Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 30

message: Here's the statement: 
"Bush is opposed to the legal recognition of same-sex marriages and supports the establishment of civil unions ("I don't think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement" - ABC News October 26, 2004), and has endorsed the Federal Marriage Amendment, a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution that would define marriage as being the union of one man and one woman. Bush reiterated his disagreement with the Republican Party platform that opposed civil unions, and said that the issue of civil unions should be left up to individual states. In his February 2, 2005 State of the Union address he repeated his support for the constitutional amendment. Even though Bush is opposed to same sex marriages, while not the first president in history to do so, he is the first Republican president to appoint an openly gay man to serve in his administration [36]."
Keep Last Sentence.
#Redwolf24 20:57, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Sentence Poll

message: Joy Stovall and Canderson7 reverted my insertion of cheerleading without comment.  Clearly extracurricular activites are fair game, and listing only the "manly" sports is POV.  Summary deletion w/o comment is rude, too. 24.143.132.148 02:08, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Arnoldlover 20:25, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I also agree, and think his cheerleading is worth including.  With that said, referring to his cheerleading as "fair game" does seem to suggest it  might not be from a NPOV; still, I thought your edit was worth keeping.  It occurs to me (see discussions below) that people may have a knee-jerk reaction to revert changes made by anonymous contributors on this page. JDoorjam 16:30, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Extracurriculars

message: I looked back six talk archives and figured that was far enough that this had not been brought up. Apologies if it has. My issue is with the following line:
"However, In 2005, British Prime Minster Tony Blair was re-elected despite his strong support of Bush, which his opposition parties thought would help them win votes. This suggests that many people who did not take part in these polls may not be as affected."
This line suggests that Blair's relationship with Bush did not reduce Labour party power. The opposition did win votes. From "United Kingdom general election, 2005" article.
"The results were interpreted by the UK media as an indicator of a breakdown in trust in the government, and in the prime minister, Tony Blair, in particular. As expected, voter disenchantment led to an increase of support for the opposition parties, and caused many Labour voters to remain home on election day. However, ultimately, domestic policy factors helped Labour achieve a historic third term in office. In this context, the new, reduced Labour majority of 67, (as it was before the declaration of South Staffordshire), was viewed by many across the political spectrum as a positive development, a counter to an alleged presidential style of government."
::That does sound a bit strange so it should be reweritten. How about just:
::"However, In 2005, British Prime Minster Tony Blair was re-elected despite his strong support of Bush, which his opposition parties used to garner votes."
::That should do it. The second sentece is just confusing anyway.Voice of All(MTG) 14:37, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
*The problem with that change is it isn't true. The main opposition party didn't use his support for Bush to win votes, because they had mostly voted in favour of the Iraq war themselves. JW 21:40, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outside the United States Blair Bush relationship 

message: There is no reason to have the comment that Bush got the most votes ever or that Kerry got the second most votes ever in the 2004 election summary. Perhaps the following wording: In the 2004 election, in which (blank) number of voters cast their ballots, Bush was reelected by (%), a difference of (3 million?) votes. Also, the comments about the number of states "won" and the difference in the electoral college figures should remain. This most votes won and plurality comments are POV...reasons: the population is bigger and lots of folks turned out after the fiasco of 2000. The plurality is also misleading because there was no strong third party candidate.--MONGO 10:23, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
:I think it is important to mention the high turnout on both sides.  I also understand the reasons, for the sake of readability, of not including all of the numbers.  Could we make a Presidential election results page and simply link this (and other election pages) to that? JDoorjam 11:50, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we already have such a page, that's probably where most of these numbers are coming from--172.174.25.220 13:14, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I meant something more along the lines of adding numbers and percentages to a page like this one so that you could see at a glance who got how many votes, what the total turnout is, etc.  Then we could make more casual reference to this election's stats and link to the more wonkish page there.  BTW, this discussion has had five postings and there have been no personal attacks against anyone... I'm astounded. ;) JDoorjam 13:40, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I think that making an article about the results could be a good idea. I also think that mentioning the amount of votes each candidate recieved, in terms of records and such, on Bush's page, is pointless. However, emphasis on the huge turnout would be fine, in my opinion. Banes 12:13, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  2004 vote totals 

message: If you are not already aware there is currently an active poll about this article at the "sentence poll" section above. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 17:15, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please note

message: What is the reasoning behind the picture of Bush's signature underneath his infobox? I'm not asking for its removal, I just wonder why it needs to be in the article. General interest? To help people who want to Presidentally pardon themselves? This needn't become a big discussion, just a brief explanation confirming the validity of this pic in the article. Thanks. Harro5 09:07, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
:Proof that he can actually write his name? Sorry, that was a spoon-feed. NickGorton 10:26, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Saw the Mae West signature - wow thats formatted way too big on the page. A small 100px thumbnail might be an appropriate addition, but since everyone has a signature, I dont think its all that illustrative. The one exception may be John Hancock, since his signature has become part of common vernacular. My thoughts...Barrettmagic 9:50 14 August 2005
Someone replaced the entire article with a Mandy Moore biography.  Can someone fix it? 134.210.83.146 (talk) 02:18, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pic of his signature