But the fact that you open your mouth doesn't mean you have to charge headstrong into war if you believe that is the wrong decision.

 

[Scout 4u]

You can question the red line comment. Certainly, I do. I think it was a big mistake.

But the fact that you open your mouth doesn't mean you have to charge headstrong into war if you believe that is the wrong decision.

If I remember correctly, Saddam Hussein had over 24 hrs to avoid war, he chose to stay in Iraq and fight.

A RED LINE was made, a RED LINE was crossed.

 

[The Rumor]

If I remember correctly, Saddam Hussein had over 24 hrs to avoid war, he chose to stay in Iraq and fight.

A RED LINE was made, a RED LINE was crossed.

That is irrelevant to what the right Syria policy is. You don't go to war just because the president said something he should not have said

 

[Scout 4u]

That is irrelevant to what the right Syria policy is. You don't go to war just because the president said something he should not have said

No, you say what you mean and mean what you say. This president is willing to give up the Middle East including Israel just to avoid war.
Truly a modern day Neville Chamberlain.

 

[vbsideout]

No one wants war but when the fight comes to you, do you draw a RED LINE then simply walk away or do you stay and fight, that is the question ???

Scout nothing could be more false than your statement about no one wants war. That is just not true. There are many in government who want war and want it now. It is their jobs program!

 

[Expect2Win]

No one wants war but when the fight comes to you, do you draw a RED LINE then simply walk away or do you stay and fight, that is the question ???

Please tell em when Saddam brought the war to us in the 21st century?

 

[Neutron Monster]

No, you say what you mean and mean what you say. This president is willing to give up the Middle East including Israel just to avoid war.
Truly a modern day Neville Chamberlain.

This is nonsense and you know it.

The President is willing to admit that US firepower can accomplish a lot less than we think it can geopolitically.

How exactly do you "win" Syria with military action, for instance?

 

[Scout 4u]

J hi bye

This is nonsense and you know it.

The President is willing to admit that US firepower can accomplish a lot less than we think it can geopolitically.

How exactly do you "win" Syria with military action, for instance?

It is now probably to late to win anything in the Middle East militarily without catastrophic losses.

Barack Obama has allowed Russia to fortify it's military hold of Syria by looking the other way while Sukhoi Su-25's land at Bassel Al-Assad Airport in Latakia. The War Cruiser Moskva, armed with Advanced S 300 Ship-Air-Missiles parks off the mainland coast.
And proxy fighters enter the country just as they did in Ukraine, Crimea, Georgia and South Ossetia.

Many on this board keep saying why should I care, their not attacking US?

In fact they have been attacking "US" for years.

Iran was the number one supporter of terror in Iraq. The name IED was made a house hold word in the United States by the technology they fed anti- American groups inside Iraq.

Interesting how the Obama administration and Democrats hate Bush so much for getting involved in Iraq but have no problem trusting, dealing with and forgiving the Iranians for maiming, torturing, kidnapping and killing...our troops through a proxy war in that country.

Now the #1 threat to our free society, "Russia" is just one country away from replacing US as the one to "trust" in a crisis situation in the Middle East.

Democrats, if you truly believe as "your" president believes that Climate Change is the #1 threat facing our World today then I have nothing more to add but ...

We told you so

 

[Neutron Monster]

Iran, Hezbollah, and Russia have been supporting Assad since day 1 of the civil war. This is not a new development.

Are you seriously expecting the US to stop Russian ships or planes from travelling to Syria? That wouldn't happen under any sane President. That is sheer lunacy, an invitation for world war.

Absolutely Iran was a major IED developer. That's a criticism of President Bush who never did much about it either. Don't act like IEDs came out in 2009. The truth is there's a limit to what you can do. When you put troops in harm's way overseas, there are unexpected consequences.

The #1 thing wrong in the Middle East is that we took out Saddam and created a cesspool of sectarian violence.

 

[Scout 4u]

Iran, Hezbollah, and Russia have been supporting Assad since day 1 of the civil war. This is not a new development.

Are you seriously expecting the US to stop Russian ships or planes from travelling to Syria? That wouldn't happen under any sane President. That is sheer lunacy, an invitation for world war.

Absolutely Iran was a major IED developer. That's a criticism of President Bush who never did much about it either. Don't act like IEDs came out in 2009. The truth is there's a limit to what you can do. When you put troops in harm's way overseas, there are unexpected consequences.

The #1 thing wrong in the Middle East is that we took out Saddam and created a cesspool of sectarian violence.

Your naïve belief that Vladimir Putin and the Iranians will simply get rid of the JV team then go home represents the differences between us.

You have more in common with Neville Chamberlain than you think ...

 

[Veer2Eternity]

Your naïve belief that Vladimir Putin and the Iranians will simply get rid of the JV team then go home represents the differences between us.

You have more in common with Neville Chamberlain than you think ...

Reagan cut and run like a coward from Beirut after talking smack. Why is he still your hero?

 

[Scout 4u]

Reagan cut and run like a coward from Beirut after talking smack. Why is he still your hero?

Neutron was correct Veer, you are a sad little person with no hope for the future.

Your assessment of the Beirut Bombing response was based more on hate, than intellect... but for the record.

Joint Air Strikes with France along with naval bombardment from the USS New Jersey countered the Iranian backed attack.

Perhaps Middle East politics is not what really upsets you but rather your own insecurities. Why not be honest with yourself and just admit that you need a friend?

Expect is good in that area, give him a shout!
Gotta go, latter...

 

[vbsideout]

J hi bye

It is now probably to late to win anything in the Middle East militarily without catastrophic losses.

Barack Obama has allowed Russia to fortify it's military hold of Syria by looking the other way while Sukhoi Su-25's land at Bassel Al-Assad Airport in Latakia. The War Cruiser Moskva, armed with Advanced S 300 Ship-Air-Missiles parks off the mainland coast.
And proxy fighters enter the country just as they did in Ukraine, Crimea, Georgia and South Ossetia.

Many on this board keep saying why should I care, their not attacking US?

In fact they have been attacking "US" for years.

Iran was the number one supporter of terror in Iraq. The name IED was made a house hold word in the United States by the technology they fed anti- American groups inside Iraq.

Interesting how the Obama administration and Democrats hate Bush so much for getting involved in Iraq but have no problem trusting, dealing with and forgiving the Iranians for maiming, torturing, kidnapping and killing...our troops through a proxy war in that country.

Now the #1 threat to our free society, "Russia" is just one country away from replacing US as the one to "trust" in a crisis situation in the Middle East.

Democrats, if you truly believe as "your" president believes that Climate Change is the #1 threat facing our World today then I have nothing more to add but ...

We told you so

I guess since the Middle East tribes have been at war since the beginning of time Russia will go in and finally we will have peace in the region and Obama could have easily done it if he was just a strong white man UHGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG Like Bush!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!