# Who still supports the Bush Administration?



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

And why?

Given current approval ratings of about 37 percent for the president, I'm wondering who here still supports the administration, and what has kept you among the minority of Americans doing so.

Genuinely interested in hearing diverse perspectives.

Here is a link to some of the data:
https://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm

********************************
"It's about time some publicly-spirited person told you where to get off. The trouble with you, Spode, is that just because you've succeeded in convincing a handful of half-wits to disfigure the London scene by going about in black shorts, you think you're someone."


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Sometimes the question needs to be massaged a bit for me to provide an answer. While I'm against the uber-spending policies, against the war in Iraq, and decidely not religious, I must still pose the question to myself this way, "Do I still think Bush was a lesser of two evils?" To that question I answer in the affirmative. 

Warmest regards


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

I still strongly support the President. I appreciate his consistency in the face of adversity, both politically and militarily. For many that support the war(s), it is this consistency that we most admire, and it is understandable why this is the least attractive of the President's characteristics to those who do not support the war.


----------



## Trenditional (Feb 15, 2006)

Though his approval rating is low, he ability to be re-elected will hinge upon who the Democrats put up against him. More often than not, people vote on the lesser of two evils.

_Deny Guilt, Demand Proof and Never Speak Without an Attorney!_​


----------



## Boris (Aug 4, 2005)

In spite of the fact that Bush, I believe, has caused the "Viet-Namization" of Iraq and has turned a deaf ear to what many Americans have asked him to address, Health Care Reform, you still have to salute the uniform, not the man. The U.S. involvement in Viet Nam and our involvement today in Iraq were both based on foundations that were contrived and false. And cost this country dearly.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by hopkins_student_
> 
> I still strongly support the President. I appreciate his consistency in the face of adversity, both politically and militarily. For many that support the war(s), it is this consistency that we most admire, and it is understandable why this is the least attractive of the President's characteristics to those who do not support the war.


If you are referencing my above post, you are sadly mistaken and confusing issues. It is possible, indeed it is the case for me, that while one might admire the POTUS's consistency, one still might not agree with a certain policy. You sir have made the mistake that disgreeing with a decision means you cannot like and/or admire the person making said decision. Maturity in thought is being able to seperate issues from people. As I constantly put forth, men of good will can disagree but still be men of good will. This trend to make policy disagreements into personal short comings is what makes today's politics so fractious in my opinion.

Warmest regards


----------



## JBZ (Mar 28, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Trenditional_
> 
> Though his approval rating is low, he ability to be re-elected will hinge upon who the Democrats put up against him. More often than not, people vote on the lesser of two evils.
> 
> _Deny Guilt, Demand Proof and Never Speak Without an Attorney!_​


I'm sure of very few things in this world. However, one thing I am sure about is that George W. Bush will NOT be re-elected in the next presidential election.


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

Some of us never did. Prescience?

Train your eye! Then train your brain to trust your eye.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

Approving - or not - of Bush is your absolute right. At least you know where he stood yesterday, stands today, and will stand tomorrow.

I'm a consistency kinda guy. The only political preference poll worth reading is the one taken in November. The only clothing preference poll worth reading is the end-of-day cash register printout.

I am content with the November 2004 political preference poll. If anyone cares, I'll let you know about today's clothing preference poll at 12:01am Friday.

*https://www.CustomShirt1.com

Kabbaz-Kelly & Sons Fine Custom Clothiers
* Bespoke Shirts & Furnishings * Zimmerli Swiss Underwear **
* Alex Begg Cashmere * Pantherella Socks **​


----------



## jeansguy (Jul 29, 2003)

I still do, but of course, I didn't vote for him 

It's not uncommon for a President's approval to fall in the middle of his second term.

The fact is, Iraq needed to happen. G.W. showed good leadership and has maintained that throughout his presidency. It's never easy to do what is right, and it usually isn't popular.

www.thegenuineman.com


----------



## I_Should_Be_Working (Jun 23, 2005)

I actually think a better question might be what policies you do or do not still support.

Some have changed their minds on Iraq. While I have my doubts about the management of this campaign, I can't, for the life of me, understand why the world must tolerate and be hostage to the likes of Iran and North Korea. 

The explosion in discretionary spending and failure to contend with entitlements is most disappointing. As well, the failure to see credible tax code reform is depressing. Whether one is conservative or liberal, who finds the current tax code appropriate? 

If anything, I am mostly down on Congress. Every two years, the Republicans should tout one or two major issues, then work like beavers to attain real progess. Instead, the Animal Farm mentality has taken hold. Term limits come to mind again. These folks are anything but conservative, back when that once meant favoring a smaller government that stays out of your life.


----------



## Concordia (Sep 30, 2004)

He has been consistent. Indeed, there isn't much that's happened in his administration that wasn't predicted here in 2001:


----------



## NewYorkBuck (May 6, 2004)

For better or worse, he is very consistent, in sharp contrast to Clinton, who went where ever the polls blew.

By far my biggest problem w Bush is his overspending. This is a time when we should be slashing budgets in anticipation of the tsunami coming.


----------



## TheSaint (Jun 28, 2005)

Oh oh...here we go again with another Bush Thread....

Concordia, you expect to much from a C student.

All kidding aside, I wonder if there is a honest, straight talk, no nonsense politician whether Demo or Repub who will be able to lead this country to the promised land. 

Ok ok...you can stop laughing now.

Cheers


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by NewYorkBuck_
> 
> For better or worse, he is very consistent, in sharp contrast to Clinton, who went where ever the polls blew.


Our elected officials are not kings; we elect them to _serve_ us. They ought to bend to our wishes, rather than expecting us to blindly follow their agenda. That is the difference between leadership and rulership.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Wonder if this will change some minds? Perhaps not on these boards, but more generally. 

Papers: Cheney Aide Says Bush OK'd Leak

By PETE YOST
Associated Press Writer
Published April 6, 2006, 11:59 AM CDT

WASHINGTON -- Vice President Dick Cheney's former top aide told prosecutors President Bush authorized the leak of sensitive intelligence information about Iraq, according to court papers filed by prosecutors in the CIA leak case.

Before his indictment, I. Lewis Libby testified to the grand jury investigating the CIA leak that Cheney told him to pass on information and that it was Bush who authorized the disclosure, the court papers say. According to the documents, the authorization led to the July 8, 2003, conversation between Libby and New York Times reporter Judith Miller.

There was no indication in the filing that either Bush or Cheney authorized Libby to disclose Valerie Plame's CIA identity.

But the disclosure in documents filed Wednesday means that the president and the vice president put Libby in play as a secret provider of information to reporters about prewar intelligence on Iraq.

Bush's political foes jumped on the revelation about Libby's testimony.

"The fact that the president was willing to reveal classified information for political gain and put interests of his political party ahead of Americas security shows that he can no longer be trusted to keep America safe," Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said.

Libby's testimony also puts the president and the vice president in the awkward position of authorizing leaks -- a practice both men have long said they abhor, so much so that the administration has put in motion criminal investigations to hunt down leakers.

The most recent instance is the administration's launching of a probe into who disclosed to The New York Times the existence of the warrantless domestic surveillance program authorized by Bush shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks.

The authorization involving intelligence information came as the Bush administration faced mounting criticism about its failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the main reason the president and his aides had given for going to war.


********************************
"It's about time some publicly-spirited person told you where to get off. The trouble with you, Spode, is that just because you've succeeded in convincing a handful of half-wits to disfigure the London scene by going about in black shorts, you think you're someone."


----------



## Mr. Knightly (Sep 1, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by crs_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This is the only comment on this thread with which I disagree 100%. If anything, I think our politicians should have more power to act as they see fit. We elect our leaders because we think they will do the best job at leading our country. If it were their responsibility to do whatever the people wanted, there would be no point in electing them at all--why not replace congress with dial-in voting?

Short term accountability is a terrible thing for governments. It prevents politicians from addressing issues that will be very difficult to overcome: social security, health care reform, dangerous dictatorships, global warming, trade agreements.

Trade is one of the issues that suffers the most from short term accountability. The short and medium term unemployment cost of globalization is such that the politicians are under extreme pressure to prop up American industries that have no long term viability. Often time, they are doing this illegally such as in the case of steel tarriffs. At a recent panel discussion with several economists, one of them shared his view that real wage growth will not occur for almost a generation, due to the effect of globalization and 3rd world development. He related that in a conversation with Hillary Clinton, he told her his opinion, to which she replied, "I understand completely, but in politics, a generation is 8 years."

Costly thy habit as thy purse can buy,
But not express'd in fancy; rich, not gaudy;
For the apparel oft proclaims the man.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

I myself do not.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLPWCXIII_
> 
> I myself do not.


Well ... that's one British Indian Ocean Territories vote the Republicans won't have to worry about in the next election. [}]

*https://www.CustomShirt1.com

Kabbaz-Kelly & Sons Fine Custom Clothiers
* Bespoke Shirts & Furnishings * Zimmerli Swiss Underwear **
* Alex Begg Cashmere * Pantherella Socks **​


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by jeansguy_
> 
> The fact is, Iraq needed to happen. G.W. showed good leadership and has maintained that throughout his presidency. It's never easy to do what is right, and it usually isn't popular.


Why did "Iraq need to happen".

Because Iraq posed such a grave and dangerous threat to the world? Because of Saddam's enormous stockpiles of WMD? Because of their advanced nuclear weapons programme? yeah, maybe not....

Or because the installation of democracy in Iraq would lead to the flowering of democracies across the middle east? Ha!

Or because of George Bush's great championing of individual liberty? (unless it is countries that happen to be useful to the USA and they don't want to rock the boat? Or countries who are not useful to the USA and therefore completely irrelevant?)

Bush's leadership skills are absolutely horrendous. His rationale for invading Iraq has been shown, at the every least, to be completely wrong, possibly criminally misleading. His rhetoric is childish at best, nonsensical more often. And he clearly has no idea whatsoever how to resolve the situation.

Consistent? He's consistently proven himself to be a buffoon who is completely out of his depth. He is already being judged a failed president by most commentators and I believe will go down as one of the worst in history.

------------------


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> He is already being judged a failed president by most commentators and I believe will go down as one of the worst in history.


Coming from a man that thinks Trudeau was Canada's greatest PM of the 20th century. I'm sorry, while Dubya does not always please me with his policy (I mean steel tariffs? Damn union protectionist!) he is not one of the worst Presidents in history. After 9/11 he certainly had the nuclear option vs. the Taliban. He refrained from using it. If nothing else, he deserves credit for that.

No, George has been far from perfect, but he really is not that bad of a President all things told. I mean, let us look at LBJ. Viet Nam, Medicare and the Great Society? Please.

Warmest regards


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Wayfarer_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes. And? Who do like? Mulroney?



> quote:_Originally posted by Wayfarer_ After 9/11 he certainly had the nuclear option vs. the Taliban. He refrained from using it. If nothing else, he deserves credit for that.


Well done George! You decided not to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people for the sin of their country having been taken over by a bunch of raving lunatics.

I have to presume your comment was a joke.

LBJ is the best you have to compare Bush to? at least LBJ pushed through civil rights legislation. What has Bush done for anyone? Nada.....

------------------


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Wayfarer_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Funny, I wasn't referring to your post at all. In fact, at the time of my post I hadn't even read yours.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:I'm sorry, while Dubya does not always please me with his policy (I mean steel tariffs? Damn union protectionist!) he is not one of the worst Presidents in history. After 9/11 he certainly had the nuclear option vs. the Taliban. He refrained from using it. If nothing else, he deserves credit for that.


 He tried to order the nuclear option, but his aides thought he was requesting a 'new cular balm', and, supposing he was dissatisfied with the old one, called in his dermatologist. Lucky for the middle east.



> quote:No, George has been far from perfect, but he really is not that bad of a President all things told. I mean, let us look at LBJ. Viet Nam, Medicare and the Great Society? Please.


 LBJ was a weasel, to be sure, but he wasn't _all_ weasel, nor was he an _hereditary _weasel. He used the tragedy of the Kennedy assassination to push through measures to help oppressed Americans (_as opposed to rich Texans_) - such as the Civil Rights Act, and measures to help the poor. In a moment of great darkness, he lit a lantern of compassion and inclusiveness. W had an analagous - nay, greater - opportunity, yet chose a very different path. History will be the judge.


----------



## clothesboy (Sep 19, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by hopkins_student_
> 
> I still strongly support the President. I appreciate his consistency in the face of adversity, both politically and militarily. For many that support the war(s), it is this consistency that we most admire, and it is understandable why this is the least attractive of the President's characteristics to those who do not support the war.


I've never understood this argument. If we are to admire people simply because they are consistent then are we to admire every despot who never changed their mind? Isn't it a sign of intelligence to change your mind when the facts don't support your position or, put another way, isn't one definition of insanity to continue to do the same thing and expect a different outcome?

N.B. I'm not calling W. a despot, unintelligent or insane, I'm just pointing out how silly I find this argument.

EDIT: punctuation.

quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

"But then, a woman is only a woman and an EG is a shoe." - Will

Michael


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

These conversations always break down to such nastiness. I do apologize for becoming involved. The thread will basically break down as follows:

1) Group that is pro-George. This group will lambast anyone that does less than salute a picture of the POTUS upon rising for the day.

2) Group with will accept nothing less than your pledge you take George as the devil and will lambast anyone with less than a dozen needles in their George voodoo doll.

3) The group in the middle. This group will put forth George's good points to those that hate him and will point out his short comings to those that worship him. This group will be soundly thrashed by Group #1 and #2. This group will also live to a ripe old age due to moderation in all things and not having their blood pressure spike in political discussions. 

Warmest regards


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Wayfarer_
> 
> These conversations always break down to such nastiness. I do apologize for becoming involved. The thread will basically break down as follows:
> 
> ...


 I enjoy these kind of threads, because they lower my blood pressure with laughter.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Wayfarer_
> 
> These conversations always break down to such nastiness. I do apologize for becoming involved. The thread will basically break down as follows:
> 
> ...


I would tend to group 3 if I could find a single solitary good point for georgie.

There just aren't any!

------------------


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by clothesboy_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So it's silly because you don't understand it?


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by hopkins_student_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Clothesboy is entirely correct. It is a fallacious argument, and manifestly absurd.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> I would tend to group 3 if I could find a single solitary good point for georgie.
> 
> There just aren't any!


I disagree! Upon moving to the US the first thing George did for me was cut my taxes! I heartily approved [8D]

Edit: left out "to"


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> I would tend to group 3 if I could find a single solitary good point for georgie.
> 
> ...


Got one!

He's not Dick Cheney!

------------------


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> Got one!
> 
> He's not Dick Cheney!


Just remember, Dick Cheney's gun has killed fewer people than Ted Kennedy's bumper! When asked about this, Senator Kennedy was reported to say, "*hic* We'll cross that bridge when we come to it."

Still, I would not hunt with Cheney. A wink is as good as a nod to a blind bat.

Warmest regards


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Mr. Knightly_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You can disagree all you want, but this is our system of government. Perhaps you favor a monarchy or a dictatorship.

Hillary was being a realist, assuming she really said something candid (in which case I might have to reconsider her). In the early 1990s one of the Knight Ridder papers -- Miami or San Jose, I think -- designed a page that looked like a board game. Object: balance the budget. But for each thing you cut or taxed, you were assessed a certain amount of negative political points -- too many points and you can't have a second term and you can join Jimmy Carter in elder-statesmanland.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

> quote:Our elected officials are not kings; we elect them to serve us. They ought to bend to our wishes, rather than expecting us to blindly follow their agenda. That is the difference between leadership and rulership.


 This argument is without basis or merit. Our government does not operate under a parliamentary system. We don't get to declare new wishes on a daily basis. Our officials bend to our wishes every four years based on the agenda they propose to follow. The rarest of the rare actually endeavor to follow their stated agenda. That is the difference between leadership and bullship.

*https://www.CustomShirt1.com

Kabbaz-Kelly & Sons Fine Custom Clothiers
* Bespoke Shirts & Furnishings * Zimmerli Swiss Underwear **
* Alex Begg Cashmere * Pantherella Socks **​


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

What I don't get is why the Dems waste all their time screeching about how evil and/or incompetent Bush is, and then offer voters nothing but Bush in pseudo-egalitarian drag.

I mean, what kind of nitwit thinks "Okay, we'll present a clear alternative to this well-connected, Yalie, Skull and Bones bozo. We'll give them _our_ well-connected, Yalie, Skull and Bones bozo. Yeah, that's the ticket."

Bush is pretty bad. Nobody who ran against him was any better.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Patrick06790_
> 
> What I don't get is why the Dems waste all their time screeching about how evil and/or incompetent Bush is, and then offer voters nothing but Bush in pseudo-egalitarian drag.
> 
> ...


 I agree. Perhaps it should be more like American idol.


----------



## mikeber (May 5, 2004)

The question who (still) supports Bush is meaningless. 
Kabbaz is correct in that Bush does not need to be re-elected and the US does not operate under a parliamentary system (there are no regulators and controls to stop him from invading the moon if he decides to do so). He does not care if his ratings gets to 0 and below. 
One thing to remember is that he was elected second time AFTER the Iraqi invasion, when US citizens knew what they can expect from G.W.Bush.
As to those who say that Bush is a better option then his opponents, they don't really know. Most people didn't know G.W. when he was elected first time and he definitely surprised many. We don't know how Gore or Kerry would have been as presidents.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Alexander Kabbaz_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## jeansguy (Jul 29, 2003)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


sigh...

If people from the left and right agreed on things there would be no need for either term.

Neither of us will change the other's mind on an internet forum.

However, the fact remains that GWB has been consistant. His character has stayed the same throughout his presidency. You may not like his character, and you have every right not to. However, the American people voted him into office twice. And, they will never be able to say that HE changed after he was elected.

BTW, I though Mulroney did a fine job of running this country.

www.thegenuineman.com


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

> quoteerhaps not on your planet, Alex, but on Earth even a lame duck can do serious damage to his party by ignoring the will of the people. Whether you choose to recognize that, this is the political reality. The world changes, people's needs change, and it is not a requirement that they remain stoic just because they couldn't predict the future.


 CRS: "Political Reality" is an oxymoron. A bullet. A bomb. A missile. Those are realities.

A man and woman holding hands as they jumped 93 floors to their deaths is a reality. Islamic fanatics slowly cutting off human heads while being videotaped for television is a reality. The day-to-day whims and wishes you have today which you didn't have in November of 2004 are childish whimpers in comparison to reality.

Thankfully, President Bush is willing to ignore the oxymoron to an extent great enough to try to solve some of the actual realities for long enough to have an effect.

*https://www.CustomShirt1.com

Kabbaz-Kelly & Sons Fine Custom Clothiers
* Bespoke Shirts & Furnishings * Zimmerli Swiss Underwear **
* Alex Begg Cashmere * Pantherella Socks **​


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Solve the realities? Like catch the guys responsible for 9/11?

Nah, better invade a country that had nothing to do with it for no discernible reason.

Reality? You should try it some day.

------------------


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

GMAC,

Again I will ask you for your approach to the problem of radical Islamic terror. Duck the question if you must but enough with the Bush is an idiot nonsense.

From Bill Emmot's Valedictory in the Economist - read the whole thing here:

_All of which is the background to the most controversial decision of this editorship: the decision to support the American-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003. Our reasoning began with the fact that the status quo was terrible: doing nothing, whether about Iraq or about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, was itself a deadly decision. It went on to the risk that Saddam still had a stock of weapons of mass destruction that if left in power he might wish to use or to sell. In the light of September 11th and the dismal results from 13 years of sanctions, we argued that wishful thinking about Saddam would be reckless. The West should invade, remove him from power, and throw its considerable resources behind the rebuilding of a free Iraq.

The ensuing three years, I hardly need to say, have seen a debacle. His WMDs turned out to be a bluff, fooling even his own generals. Elections have been held, a constitution has been written, but no government is in place. Institutions remain in tatters. Whether or not a civil war is under way is largely a semantic issue. Dozens of Iraqis are dying every day, killed by other Iraqis. So does this prove our decision wrong, just as the good outcome in ex-Yugoslavia put our â€œstumblingâ€ warning in the shade?

This will outrage some readers, but I still think the decision was correctâ€"based on the situation at that time, which is all it could have been based on. The risk of leaving Saddam in power was too high. Outside intervention in other countries' affairs is difficult, practically, legally and morally. It should be done only in exceptional circumstances, and backed by exceptional efforts. Iraq qualified on the former. George Bush let usâ€"and Americaâ€"down on the latter. So, however, did other rich countries: whatever they thought of the invasion, they had a powerful interest in sorting out the aftermath. Most shirked it.

The only argument against our decision that seems to me to have force is that a paper whose scepticism about government drips from every issue should have been sceptical about Mr Bush's government and its ability to do things properly in Iraq. This is correct: we should have been, and we were. But when the choice is between bad options and worse ones, a choice must still be made. Great enterprises can failâ€"but they fail twice over if they take away our moral courage and prevent us from rising to the next challenge._

Karl


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

The only time I will stop with the Bush is an idiot stuff is when he stops doing idiotic things, like invading Iraq.

I could care less about his pathetic public mumblings. The actions speak to the man - and all of George W Bush's actions point to him being a disaster of unprecedented proportions.

If you don't like me calling him an idiot then please explain to me why he isn't.

------------------


----------



## Mr. Knightly (Sep 1, 2005)

[/quote]

You can disagree all you want, but this is our system of government. Perhaps you favor a monarchy or a dictatorship.

[/quote]

Actually it's not our system of government. I thought I explained that. We elect a president and he gets to do what he wants for 4 years or until he commits high crimes and misdemeanors. Accountability is at election time only. Show me where the constitution says that elected officials have to do what the people want.

I would never vote for someone that I thought was going to bend to the polls, I'd rather have my leaders be smarter than the aggregate intelligence of America (and yes, I do think GWB is smarter than the average American). Serving the people is not the same thing as obeying the people.

Costly thy habit as thy purse can buy,
But not express'd in fancy; rich, not gaudy;
For the apparel oft proclaims the man.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

GMAC,

Its not whether I like that you call President Bush an idiot or not. I don't like your politics but thats hardly the point, is it? What I would rather hear from you is what you course of action you would favor. I know you don't like Bush - we all know, a thousand times over. Tell me what you stand for and how you would deal with the complex issues of the day and be specific please. Let us debate ideas rather than personalities. The ball is your court my lefty friend.

Karl


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

After reading the last several posts, all I can say is that I'm so happy I'm in group #3!

Warmest regards


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

As for the issue of radical islamic terrorism, I have given you my thinking on to that problem in the past You either failed to read or failed to comprehend what I said.

The answers are clouded by Bush's folly in Iraq which has only served to create a generation of radicalized young muslims whose only desire is to kill Americans or their proxies.

Post 9/11 the answers were clearer. Utter and total destruction of the Taliban and those parts of al Qaeda that were to be found in Afghanistan, including Osama Bin Laden. Not done.

A meaningful settlement to the Palestinian question, not one designed to satisfy the Israel lobby in the US. Not easy I realize but some sort of engagement at least. Not done.

Support for pro democracy movements in Arab and non-Arab nations. Not just those that suited your geopolitical goals. Hhhmm, maybe in Iran but only for exteremely transparent reasons.

Meaningful support for Africa, including miltary intervention where required, particularly in the east African muslim nations. Intervention, not invasion and occupation. Ha! Africa?

Real reform and dialogue at the UN on how to approach these problems, including the flaunting of UN resolutions by both Israel and Iraq (among others). John Bolton?

Engagement of "friendly" muslim nations such as Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc. Embracing of non-radical and secular muslims living in western countries.

And so on.

Lets boil it down though - kill Osamna Bin Laden, don't occuoy Iraq for three years and counting for no apparent reason - however the dogmatists at the Economist choose to frame their latest misjudgement.

------------------


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Mr. Knightly_
> 
> We elect a president and he gets to do what he wants for 4 years or until he commits high crimes and misdemeanors.


No, he doesn't. Legally, we have a system of "checks and balances" among the executive, legislative and judicial branches of our government that prevents any president from "doing what he wants for four years." Practically, if the public gripes enough, it behooves the man to listen. Because if he doesn't, it will affect the fund-raising and election hopes of party members and they will whine at him like wet cats.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

GMAC,

Well its a start, though very vague. I will start a new thread in the next day or so where we can debate the issue further. Thanks for your response.

Karl


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Karl89_
> 
> GMAC,
> 
> Its not whether I like that you call President Bush an idiot or not.


Well, then stop whining about it when I call him what he plainly is.

------------------


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

GMAC,

I wonder how many times in your life you have been called arrogant. I and millions of others do not concede that President Bush is an idiot. It is not whining to strongly object when you say as such. What you view as plainly evident is contested by many on this board and millions around the world. No matter how many times you keep saying it doesn't make it so. 

Karl


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Sure sounds like whining to me......

Why don't you make a point rather than complaining about what I say and reproducing ludicrous mea culpas from right wing rags?

------------------


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

GMAC,

The Economist is now a "right wing rag"? Mea culpas? Sir, your Latin fails you, apologia is word you were searching for. And when you make an outrageously incorrect statement I will correct you - everytime. 

Karl


----------



## clothesboy (Sep 19, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by hopkins_student_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


My apologies for not making myself clear.

I don't find it silly because I don't understand it; I find it silly because consistency is such an obviously neutral quality. Admiring someone because of their consistency means we admire Pol Pot, Idi Amin and a host of other unsavory characters. Consistently doing the wrong thing doesn't make you admirable it just makes you wrong. Consistently doing the right thing makes you admirable. It's not the consistancy that should be valued rather it is what you do that makes the measure of the man.

I hope this helps.

N.B. I'm not saying W. is a Pol Pot or Idi Amin just making a point regarding the value of consistency.

EDIT: Readability. I know, keep editing.

quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

"But then, a woman is only a woman and an EG is a shoe." - Will

Michael


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> Sure sounds like whining to me......
> 
> ...


I have to second the notion, The Economist is anything but right wing! I would also say it tends to have a slighty anti-US stance too, just slightly mind you. I expect the next accusation here to be that the FT is pro-Bush!

Warmest regards


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I'm no left-winger, but I feel Bush is a totally underqualified idiot being propped up by allies.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Wayfarer_
> 
> I have to second the notion, The Economist is anything but right wing! I would also say it tends to have a slighty anti-US stance too, just slightly mind you.


Don't be utterly ridiculous.

------------------


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


But I am not. I feel my statement reflects objective reality. If your opinion differs, so be it, but I will refrain from calling it "utterly ridiculous" out of good will. However, I think that most reasonable people would agree with me, The Economist is not right wing and is even mildly anti-US at times. The only way The Economist could be considered "right wing" is if one were to believe that neo-Classical economic thought was "right wing". If that is the case, I am afraid our paradigms are so diametrically opposed that there is simply no common ground for further conversation on the topic and we shall simply have to agree we disagree.

At least you did not try and argue the FT is pro-Bush.

Warmest regards


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Wayfarer,

Unfortunately our friend GMAC only knows how to speak in hyperbole. When not skiing, threatening violence over kilts or making pasta he just keeps repeating "Bush is an idiot." Given the fact that Bush was elected twice I wonder what GMAC really thinks of Americans who voted for him. I suspect that in his view we are naive rubes at best or evil idiots at worst. Come GMAC tell us what you really think.

Karl


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Karl89_
> 
> Wayfarer,
> 
> ...


Snowboarding old chap, not skiing.

It is very hard to understand why Americans vote for a clown who, in a the vast majority of cases, is clearly against their best interests. The best explanation I have seen is Thomas Frank's book, "What's the Matter With Kansas?"

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0...f=pd_bbs_1/104-1598994-4130357?_encoding=UTF8

The Republican party has captured middle America through cultural issues and scare tactics. The fact that middle America has fallen for these tactics does not leave me greatly impressed.

As for me only calling George Bush an idiot, you asked for my opinions on another subject, I provided those and you have failed to respond, other than to take a few personal shots at me. If you want a slagging match, that's up to you.

I always consider risotto more of a rice than pasta.

------------------


----------



## whnay. (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:The Republican party has captured middle America through cultural issues and scare tactics. The fact that middle America has fallen for these tactics does not leave me greatly impressed.


Would you say the same for the Democratic party and African-Americans? Or is it your intention to state that only Republicans practice scare tactics?

___________

"My problem lies in reconciling my gross habits with my net income." 
~Errol Flynn


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

GMAC,

No personal shots - you are prone to hyperbole. Not a character flaw, mind you. And snowboarding and cooking for your family are admirable activities. I haven't any comment on kilts. Ok, I will critique your suggestions this weekend. But do me a favor please - for very one hundred times you call Bush an idiot (and that seems a day's quota for you) how about you mention the evil of the leadership in North Korea, Burma, Iran and Zimbabwe. Your burning hatred for Bush could be excused as quirky if we at least knew you possessed the moral clarity to recognize the important issues of the day.

And given the fact the your beloved Canada just elected someone you can't stand I wonder what it says about Canadians. Is Tony Blair suspect too? Is there anyone you like?

Karl


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by whnay._
> Would you say the same for the Democratic party and African-Americans?


Just please, whatever you do, do not inappropriately touch "me, a black female congresswoman". You sir will then have raised the ire of Danny Glover and Harry Belafonte! 

Warmest regards


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Really. That chick needs a dose of reality.

The police do not have an easy job. Believe it or not, I doubt that the security guard in question wanted to borrow trouble by hassling a congresswoman. (I know some police let the authority go to their head, but few would have knowingly harrassed a congresswoman.)


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Wayfarer_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I remember back in the late 80s Danny Glover gave a speach at my high school. Back then he was a star and people actually knew who he was and cared.

Just thought that I would share.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Karl89_
> 
> GMAC,
> But do me a favor please - for very one hundred times you call Bush an idiot (and that seems a day's quota for you) how about you mention the evil of the leadership in North Korea, Burma, Iran and Zimbabwe. Your burning hatred for Bush could be excused as quirky if we at least knew you possessed the moral clarity to recognize the important issues of the day.


Start a thread on those issues and I'll comment. This thread is about George W Bush and, as you know, I am loathe to hijack threads.



> quote:_Originally posted by Karl89_
> And given the fact the your beloved Canada just elected someone you can't stand I wonder what it says about Canadians. Is Tony Blair suspect too? Is there anyone you like?


I am disappointed in the extreme that Canada fell for Harper's baloney - although you will note that he only has a minority government, one which I am certain won't last due to his utter hypocrisy and unpleasant nature. I am proud to say that my riding went for the NDP.

Blair was great for a long time. The day he was elected I was among the throngs when he arrived on Downing Street - good times.

However, he will be forever tainted by his inexplicable support for Bush's folly in Iraq. His government's recent scandals, while depressing, are the result of too long in power.

Is there anybody I like in politics? In short, not really. The desire to be a politician should be enough to bar you from ever actually becoming one.

I should say that I don't hate Bush - he seems personable enough and I'm sure we could have a couple of laughs over a beer and barbecue. I don't even hate Dick Cheney. It's their policies and practises that I dislike.

But I don't have anything like the antipathy toward them that your average Rush Limbaugh listener does to either of the Clintons.

------------------


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> I am proud to say that my riding went for the NDP.


That is New Democratic Party for those not overly familiar with Canadian politics. Basically a socialist party. Gmac, this does explain to me why you thought The Economist was "right wing" as neo-Classical economic thought is roundly rejected by socialists. Not that I do not like socialists on a personal level, the annoying thing about them though is that it is always MY money they want to enact THEIR programs with!


> quote:
> But I don't have anything like the antipathy toward them that your average Rush Limbaugh listener does to either of the Clintons.


I will tell you I listen to Rush if I should happen to be running an errand during his show, as he is usually the most entertaining thing on the radio at that time. I have no antipathy towards Bill Clinton, I am very happy he signed the Republican's welfare reform and NAFTA (remember though I am a member of Group #3). I do however question his choice in women to philander with 

Warmest regards


----------



## clothingconnoisseur (Oct 9, 2005)

I know that I am chiming in rather late to this thread but I think Bush needs all the support he can get. 

First of all, he is far from an idiot - Yale undergrad and Harvard MBA - I wish I was that stupid. 

Iraq was necessary for several of reasons. First, the U.S. needed a base in the Middle East and this is the reason why we will never completely withdraw. Think about it, we still have bases in Europe that are completely unnecessary 60 years after the war ended. Iraq is the ideal place for such a base being strategically located next to the Middle East's biggest threat - Iran.

Second, there are those of us who reasonably believe that Saddam did have WMD's and was trying to acquire a nuclear weapon. Before the Bush haters start laughing, think about this. We know that Saddam had WMDs at one time since he used them on his own people. It defies logic to think that he voluntarily dismantled these weapons in order to comply with the UN resolutions and then refused to allow UN inspectors access to key sites to verify that he had complied. Anyone who thinks that makes any sense should be the last person to call someone else an idiot. The fact is that he had plenty of time to get rid of them prior to the US invasion. 

Also, Saddam would not have had to develop nuclear weapons himself. Thanks to the infinite wisdom of the former Clinton administration, North Korea was allowed to develope nuclear power for "energy" purposes. Instead, they developed a bomb. What a surprise! We now have one of the largest illegal arms merchants in the world in possession of a nuclear bomb. Thanks Bill. How long do you think it would be before Saddam purchased a nuclear bomb from North Korea? 

Lastly, Saddam was a brutal dictator that should have been removed for humanitarian reasons. He murdered far more of his own people than Slobodan Milosevic did yet the left seems to have supported his removal by the Clinton Administration. I understand and I am deeply saddened by the thousands of US soldiers who have lost their lives in Iraq but are we to only fight wars in which the enemy is completely incapable of defending themselves? Would that not be tantamount to being a Bully? Perhaps Clinton was right in Somalia. It was horrible press to see a dead US soldier dragged through the streets. Far better to minimize the damage to his popularity and withdraw than kill the thugs who commited this heinous act.

That said, Bush does have many failings. He is not a true conservative in the sense that he spends too much money and clearly believes in an expansive role for the federal government. His policies on matters that the federal government should not be involved in are too many to list. 

However, his biggest failing was backing off on Social Security Privatization. When SS was implemented through Roosevelt's New Deal (or Raw Deal depending on your view point) the average life expectancy was 62 with a retirement benefit age of 65. It was a brilliant "Ponzi Scheme" since people would pay in but the majority of people would die either before collecting a single payment or, at worse, a few years thereafter. If you and I were to run such a scheme we would be thrown in jail. People should be allowed to control how thier SS taxes are invested. If an individual rather have the Federal government do it, that should be their option. I am confident that I could do a better job with my money than Uncle Sam.

Sorry this was so long.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by clothingconnoisseur_
> 
> The fact is that he had plenty of time to get rid of them prior to the US invasion.


So Saddam figured, "Oh, there's a chance of war ... better get rid of my best weapons! We'll just fight a superpower with the suckiest weapons we have! That way they won't be so angry when they win!"

Yeah, right.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by clothingconnoisseur_
> 
> First of all, he is far from an idiot - Yale undergrad and Harvard MBA - I wish I was that stupid.


The hardest thing about the Ivy League, as I have said before, is getting in. They don't flunk many.

Georgie was, of course, a shoo-in at both Yale and Harvard because of his family connections and money.

I won't bother with the rest of your Fox News talking points - they have been disposed of previously in this and other threads.

------------------


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

I'll take it back about The Economist though. I thought it was a rag - until I found out it was founded by a Scotsman (like most worthwhile things in life - see other threads).

It is still right wing though.

And their position on Iraq is still nonsensical (even if I did misuse the phrase mea culpa - stupid latin!).

------------------


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

Clothingconnoisseur, you make some excellent points with regard to Iraq. I don't quite agree with your Social Security as ponzi scheme analysis, though. I think there are many senior citizens who really depend on those checks and their quality of life would suffer immensely if the system was not in place. However they got into that situation, it would pain me to see their plight made worse. I don't believe in entitlements but I do believe in safety nets.

Not that I wouldn't mind being able to invest 10% of my SS fund myself. Liberals, stop your anti-capitalist howling on this!

I guess I am still standing up for GW.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> I'll take it back about The Economist though. I thought it was a rag - until I found out it was founded by a Scotsman (like most worthwhile things in life - see other threads).


A sentiment where we have 100% common ground. Scotland invented the modern world and everything in it. I would add, and provided the people to execute it in most (not all) cases. Be welcome world!

Warmest regards


----------



## clothingconnoisseur (Oct 9, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by crs_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Certainly not. The fact is that chemical and biological weapons or offensive weapons - not defensive. You couldn't very well use them while being attacked without effecting your own troops.

Once again, why comply with the UN resolution and then not allow verification of such compliance? If there is a logical answer I would like to know. I am open minded enough to want to hear other points of view.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by KenR_
> 
> I don't quite agree with your Social Security as ponzi scheme analysis, though.


No, this analysis is quite correct. The classic ponzi scheme is that you pay off series A investors with the investments of series B investors and later. Series B investors are paid off with the investment of series C investors, and so on. SS is quite literally, the epitome of a ponzi scheme. This is not a value judgement, it is merely a definitional item.

Warmest regards


----------



## clothingconnoisseur (Oct 9, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


As far as getting in goes, he was in a very similar situation as John Kerry. Bush's average at Yale was a 77 and Kerry's was a 76. No discernable difference and both "Gentelman's C" students. Why did the media portray Kerry as intelligent and Bush as an idiot?


----------



## clothingconnoisseur (Oct 9, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by KenR_
> 
> Clothingconnoisseur, you make some excellent points with regard to Iraq. I don't quite agree with your Social Security as ponzi scheme analysis, though. I think there are many senior citizens who really depend on those checks and their quality of life would suffer immensely if the system was not in place. However they got into that situation, it would pain me to see their plight made worse. I don't believe in entitlements but I do believe in safety nets.
> 
> ...


I have no problem with people who disagree with me nor with safety nets. However, I believe that the SS proposal would only have applied to those under 50 (or 55 I don't remember). Therefore it would not matter to anyone who is currently dependent or who will be in the near future.

As far as the "Ponzi Scheme" analysis goes, the very definition is plan that takes money from new investors to pay off the old investors. In that respect, it is a "Ponzi Scheme". These schemes all eventually collapse when you run out of new investors. This has not happened yet since the government mandates that people pay their social security taxes. Charles Ponzi would have never been found out as the crook that he was if he could require people to continue putting in money. The problem with SS will be when the "Baby Boomers" retire in a few years and there are not enough working people to pay the required benefits. The government will have to raise the SS taxes to meet its obligation and this just makes it a worse "investment" for younger people. What happens if, god willing, there is a cure for cancer someday? Scientists agree that the human body could concievably live to 100-120 if we took care of ourselves.

I just don't believe that the safety net will be there when I retire in 30 years or so if the program is not reformed. Hopefully I won't need it but it is still my money. Maybe private accounts are not the way to go but think they are better than the current system and I have not heard a better proposal.

Like you, I would like to invest my own SS taxes.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by clothingconnoisseur_
> 
> As far as getting in goes, he was in a very similar situation as John Kerry. Bush's average at Yale was a 77 and Kerry's was a 76. No discernable difference and both "Gentelman's C" students. Why did the media portray Kerry as intelligent and Bush as an idiot?


I haven't a clue - they are both clowns as far as I am concerned.

Maybe its because Bush has taken practical steps to prove his stupidity whereas Kerry's ignorance has yet to be fully tested in an executive position?

------------------


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

Gotta say gmac, I may disagree with you but I enjoy your posts.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Thanks Ken! [:I]

No point in coming here and boring everyone to death is there?

------------------


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by clothingconnoisseur_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

I read The Economist every week and enjoy it greatly, and while they have on occasion gone after Bush, for some of the most egregious muffs, I'd still consider the magazine quite friendly to the administration overall.



> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


********************************
"It's about time some publicly-spirited person told you where to get off. The trouble with you, Spode, is that just because you've succeeded in convincing a handful of half-wits to disfigure the London scene by going about in black shorts, you think you're someone."


----------



## Coolidge24 (Mar 21, 2005)

I still support Bush.

I don't think he's a Great President. I think he's a fair president.

I think the war has not gone as well as expected. But I am certainly leery of merely taking places like North Korea sitting down. It is nice to see some effort to combat our foes. I also don't believe the persistent liberal patter that everyone outside this country hates us. I would like to get out of Iraq and stop spending so much money, as it is anti-Republican to the extreme, but I'd hesitate before I said Iraq was "wrong". I suppose I'm without real conviction on the war.

I believe in the tax cut system. However, I think Bush and Congress have not done the other half of the Plan, or what should be the other half, cutting government expenditures. Calvin Coolidge style.

I'm not a member of the Religious Right. I'm a Congregational Protestant from Connecticut. However, when I see what they have to offer compared to the hip hop culture to which my generation is attuning itself, I say that when I get down to Brass tacks, In 10 years I'd rather have my hypothetical kids reading the Bible than learning how to freak dance and espousing moral relativism. I'd rather have them ballroom dancing and not worrying about Hip Hop or heavy religion, but that does not seem to be an option today, so I'll vote for learning right and wrong over anything goes, even if sometimes I think it's a little much. 

Basically it comes down to me not relating particularly well to the loudest voices on the right, but willing to tolerate them running things over the loudest voices on the left, whom I absolutely cannot stand.



George H.W. Bush '08...I wish


----------



## mikeber (May 5, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Coolidge24_
> 
> I still support Bush.
> I think the war has not gone as well as expected.


Isn't that a reason enough for a president to step down?
If indeed the war didn't go as expected and the price (in human lives and $) is too high, would it be too much to expect a fair president (as you describe him) to admit "I was wrong"? 
Isn't a war gone wrong, far more serious then childish oral sex in the white house?


----------



## whnay. (Dec 30, 2004)

If FDR had to deal with the 24/7 newscycle he would have been thrown out of office within the first two years of the war. Wars never go as planned, some go better than others and on a relative basis (if you were to compare this conflict with the thousands that have occurred within the 20-21st centuries) its far from a disaster, in fact many historians would argue somewhat successfully that the mission in Iraq given the complexities of the ME has gone better than any realist could have hoped.

___________

"My problem lies in reconciling my gross habits with my net income." 
~Errol Flynn


----------



## Coolidge24 (Mar 21, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by mikeber_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Um no.

The Second World War didn't go exactly super for the US in 1941-1942. I bet you wouldn't have wanted Roosevelt to step down. The Brits certainly didn't want Winnie Churchill to step down.


----------



## daltx (Jan 19, 2006)

I think that disagreeing with Bush's policies is completely fair and honorable in some cases. I am a conservative but I am far from being a reactionary Bush supporter.

I do take slight issue when GMAC calls him an idiot, simply because I believe that is an unfair charge to make. You may think his policies or the war are "idiotic" but that does not make Bush idiotic. 

As for his education which was mentioned earlier, in both elections Bush was chided as having an inferior intellect when compared to his two opponents. Research would show that he had higher SAT scores than Al Gore and a higher GPA at Yale that John Kerry. Just thought I would through that in.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by clothingconnoisseur_
> As far as getting in goes, he was in a very similar situation as John Kerry. Bush's average at Yale was a 77 and Kerry's was a 76. No discernable difference and both "Gentelman's C" students. Why did the media portray Kerry as intelligent and Bush as an idiot?


School performance is not necessarily related to intelligence. Good grades are more reliant on simple obedience than giftedness.

As for the Bush-Kerry difference, it is possible that if Kerry is more intelligent than Bush, he may have been drawn to more difficult classes and lecturers and - therefore - ended up with (on the surface) similar grades to Bush, who in turn may have been drawn to easier courses and lenient lecturers.

Having said this, however, I think they are both shining examples of intellectual mediocrity, and posterboys of Ivy League social promotion.


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLPWCXIII_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


For completeness, it is also possible that the President was drawn to more difficult classes and lecturers...but I guess you've already made your mind up about that one.


----------



## mikeber (May 5, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by whnay._
> far from a disaster, in fact many historians would argue somewhat successfully that the mission in Iraq given the complexities of the ME has gone better than any realist could have hoped.


In that case can we consider Vietnam a "somewhat successfully" adventure (that given the complexity of far east had gone better than we could have hoped)?


----------



## mikeber (May 5, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by daltx_
> As for his education which was mentioned earlier, in both elections Bush was chided as having an inferior intellect when compared to his two opponents. Research would show that he had higher SAT scores than Al Gore and a higher GPA at Yale that John Kerry. Just thought I would through that in.


Who the hell cares what G.W. Bush (or other presidential candidates) did at school? What does it matter? He is the president and should be judged by his policies.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by mikeber_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Then why did Dubya's opponents make so much of it? One cannot have it both ways.

Warmest regards


----------



## FlatSix (Feb 23, 2005)

In my opinion, we've never had a war go *better* than this one. Casualities over three years have been limited to about what you'd expect on the first day of a Pacific beach landing. We are combat-hardening and training a new generation of American military leaders. Our forces are fully capable of taking any ground they wish to take - the problem is in that old chestnut, winning hearts and minds.

In a perfect world, no young man would ever come home without his legs; but in a perfect world, planes would land on runways, not into buildings, and Middle Eastern (African, as well - that means you, Bobby Mugabe) despots would abdicate and offer their people a chance to live in peace and freedom.

----------------------

"When you wear something like spats, I think you might as well wear your favorite players jersey bc what youre saying is I want to be powerful like the bear and Im wearing its hide to tap into its power." - Film Noir Buff

"First sense of what "normal" good clothes looked like came from my dad, of course, and from Babar books." - Concordia

" I have a related problem in that I often have to chase people. Leather soles are no good for this kind of work." - Patrick06790


----------



## daltx (Jan 19, 2006)

mikeber,

Evidently you chose to not read all of my post, in which I said that criticizing the president's policies is totally fair and honorable. My comment regarding schooling was in response to many comments that were made earlier. 

In the 2000 election when he was called an idiot by almost as many people who refer to him as that now, what was their reason? Was it the war in Iraq that he had started? Of course not, it was people who thought he only got into Yale and Harvard because he was daddy's little boy, meanwhile Al Gore had "earned" his way into school, despite having a US Senator for a father. Of course that was conveniently ignored.

Maybe he really is not that smart, but there is no evidence that either of his opponents are any smarter.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

The reason George Bush was considered an idiot before he conclusively proved himself to be so through his blunderings is that every time he opened his mouth he sounded like a full-on moron. 

His abysmal public speaking allied to his mangled diction would lead any ordinary observer to think they were dealing with a slower than normal individual.

His actions since have demonstrated that to be the case.

As for Bush's opponents making a case about his education, I don't recall that at all. More right wing paranoia?

------------------


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by FlatSix_
> In my opinion, we've never had a war go *better* than this one.


Is there some sort of prize for stupidest comment on any particular thread - because we have a winner!

------------------


----------



## familyman (Sep 9, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by daltx_
> 
> Of course not, it was people who thought he only got into Yale and Harvard because he was daddy's little boy,


Correct me if I'm wrong at any point!

The way I heard it he and his younger brother Jeb had basically the same academic qualifications when it was time to choose a college. The thing was that between when W started and Jeb would have started Yale changed their admission criteria to more accuratly reflect merit and Jeb couldn't get in. He had to go to UT (I think it was UT) 
The argument is that based on his academics, W wasn't smart enought to get into Yale. The truth is probalby that he got in the same way that much of the student population got in when he went and grades were only a small part of it. Admissions in those days was different. So yea, he wasn't smart enough to go to Yale, after the admissions rules changed, after he went there, and neither were many of his classmates.

_____________________________________________________________________________
I am no enemy of elegance, but I say no man has a right to think of elegance till he has secured substance, nor then, to seek more of it than he can afford.

John Adams


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

I declare this thread over, Group #3 wins!

Warmest regards


----------



## mikeber (May 5, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> The reason George Bush was considered an idiot before he conclusively proved himself to be so through his blunderings is that every time he opened his mouth he sounded like a full-on moron.
> 
> ...


gmac,
As you understand, I am not a supporter of Mr. Bush. I would rather see someone else in the white house. However, calling him names is insulting to all. Yes, the war in Iraq went bad. Very bad. 
However, he is my president as well. He was elected in democratic elections, by a majority of Americans. As we know, he is not a great speaker, but he is not stupid as some people think. 
A president does not work alone. Behind G.W. Bush are many people who craft US policy and some of them are intelligent. That is the case with most administrations. This administration however, is being led by a BAD ideology. When the facts are unfavorable or conflict this ideology, they either bend reality, or hide behind a wall of secrecy. 
What's the point of secretary of state admiting (today) that the US made many mistakes in Iraq? Why not admit it long ago, when things could still be corrected? And what about the "good" Iraqi people, who will embrace democracy after the removal of the "evil guys". Well, the "good guys" talk with other good guys with bombs. And the good guys want the US out asap, so they can treat the other guys (good or bad) with bombs...


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by mikeber_
> gmac,
> As you understand, I am not a supporter of Mr. Bush. I would rather see someone else in the white house. However, calling him names is insulting to all. Yes, the war in Iraq went bad. Very bad.
> However, he is my president as well. He was elected in democratic elections, by a majority of Americans. As we know, he is not a great speaker, but he is not stupid as some people think.


Sticks and stones Mike, sticks and stones......

What is insulting is having to listen to him and his flunkies lie to the world constantly about Iraq, from the reasons for invasion right up to the current situation.

I'm sure it is insulting to the Iraqi peole to have to listen to him painting a rosy picture from Washington while they die in their thousands .

------------------


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> The reason George Bush was considered an idiot before he conclusively proved himself to be so through his blunderings is that every time he opened his mouth he sounded like a full-on moron.
> 
> His abysmal public speaking allied to his mangled diction would lead any ordinary observer to think they were dealing with a slower than normal individual.


Oh how I'd love to see you on television in front of millions of people. Also, if this is such a reliable measure of intelligence, did Reagan get extra points for being so good at this aspect of the job?


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by mikeber_
> 
> He was elected ... by a majority of Americans.


Well, the second time.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

I didn't support W in the primaries, but I supported him in the general election and I still support him as President.

Every now and then when I get frustrated with one or more of his decisions, I remember what I do like about him.

I think people either get W or they don't and there's no sense worrying about him. He's stronger than anyone gives him credit. He's leading and that's the job. He's certainly had as many bad days as good and that's part of the job. He doesn't complain or whine like some in Washington. He seems sincere and genuine unlike most in Washington. And FWIW, most people that seem to think he's stupid always lose to him.

I do see why W rubs some international people the wrong way. I will say most of them seem to deserve it, but that's a different topic [}]


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by hopkins_student_
> 
> Oh how I'd love to see you on television in front of millions of people.


A sentiment shared by many I'm sure.



> quote:_Originally posted by hopkins_student_
> Also, if this is such a reliable measure of intelligence, did Reagan get extra points for being so good at this aspect of the job?


Hard to prove yourself smart this way - easy to make a fool of yourself. See George W Bush for multiple examples.

Reagan was indeed a great speaker and nobody's fool as far as I am concerned.

------------------


----------



## clothesboy (Sep 19, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by clothingconnoisseur_
> 
> I know that I am chiming in rather late to this thread but I think Bush needs all the support he can get.
> 
> ...


Regarding Iraq being "neccesary": We had a base in the Middle East, Afganhistan. A rational foriegn policy would have seen us stay there. All the retroactively invented goals stated for the attack on Iraq could have been achieved, better and cheaper, in Afganhistan. We had the goodwill of most of the world after 9/11 until this administration threw it away. (How people can say that an individual that squanders such a resouce needlessly is intelligent is beyond me.) How much easier, and cheaper, would it have been to build a democracy to serve as an example to the rest of the Middle East with the rest of the world pitching in? Also, all the noble rhetoric would not ring hollow if we were not standing upon appox. 1/8 of the world's oil.

WMD's: The lack of both morality and courage when talking about this subject disgusts me. I've said it before I am saying it again, take all these fanatics, throw them in a pot, have them be guilty of everything we think they've done (even if they aren't), guilty of everything we don't know about, melt them all together, and they still don't amount to a pimple on the butt of Joe Stalin. And he actually had nuclear weapons. Yet, despite everything, our fathers had the moral courage not to start a war. How a generation with the courage to live with the uncertainty of a Joseph Stalin yet the morality to refrain from starting a war raised a generation of moral bankrupts shivering in their beds with covers over their heads wetting the sheets at the bogeyman in the closet is beyond me.

Conservatism is based upon at least two equally erroneous suppositions. The first is regulated capitalism destroys initiative, is broken, or some other excuse and therefore doesn't work. The wording changes but the conlusion is the same. Unfortunately, history doesn't support this idea. The beginning of the United States path to global primacy is subsequent to the "Raw Deal". Prior to this point the U.S. was, at best, a secondary player on the world stage. The second is that conservatism is and idea that hasn't been tried and deserves a chance. History is equally unkind to this notion. Regulated capitalism did not arrive fully birthed like Athena from Zeus' forehead. The New Deal was a response to the multiple societal ills (the ills were not just in the U.S. but worldwide) caused by unregulated capitalism.

Wanting to change the modality that brings you to the pinnacle of world power, the greatest standard of living in history... is curious. Wanting to replace it with what is a spectacular historical failure is stupid. "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it." -- George Santayana

Social security: Nobody is stopping you from saving towards your retirement. Interesting that people who pretend to be against government "handouts" have no trouble asking for one.

EDIT: Readability.

quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

"But then, a woman is only a woman and an EG is a shoe." - Will

Michael


----------



## clothesboy (Sep 19, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Coolidge24_
> 
> I still support Bush.
> 
> ...


Emphasis added to my talking points.

Everyone outside of this country hating America is a conservative talking point.

OK with starting a war but against "moral relativism"???????

quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

"But then, a woman is only a woman and an EG is a shoe." - Will

Michael


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by clothesboy_
> Conservatism is based upon at least two equally erroneous suppositions...The beginning of the United States path to global primacy is subsequent to the "Raw Deal". Prior to this point the U.S. was, at best, a secondary player on the world stage.


Oh please, do not speak of erroneous premises and then use the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. How can one be taken seriously at this point?



> quote:Social security: Nobody is stopping you from saving towards your retirement. Interesting that people who pretend to be against government "handouts" have no trouble asking for one.


Essentially true. However, 15% (7.5% employee, 7.5% employer) of one's income, up to I think 90k this year, goes straight to SS. Additionally, while one is not stopped, one is certainly discouraged. Cutting off Roth contribution eligibility at 160k for married couples? Removing IRA deductibility at even lower levels? Placing relatively low limits on 401(k) or 403(b) contributions? This of course does not prevent one from investing to take risk with one's capital, and if successful, pay yet another set of taxes on the profits. It is quite clear though, the behavior of setting aside substantial savings for one's retirement is not heavily encouraged by the US government.

Warmest regards


----------



## clothesboy (Sep 19, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Wayfarer_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You aren't seriously contending that the U.S. was a major player on the world stage prior to the New Deal? If not what is your point.

I don't argue that the U.S. government encourages saving for retirement. Everything you mentioned and more should be on the table not just the knee jerk cut SS taxes. Personally I have SS taxes on 100% of my income I fail to see why people better off than myself can't do the same.

quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

"But then, a woman is only a woman and an EG is a shoe." - Will

Michael


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by clothesboy_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I cannot make my point much clearer. _Post hoc ergo propter hoc_

Warmest regards


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

I don't understand all of this praise for Bush's consistency. So, are you people saying that if someone blindly and unwisely continues to follow a course of action even when it becomes obvious that this course of action is wrong, this person should be praised for their consistency? I think it is far more noble to be able to realize when you've made a mistake and then alter your course of action so that you are doing the right thing.

You know who else is really consistent with his message - Osama Bin Laden. Hitler was really consistent too. These guys will follow their plan to the bitter end whether it leads to their ultimate success or whether it leads to their destruction.

Personally, I'd rather have a president who is amenable to change when his policies prove to be wrong or detrimental to the country than one how is consistent, to the detriment of the country.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

I'm with you. I've always found it curious, to say the least, that so many admire the trait of remaining static in light of evolving information and context. The nuns used to call that "stubborness" or "being pigheaded." They seemed to consider it an unsavory quality and took pains to beat it out of us.

In presidents, however, this tendency is elevated to a Platonic ideal.

I don't *want* leaders who cannot shift policy and perspective in light of intelligence and data.



> quote:_Originally posted by odoreater_
> 
> I don't understand all of this praise for Bush's consistency. So, are you people saying that if someone blindly and unwisely continues to follow a course of action even when it becomes obvious that this course of action is wrong, this person should be praised for their consistency? I think it is far more noble to be able to realize when you've made a mistake and then alter your course of action so that you are doing the right thing.
> 
> ...


********************************
"It's about time some publicly-spirited person told you where to get off. The trouble with you, Spode, is that just because you've succeeded in convincing a handful of half-wits to disfigure the London scene by going about in black shorts, you think you're someone."


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by BertieW_
> 
> I'm with you. I've always found it curious, to say the least, that so many admire the trait of remaining static in light of evolving information and context. The nuns used to call that "stubborness" or "being pigheaded." They seemed to consider it an unsavory quality and took pains to beat it out of us.
> 
> ...


Well-said.

Also, as for the Bush-consistency-admirers, it might worth pointing out that W has _not _ been consistent. Does anyone here remember his campaign statements regarding deficits and foreign policy? This was way back in A.D. 2000, however (last millenium and all), so it might be unreasonable to expect anyone to recall.

And what of UN resolution violations by Iraq being his _casus belli_? He hasn't otherwise seemed to give a tinker's damn what the UN says about anything.

And whatever happened to his 2004 campaign rhetoric about a Constitutional prohibition on same-sex unions? Idiotic, to be sure - and obviously cheap Bible-baiting, but after November 2004 election returns nary a word about it from him.

Bush ran in 2000 to restore 'honour and dignity' to the White House. Ha! If anything, he is consistently amusing. In a scary kind of way of course.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by odoreater_
> 
> I don't understand all of this praise for Bush's consistency. So, are you people saying that if someone blindly and unwisely continues to follow a course of action even when it becomes obvious that this course of action is wrong, this person should be praised for their consistency? I think it is far more noble to be able to realize when you've made a mistake and then alter your course of action so that you are doing the right thing.
> 
> ...


Well, in time he is consistently proven to be right. Being a leader is about being told exactly what you just said and leading to victory. He did it in the election, he did it after 9/11 with the economy, he did it in Afghanistan, he did in Iraq in the ground offensive, and he's doing it again in Iraq with building the democracy, building a society, and avoiding civil war. What more do you want *exactly*?

And how many times must a guy be a proven winner before people calling him _a detriment to the country?_ Even Bill Clinton has figured it out. Have you listened to him lately?

"It's the economy, Stupid" [}]


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Wow. I feel like we're on two separate planets. Yours sounds a lot better, to be honest. Wish I could believe it exists.



> quote:_Originally posted by ksinc_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


********************************
"It's about time some publicly-spirited person told you where to get off. The trouble with you, Spode, is that just because you've succeeded in convincing a handful of half-wits to disfigure the London scene by going about in black shorts, you think you're someone."


----------



## rojo (Apr 29, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by mikeber_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The Civil War didn't go as expected either, with more than 200,000 battle deaths. The number killed in _one day_ at Antietam is more than double the total number of Americans who have died in Iraq in _three years_. Should Abraham Lincoln have stepped down? Was the price in human lives too high?

Others have mentioned FDR and World War II. There were 6,821 U.S. personnel killed in less than a month on Iwo Jima. Total U.S. service members killed in World War II, including nontheater, was over 400,000. Was the price in human lives too high? Should FDR have stepped down?


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

I honestly can't believe that this needs to be spelled out for some of the forum members. The admiration amongst supporters of the President comes from his *refusal to waver in the face of poor job approval ratings, not a refusal to adjust policy in the face of new threats and information.*

JLP(whatever the hell else his name consists of), in his effort to point out what he considers to be the President's inconsistencies, illustrated beautifully the President's ability to consider and adopt different policy in the face of *changing circumstances*. During the first campaign, the President's foreign policy was isolationist, he would have never dreamt of the nation building that has occurred in both Afghanistan and Iraq. He responded to the terrorist attacks of 9/11 by demonstrating his willingness to be flexible with his policy goals, hence the wars and reconstruction in Afghanistan and Iraq.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Specious.



> quote:_Originally posted by rojo_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


********************************
"It's about time some publicly-spirited person told you where to get off. The trouble with you, Spode, is that just because you've succeeded in convincing a handful of half-wits to disfigure the London scene by going about in black shorts, you think you're someone."


----------



## Badrabbit (Nov 18, 2004)

Gmac is a moron. His posts are stupid and he is constantly blundering when trying to make an argument.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Women thrive on novelty and are easy meat for the commerce of fashion. Men prefer old pipes and torn jackets. 
Anthony Burgess


----------



## Badrabbit (Nov 18, 2004)

Gmac seems to be without sense. Look at all his recent posts for evidence. Everyone can tell that he's an idiot. I mean look at what he posts. Isn't that enough to make my point? I mean it's easy to see he's a blunderer.


(Is that enough or do I need to post as many times as he's made the Bush comments to make my point? I don't have to work tomorrow so I could probably get it accomplished before noon.)



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Women thrive on novelty and are easy meat for the commerce of fashion. Men prefer old pipes and torn jackets. 
Anthony Burgess


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by ksinc_
> 
> Well, in time he is consistently proven to be right. Being a leader is about being told exactly what you just said and leading to victory. He did it in the election, he did it after 9/11 with the economy, he did it in Afghanistan, he did in Iraq in the ground offensive, and he's doing it again in Iraq with building the democracy, building a society, and avoiding civil war. What more do you want *exactly*?
> 
> ...


Wow, you have to put the playbook down and take a look around man. He's been consistently proven to be right? Like he was right about WMDs? Like he was right about sending over 2000 Americans to die in a "preemptive strike" on a country that was on the verge of attacking us? You think HE did it with the economy? He was right when he said we are going to relentlessly persue Osama Bin Laden until we find him and keep our sights set on that goal? He war right when he meticulously stripped Americans of their civil liberties, including things as basic as being free from warrantless searches and seizures - a basic right guaranteed by our constitution (I don't know about you guys, but I take the Constitution seriously). I really can't think of anything that he has been right about. What, Afghanistan? It didn't take a genious to figure out we had to attack Afghanistan, any president would have gone to Afghanistan.

People have to stop being so partisan and they have to stop drinking the kool-aid. I'm not a liberal, I consider myself a small-government, low taxes, low regulation libertarian, but this is ridiculous. I vote for Republicans in local elections all the time.


----------



## rojo (Apr 29, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by BertieW_
> 
> Specious.
> 
> ...


It's not specious. Mikeber said that a war not having gone as well as expected is "reason enough for a president to step down." What therefore is specious about examples of other presidents who led us in wars that did not go as well as expected?

I should have said something about Woodrow Wilson and the thousands of American soldiers who died in World War I, too.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

I don't agree with your tacit assumption that the Civil War and WWII are equivalent to the current conflagration in the Middle East. Therefore I cannot accept what follows as your conclusion.



> quote:_Originally posted by rojo_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


********************************
"It's about time some publicly-spirited person told you where to get off. The trouble with you, Spode, is that just because you've succeeded in convincing a handful of half-wits to disfigure the London scene by going about in black shorts, you think you're someone."


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by odoreater_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Election 2000 - W won the recount, not the BS recount with the chads. W won the recount by the consortium of newspapers sent to prove Gore really won. You didn't hear much about that did you? It's more fun to say he won the second election implying he didn't win the first. W said he won, W was right.

2000 Americans - Well this is not a clear right/wrong, but IMHO yes he was right. It's a screw up because of the delay caused by going to the UN, the French, and the issue with Turkey not letting us go through. It's the chaos now that has caused most of those casualties. It's very bad IMHO, but I think W was right and I think the bad consequences(extra casualties) were caused by the later. YMMV

9/11 economy, He was right to cut taxes and fight to keep them cut after 9/11. The economy is smoking. It's better than Clintons, and people gave him credit for it. W should take some, but he doesn't. Pisses me off to no end. I wish they would market more. He has an MBA.

Afghan - if you will remember everyone said the Russians fought in Afghan and lost, America could never win, we were there 2 weeks and it was going to last 100 year in the mountains to out the Taliban. We could neve get the war lords to work with us Yada Yada. I guess you have selective memory? W held steady and was right again.

OBL - this is the same 'old play' I was refering to. Do you think we have stopped or given up on OBL? Do you really think everyone is in Iraq and so no one is looking for OBL? speaking of Koolaid. W will be proven right, but no one will care. Because in 2004 some news outlet wrote "We stopped looking for OBL to go to Iraq and he got away".

Saddam - at one point Saddam got away. We were never going to find him. He was smart and competent, W was stupid and incompetent. He was in his own country, in his own town, with his own people. We were a bunch of foreigners, with no language skills, our intelligece sucked, our troops were disorganized, demoralized. Need I go on? W said, "We will find him and bring him to justice". Then we found him hiding in a spider hole. W was right.

Americans stripped of civil liberties - nope, not one. As it turned out to be true and known when reported but not corrected. Not one violation of the FISA was found. Even several democrats on the intelligence committee have said so. Sen. Levin is the last hold out and he's saying, I need to hear more before I fully clear the President, but so far I haven't heard of anything wrong. W is going to do what needs to be done. He's going to protect Americans from terrorism and our civil rights. He told you that over and over. W was right.

Got any others?

FTR I was an indy, I'm a libertarian, a skeptic and a cynic. I have voted for Dems, Repubs, and Indys. I registered as a Republican in the 2000 Florida primary specifically to vote AGAINST President Bush. There's enough things not to like about the guy and his family, I don't see the need to re-write the facts and make some up. So, I give him his due. If you want to criticise him for chronyism or choosing family loyalty over competence I'm right there with ya. Jeb did the same stuff here and our State offices are full of Friends of Bushies that can't grab their own butt.

I moved and haven't re-registered here yet, but we have a local election in November and I will probably go back to indy when I do.

I have enjoyed this conversation overall. I think it's interesting since we have such a low percentage of Americans on AAAC compared to most of the inet fora. Hopefully, it stays with the same even tone and intellectual debate vs personal.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by ksinc_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Badrabbit_
> 
> Gmac seems to be without sense. Look at all his recent posts for evidence. Everyone can tell that he's an idiot. I mean look at what he posts. Isn't that enough to make my point? I mean it's easy to see he's a blunderer.
> 
> (Is that enough or do I need to post as many times as he's made the Bush comments to make my point? I don't have to work tomorrow so I could probably get it accomplished before noon.)


Good point, well made.

I think you have conclusively demonstrated your point by, errr, repeating it.....????

And nice to see you could do it without throwing around ad hominem personal insults.

Oh.

------------------


----------



## Badrabbit (Nov 18, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Wow did you even hear it as it flew over your head?

The whole point is that you add nothing to the debate by simply repeating yourself and calling Bush an idiot (or other synonyms) without actually giving any specifics. You refuse to support your ideas but instead say things like "The reason George Bush was considered an idiot before he conclusively proved himself to be so through his blunderings is that every time he opened his mouth he sounded like a full-on moron." No where do you try to prove that he has "conclusively proved himself to be so through his blunderings." You instead feel that you can make statements without having to provide any actual evidence and still be taken seriously. If he has *conclusively* proved himself a bumbler, why is this thread on the fourth page already? It would have only taken one for everyone to agree.

As for ad hominem attacks, exactly what do you think your inane insistance that Bush is an idiot is? I was not seriously calling you an idiot but just making the point that your debate skills are sorely lacking as it seems that repeated ad hom is all you do (and you don't really even do that well).

In short, my posts were satire and it takes a pretty dense person not to get it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Women thrive on novelty and are easy meat for the commerce of fashion. Men prefer old pipes and torn jackets. 
Anthony Burgess


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Oh, you were being funny?

Yes, now I go back and look at your posts again it is quite clear that they are works of the highest comic genius.

I congratulate you on your satirical genius. I'll now go and stitch my sides up for they have burst through laughing so hard.

In the meantime, I suggest you go back and read all the posts I made explaing _exactly _why George W Bush is an idiot.

------------------


----------



## Badrabbit (Nov 18, 2004)

> quote: _Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> Or because of George Bush's great championing of individual liberty? (unless it is countries that happen to be useful to the USA and they don't want to rock the boat? Or countries who are not useful to the USA and therefore completely irrelevant?)
> 
> ...


Where _exactly_ do you explain why Bush is an idiot? What specifics have you provided? You claim things have been "shown" to be wrong. What? Who has shown them to be wrong?

In short, your posts are vague and absolutely useless for debate. They lack even a modicum of factual evidence or even relevant conclusion.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Women thrive on novelty and are easy meat for the commerce of fashion. Men prefer old pipes and torn jackets. 
Anthony Burgess


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Hhhmm, how about page 1 of this thread?

You may wish to try reading things before getting your panties in a knot.

I'm guessing you are a georgie fan and you don't like me calling him and idiot? Strange that you don't attempt to defend your boy? Should be easy against someone as dense as me, no?

Or maybe you are going to wow us with more of your biting satire?

------------------


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

ksinc - I guess we just look at things from a different perspective. So, we'll just have to agree to disagree, otherwise this argument can go on forever.


----------



## Badrabbit (Nov 18, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> Hhhmm, how about page 1 of this thread?
> 
> ...


That was an idiotic post because I just quoted your drivel from page 1 (see how I did that? I made an assessment of your comment and provided a reason for that assessment). Perhaps you should re-read your own work. Although I'd understand if you didn't. It is hardly worth re-reading.

I am not a W. fan. I'm a libertarian so I very seldom like any politicians. I just hate to have to read your constant inanities. Perhaps you should try to find some facts and avoid the hyperbole and ad hom.

I personally wouldn't have a problem with you calling him an idiot if you had something concrete to back it up. You just have an opinion that seems to have been passed to you by someone else (perhaps the Canadian media). You simply don't have enough information to have formed a well analyzed opinion on the matter by yourself.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Women thrive on novelty and are easy meat for the commerce of fashion. Men prefer old pipes and torn jackets. 
Anthony Burgess


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Wow! You are the grumpiest poster _ever_!

The drivel you quoted from me was actually from page _3 _of this thread. The other drivel I was referring to on page 1 (1 is two before 3). Go check it out - if you can bear it......

As for you _having _to read my constant inanities, there is a very simple solution. Want me to tell you what it is?

------------------


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

No more satirical gems for us?

Are you going to do them two at a time again? I always find jokes funnier when the teller has to repeat them.

------------------


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

From the looks of this thread, the Bushies will invade Canada next. They have oil up there, don't they?


----------



## familyman (Sep 9, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by crs_
> 
> From the looks of this thread, the Bushies will invade Canada next. They have oil up there, don't they?


The largest deposits in the world by some estimates. Of course all the liquidy parts are gone leaving them with tar sands. Technology is improving but I'm not sure it's a slam dunk for war at this point. On the other hand, if we ever need to pave a really really big parking lot, Canada is the place to invade for the raw materials.

_____________________________________________________________________________
I am no enemy of elegance, but I say no man has a right to think of elegance till he has secured substance, nor then, to seek more of it than he can afford.

John Adams


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by crs_
> 
> From the looks of this thread, the Bushies will invade Canada next. They have oil up there, don't they?


There's no need to invade. Canada is usually happy not only to let the US have its way with her, but more often than not, subsidize the tryst. More pulpwood please?

Warmest regards


----------



## Badrabbit (Nov 18, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> Wow! You are the grumpiest poster _ever_!
> 
> ...


I did. It was off of page one exactly as I said. It is right after Kabazz said "Well ... that's one British Indian Ocean Territories vote the Republicans won't have to worry about in the next election. " and before Wayfarer said "Coming from a man that thinks Trudeau was Canada's greatest PM of the 20th century."

You did say that 1 is 2 before 3 so you've at least got the concept down perhaps you'll learn to apply it now. It's becoming evident that my initial post may have been spot on despite it's satirical intent.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Women thrive on novelty and are easy meat for the commerce of fashion. Men prefer old pipes and torn jackets. 
Anthony Burgess


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

For a man who allegedly hates reading my posts you sure do a lot of it - you know them better than I do!

When are we going to see more of your satirical intent? Or is throwing insults around all you have left?

I'm still laughing from this morning's pair of zingers.

------------------


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Badrabbit_
> 
> The whole point is that you add nothing to the debate by simply repeating yourself and calling Bush an idiot (or other synonyms) without actually giving any specifics. You refuse to support your ideas but instead say things like "The reason George Bush was considered an idiot before he conclusively proved himself to be so through his blunderings is that every time he opened his mouth he sounded like a full-on moron." No where do you try to prove that he has "conclusively proved himself to be so through his blunderings." You instead feel that you can make statements without having to provide any actual evidence and still be taken seriously.


I'll help out gmac since he seems to be Google-challenged. Conclusive proof:

https://www.slate.com/id/76886/


----------



## rojo (Apr 29, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by crs_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So he frequently trips over his words when he talks in public. Doesn't mean we love him any less. Reminds me of the response to the first presidential debate with John Kerry: "Why, it was plain for anyone to see that George Bush is a good Christian man trying his best for his country, and that John Kerry is just a slick talkin' politician."


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

But Rojo, at issue in this discussion wasn't whether GWB is trying or is a good Christian or is better than another candidate or even whether you "love him" or not. At issue in this discussion is GWB's intelligence. You don't think there is a correlation between intelligence and verbal skills?


----------



## rojo (Apr 29, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by crs_
> 
> But Rojo, at issue in this discussion wasn't whether GWB is trying or is a good Christian or is better than another candidate or even whether you "love him" or not. At issue in this discussion is GWB's intelligence. You don't think there is a correlation between intelligence and verbal skills?


Oh, there's probably a loose correlation, but I would guess you're looking at it from the point of view of an editor and newspaperman, for whom language is paramount. I once knew an absolutely brilliant software engineer and math wizard who couldn't spell without a spell-check program, frequently mispronounced words, and used to joke that his worst nightmare in college was being an English major. There are other measures of intelligence than verbal dexterity.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by crs_
> 
> You don't think there is a correlation between intelligence and verbal skills?


Jack Welch stuttered badly. Ph.D. in chemistry, arguably the best CEO of all time. Ouch.

Warmest regards


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Stuttering is a speech impediment. It has nothing to do with verbal skill, which is GWB's problem. That's a ridiculous comparison.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by crs_
> 
> Stuttering is a speech impediment. It has nothing to do with verbal skill, which is GWB's problem. That's a ridiculous comparison.


Glad you said that.



> quote:The term stuttering is most commonly associated with involuntary sound repetition, but it also encompasses the abnormal hesitation or pausing before speech, referred to by stutterers as blocks, and the prolongation of certain sounds, usually vowels. Much of what constitutes "stuttering" cannot be observed by the listener; this includes such things as sound and word fears...
> 
> Fluency
> 
> ...


I'll be damned if this might not apply to a certain POTUS we know....

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuttering.

Edit: I'm not saying Dubya is a stutterer, I am not an SLP, but it would seem he has a speech disturbance problem.

Warmest regards


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

I'll write this slowly for you. It ... is ... not ... Bush's ... delivery. It ... is ... his ... choice ... of ... words.

Why am I not surprised you'd use Wikipedia as a source?


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

'We spent a lot of time talking about Africa, as we should. Africa is a nation that suffers from incredible disease.' â€"Gothenburg, Sweden, June 14, 2001

'You teach a child to read, and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test.' â€"Townsend, Tenn., Feb. 21, 2001










'The war on terror involves Saddam Hussein because of the nature of Saddam Hussein, the history of Saddam Hussein, and his willingness to terrorize himself.' â€"Grand Rapids, Mich., Jan. 29, 2003

'I hear there's rumors on the Internets that we're going to have a draft.' â€"presidential debate, St. Louis, Mo., Oct. 8, 2004

'I know what I believe. I will continue to articulate what I believe and what I believe â€" I believe what I believe is right.' â€"Rome, Italy, July 22, 2001

'We need to counter the shockwave of the evildoer by having individual rate cuts accelerated and by thinking about tax rebates.' â€"Washington, D.C. Oct. 4, 2001

'My plan reduces the national debt, and fast. So fast, in fact, that economists worry that we're going to run out of debt to retire.' â€"radio address, Feb. 24, 2001

'There's an old saying in Tennessee â€" I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee â€" that says, fool me once, shame on â€" shame on you. Fool me â€" you can't get fooled again.' â€"Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by crs_
> 
> I'll write this slowly for you. It ... is ... not ... Bush's ... delivery. It ... is ... his ... choice ... of ... words.
> 
> Why am I not surprised you'd use Wikipedia as a source?


Bravo! When you cannot argue, insult. Further, did I not just see an article showing Wiki to have the same accuracy rate as EB? Ah well.

Warmest regards


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

JLPWCXIII,

How about a photo montage highlighting the words of wisdom from the leaders of North Korea, Iran, Burma and Zimbabwe. Or do you prefer playing the dilettante and giving tyrants a pass?

Karl


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Karl89_
> 
> JLPWCXIII,
> 
> ...


You may not have noticed but this is a thread dedicated to the Bush administration.

Anyway, those Iranian guys aren't that funny, not like Badrabbit. Did you see the zingers he was dishing out earlier? Damn!

------------------


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

GMAC,

I think I finally understand your trick - keep repeating "Bush is an idiot" until you brainwash the opposition or they just give up in the defense of the President's non-idiocy. I swear that in my sleep this weekend I kept hearing "Bush is an idiot" but I couldn't tell if the voice had a Scottish accent or not.

Damn you!

Karl


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Here are some good Iraq quotes from W. I'm sure most of our readers thought he said something else like "he tried to say Iraq bombed the towers not Al Quaeda" or "Saddam already has nuclear weapons". Since one of the responses above was basically saying Saddam only *wanted * to do bad things. Perhaps this helps you sort it out and hate W less and question what you heard in the press a bit more.

Any government that supports, protects or harbours terrorists is complicit in the murder of the innocent and equally guilty of terrorist crimes. 
George W. Bush

Any outlaw regime that has ties to terrorist groups or seeks to possess weapons of mass destruction is a grave danger to the civilised world and will be confronted. 
George W. Bush

If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year. 
George W. Bush

I believe the most solemn duty of the American president is to protect the American people. If America shows uncertainty and weakness in this decade, the world will drift toward tragedy. This will not happen on my watch. 
George W. Bush

On September 11 2001, America felt its vulnerability even to threats that gather on the other side of the Earth. We resolved then, and we are resolved today, to confront every threat from any source that could bring sudden terror and suffering to America. 
George W. Bush

Some have argued we should wait, and that's an option. In my view, it's the riskiest of all options, because the longer we wait, the stronger and bolder Saddam Hussein will become. 
George W. Bush

There can be no peace if our security depends on the will and whims of a ruthless and aggressive dictator. I'm not willing to stake one American life on trusting Saddam Hussein. 
George W. Bush

The United States prefers that Iraq meet its obligations voluntarily, yet we are prepared for the alternative. 
George W. Bush

The action we take and the decisions we make in this decade will have consequences far into this century. If America shows weakness and uncertainty, the world will drift toward tragedy. That will not happen on my watch. 
George W. Bush

We concluded that tomorrow is a moment of truth for the world. Many nations have voiced a commitment to peace and security, and now they must demonstrate that commitment to peace and security in the only effective way: by supporting the immediate and unconditional disarmament of Saddam Hussein. 
George W. Bush

The tyrant has fallen, and Iraq is free. 
George W. Bush


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

ksing, were those quotes on page 54 of the playbook?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by odoreater_
> 
> ksing, were those quotes on page 54 of the playbook?


Yep. Lombardi Power Sweep. 

So, I have to ask this ... what exactly is it with the playbook comments? Do you really think there is a playbook? I have to consider the ironic nature of people defaulting to a standard reply of accusing someone of having the playbook. And you seem to have volunteered yourself as a target of opportunity. [}]


----------



## rojo (Apr 29, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


But that raises the question of why there is a thread dedicated to the Bush administration instead of threads dedicated to the leaders of North Korea, Iran, Burma and Zimbabwe.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by rojo_
> 
> But that raises the question of why there is a thread dedicated to the Bush administration instead of threads dedicated to the leaders of North Korea, Iran, Burma and Zimbabwe.


Probably more of that dreaded liberal bias manifesting itself.

Seriously though, if you wish to discuss those things then just start a thread. In practice, I doubt you will see as many responses as far fewer AAAC posters are likely to have strong opinions on those topics.

------------------


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by ksinc_
> 
> Yep. Lombardi Power Sweep.
> 
> So, I have to ask this ... what exactly is it with the playbook comments? Do you really think there is a playbook? I have to consider the ironic nature of people defaulting to a standard reply of accusing someone of having the playbook. And you seem to have volunteered yourself as a target of opportunity. [}]


Yep. Here it is:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1..._1/002-7294447-6769634?_encoding=UTF8&s=books

Look, in politics (as in most other things in life) there is no real black and white. Sometimes Bush is right and sometimes Bush is wrong. I just think that the harm done when he's been wrong hsa vastly outweighed the benefits when he is right. But, when talking to Bush supporters, they seem to bring up the same arguments all the time, no matter who they are. This leads me to believe that there is, somewhere out there, a neo-con playbook that they all use.


----------



## lawschool82 (Oct 29, 2005)

Let's not forget that the vote in the Senate on the Iraq War Resolution was 77-23 (there are only 54 Republicans) and that the vote in the House was 296-133. It should be noted that many of the people who voted for the war were Democrats, ala John Kerry - but, of course, that was before he voted against the war. It should also be noted that this vote provided a significantly wider margin than did the 1991 vote to go to war with Iraq.

Please refrain from wearing your 20/20 hindsight glasses.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by odoreater_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


But, you don't think that means you have a 'liberal playbook'? Who uses the word 'neo-con'? Where did you learn that word? I've never read anything by Ann Coulter. But, I will say I think she'd be fairly hot if she kept her mouth shut.

What you are saying doesn't make any sense to me. It's all generalities. For example, I think for all of us our mistakes cost us more than our right decisions make us. This is a common theory, it's part of game theory and financial theory for instance.

So, to say Bush has been wrong and Bush has been right, but his mistakes cost us more really isn't saying very much. No offense, but it isn't insightful or original.

Is your theory that everyone else must be using a playbook because you are?

I have yet to hear *EXACTLY * when Bush was wrong and about what. Several things were brought up, but as I showed those were misrepresented. I'm not saying Bush is never wrong, or always right. But, I generously explained in detail where Bush was called wrong and was indeed proven to be right. If you do the same and show me where he was wrong and maybe I'll agree with you instead of calling me a "neo-con".

I don't think I've called anyone anything or earned any label myself. I just discussed the facts and opinions. Does simply having an open mind and waiting to the end to form a conclusion make me a either a conservative or a neo-con (whatever that is)? Can't I be a thinking liberal or libertarian? Perhaps I am a skeptical socialist?


----------



## FlatSix (Feb 23, 2005)

As the Economist reminded us this week, fascism keeps falling on the United States... and landing on Europe.

*gmac*, perhaps you will back your flippant comment up by showing how the war in Iraq has cost more lives than:

The Revolutionary War
The Civil War
The War of 1812
World War I
World War II
The Korean Conflict
The Vietnam War

You don't need to prove 'em all; any one, individually, will do.

----------------------

"When you wear something like spats, I think you might as well wear your favorite players jersey bc what youre saying is I want to be powerful like the bear and Im wearing its hide to tap into its power." - Film Noir Buff

"First sense of what "normal" good clothes looked like came from my dad, of course, and from Babar books." - Concordia

" I have a related problem in that I often have to chase people. Leather soles are no good for this kind of work." - Patrick06790


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by ksinc_
> I don't think I've called anyone anything or earned any label myself. I just discussed the facts and opinions. Does simply having an open mind and waiting to the end to form a conclusion make me a either a conservative or a neo-con (whatever that is)? Can't I be a thinking liberal or libertarian? Perhaps I am a skeptical socialist?


No you cannot to members of Groups #1 and #2. Please see earlier in this thread when I tried to save all concerned much time. To restate and paraphrase quickly, the whole thread will have three groups:

1) Dubya = god
2) Dubya = devil
3) Dubya has good points, Dubya has bad points.

Group #3 will be soundly thrashed by members of Groups #1 and #2 for not marching in lock step with their world view.

Warmest regards


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by lawschool82_
> 
> Let's not forget that the vote in the Senate on the Iraq War Resolution was 77-23 (there are only 54 Republicans) and that the vote in the House was 296-133. It should be noted that many of the people who voted for the war were Democrats, ala John Kerry - but, of course, that was before he voted against the war. It should also be noted that this vote provided a significantly wider margin than did the 1991 vote to go to war with Iraq.
> 
> Please refrain from wearing your 20/20 hindsight glasses.


Then again, they voted in favor of the war on the President's incorrect information that Saddam Hussein had WMDs, which it turns out, he did not.

Ksinc - there's something for you that Bush was wrong about that has cost our country dearly in the form of thousands of American lives.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

I don't think he's the devil.

But nor do I think he has any good points, well, not as a political leader. I'm sure he's a whizz on the barbecue or something like that.

------------------


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by ksinc_
> 
> But, you don't think that means you have a 'liberal playbook'? Who uses the word 'neo-con'? Where did you learn that word? I've never read anything by Ann Coulter. But, I will say I think she'd be fairly hot if she kept her mouth shut.


If there is a liberal playbook, I wouldn't know about it because I'm not a liberal. Far from it. I just call them like I see them. In Bush I see a man that has made many costly mistakes, including starting a war on a premise that turned out to be incorrect - a war that has cost many American lives and that will continue to cost lives. I disagree with Bush on his unabashed spending (liberals are generally in favor of spending - I personally think we should get rid of welfare, social security, National Endowment for the Arts, heck even the Department of Education), I disagree with him on his expansion of government (I believe in small government - which conservatives are supposed to believe in, but apparently don't). I disagree with him on thinks like "Faith Based Initiatives". I disagree with him on wiretapping. I disagree with the PATRIOT Act. Though, I do think that perhaps it would be best to allow states to set their own laws on abortion. On the other hand, I disagree with a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage (though, I think this should also be an issue left to the states). I disagree with his cronyism, which came to a head in the handling of the Hurricanes by FEMA and in his nomination for SCOTUS a woman that was a Bush crony that severely lacked the experience for such a position (you have to admit, that was a pretty big mistake, wasn't it?).


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by odoreater_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The President said --
Saddam was pursuing WMDs. True.
Saddam had WMDs before and used them before. True.
Saddam will not comply with the UN resolutions. True.
We don't know what he has because the inspectors are chasing their tails and Saddam won't come clean and tell us where what we know he already had is. Intelligence says he has more and is pursuing more. True.

Some of that intelligence was obviously wrong, but I don't see where W lied or said or did anything wrong. And now we are finding out a lot of that intelligence was actually right and the delay of messing with the UN and France and Turkey cost us time and gave Saddam time to send stuff to Syria.

They all voted for War based on the intelligence of the CIA and other intelligence agencies around the world. It is not the "President's information". It's the same information the whole world had and agreed Saddam was violating the sanctions and still had and/or was pursing WMD. Even France said he had WMD. Just because intelligence is wrong doesn't mean someone lied or did the wrong thing. President's have to lead. They have to act. Based on the situation he did the only thing. The right thing. What was he supposed to do ignore the whole thing until a bomb went off in NYC?


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by ksinc_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I seem to recall a presentation by Colin Powell using an overhead projector where they actually pointed to the locations where they thought the WMDs were. Now you're backpeddling and trying to say that it wasn't Bush's fault, he was just using information that he was given. Well, to that I say, that if you are going to send thousands of young Americans to their deaths, you better be damn sure that you're right.

Seems like Bush is always a step too late on his information. The same thing happened with the repulsive way in which the federal government dealt with the Katrina disaster. I would have thought that in a situation like that we would have used all available resources to help our own people, but I guess I was wrong.


----------



## lawschool82 (Oct 29, 2005)

Odoreater, you forget that the major intelligence agencies across the world also said that Saddham had WMD. Furthermore, Saddham had violated numerous UN resolutions, and as usual, the UN was sitting by on its hands. You say they sent inspectors, but Saddham denied them access to any of the most likely sites where he would have stored weapons. What did the UN do? They made like the little girls they are and left, leaving the problem of Saddham Hussein to the governments of the rest of the world - governments who actually take action instead of sitting in circles, singing Kumbaya, and talking.


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by lawschool82_
> 
> Odoreater, you forget that the major intelligence agencies across the world also said that Saddham had WMD. Furthermore, Saddham had violated numerous UN resolutions, and as usual, the UN was sitting by on its hands. You say they sent inspectors, but Saddham denied them access to any of the most likely sites where he would have stored weapons. What did the UN do? They made like the little girls they are and left, leaving the problem of Saddham Hussein to the governments of the rest of the world - governments who actually take action instead of sitting in circles, singing Kumbaya, and talking.


Woah, I never said anything in my posts about inspectors. All I am saying is, as I said in my previous post, if you are going to send thousand of young Americans to their deaths then you better be damn certain about what you are doing, and it seems to me that Bush was not certain about anything. He wanted an excuse to go to war with Iraq, and he used anyone he could find and now that we're there, it seems like the situation is only getting worse, and it is getting more difficult for us to leave.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by odoreater_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm sorry, My question was - Who uses the word neo-con? Where did you hear that word? And isn't that out of a 'liberal playbook'?

Katrina - huge disaster. I think there were some huge mistakes. I'm not so sure the cronysim wasn't the homeland security guy. Michael whatever. He's an old Bushie. Also, I personally feel blaming the President for hurricane relief is ridiculous. I live in Florida and the Feds never do anything for us. It's all handled at the State level and very well no matter who is Governor (Rep or Dem). I think LA is a disaster at State and Local and thus exposed some problems with the Feds and Fema and HS, but I'm not sure I blame them. I think it's a larger problem that we consider it Govt's responsibility to protect us from nature or that they could. I mentioned croynyism in Florida, but we have hurricanes and it never affected us here.

Also remember that whole debacle over should there be a HS dept and what should be in it. It was a big deal and decided by committee not W. So I think we get what we ask for which is a non-functional gov't entity of incompetence, Homeland Security.

In my house, we don't rely on the government for our personal security. We rely on ... well ... ME 

I guess there's a whole subject of broken homes, runaway Dad's, lack of education, poverty, lack of personal responsibility for generations that led to NOLA and Katrina, but I can hardly blame W.

I think it took it him by surprise anyone expected the President to oversee a hurricane. As it did me. But, he seemed to finally catch up and respond well and sincerely in the end. What more can you ask of a man? To babysit a million people that can't follow basic directions like "Get above sea level there's a hurricane coming".

I think that is a larger issue than one man, even the President. Any President. So no it's not his mistake. Even with the dork he had in FEMA which you raised. All those organizations are full of old Dems anyway appointed by Carter and Reps appointed by Reagan. The current guy has very little to do with anything in most Federal Agencies IMHO. And the hero-work is all done by low level good hearted people as we saw on TV rescuing people and caring for people.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by odoreater_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No, you are assuming that it wasn't there when he said that. It just wasn't there one and half years later when we got there. Even still with that clarifier we have all said the intelligence was wrong until we find it. Is he supposed to ignore it? What would you say if he ignored and there was a bomb. You'd say, "W what were you doing not acting on the intelligence you were given?"

Frankly, in the situation you risk an error that costs 100,000 Iraqi lives or 100,000 American lives. As President which do you choose? You'd better choose 100,000 American lives faced with the information he was given. The world isn't perfect or simple or you would be President


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

ksinc - the reason I call them neo-cons is because I don't think they deserve the term conservative, at least in the way that this term has traditionally been understood. Since they are not classical conservatives, they must be some kind of new or neo conservatives. These new conservatives seem to think that government should be able to control our lives as much as possible. It's no wonder that the people in LA were waiting for the government to bail them out - they're used to being bailed out by the government and were expecting more of the same in this situation.


----------



## familyman (Sep 9, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by ksinc_
> 
> Frankly, in the situation you risk an error that costs 100,000 Iraqi lives or 100,000 American lives. As President which do you choose? You'd better choose 100,000 American lives faced with the information he was given. The world isn't perfect or simple or you would be President


Those are not the only two options.

_____________________________________________________________________________
I am no enemy of elegance, but I say no man has a right to think of elegance till he has secured substance, nor then, to seek more of it than he can afford.

John Adams


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by odoreater_
> 
> ksinc - the reason I call them neo-cons is because I don't think they deserve the term conservative, at least in the way that this term has traditionally been understood. Since they are not classical conservatives, they must be some kind of new or neo conservatives. These new conservatives seem to think that government should be able to control our lives as much as possible. It's no wonder that the people in LA were waiting for the government to bail them out - *they're used to being bailed out by the government and were expecting more of the same in this situation.*


Agree 100%, but is that W's mistake or fault?

Maybe politically/marketing-wise for not realizing it quick enough.

I consider that a huge larger issue for the next generation. All these _entitled people _ our grandparents have created.

I didn't realize you came up with that term neo-con yourself. Thanks for the explanation.


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by ksinc_
> 
> No, you are assuming that it wasn't there when he said that. It just wasn't there one and half years later when we got there. Even still with that clarifier we have all said the intelligence was wrong until we find it. Is he supposed to ignore it? What would you say if he ignored and there was a bomb. You'd say, "W what were you doing not acting on the intelligence you were given?"
> 
> Frankly, in the situation you risk an error that costs 100,000 Iraqi lives or 100,000 American lives. As President which do you choose? You'd better choose 100,000 American lives faced with the information he was given. The world isn't perfect or simple or you would be President


So then why didn't we attack other countries that could have weapons that they might use against us? Why didn't we attack Iran? We didn't we attack Syria?

Heck - if Bush declared to the American people today that we are going to attack Saudi Arabia, I would support him 100%. I think that they're the real enemy and that eventually we are going to have to do something about them. But, we don't go after the real enemies, do we? Especially not when they are in bed with our own government.


----------



## lawschool82 (Oct 29, 2005)

Odoreater, Presidents make mistakes - see Vietnam (unfortunately many more deaths than Iraq); see FDR's internment of the Japanese. While I wish our Presidents were perfect people, they clearly are not. I agree with you that a President should be very hesitant to send young Americans into battle to die for their country, but I do not agree with your assertion that W was looking for any reason to go to war w/ Iraq. All of the authorities (including the UN) across the world agreed that Saddham had WMD. Thus, the whole world made a mistake, which I think shows us that it is not just George W. Bush on a mission to get Saddham.

This being an ideological debate, I will not agree with you, nor will you agree with me. I agree to disagree with you, and while respecting your views, I will continue to hold mine.


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by ksinc_
> 
> Agree 100%, but is that W's mistake or fault?
> 
> ...


I'm not saying that Bush was the only one at fault for that situation. There is plenty of blame to go around at all levels of government. But I think that it's kind of a shame that as big and powerful of a country as we are, we weren't there to bail out our own people when they needed it most.


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by lawschool82_
> 
> Odoreater, Presidents make mistakes - see Vietnam (unfortunately many more deaths than Iraq); see FDR's internment of the Japanese. While I wish our Presidents were perfect people, they clearly are not. I agree with you that a President should be very hesitant to send young Americans into battle to die for their country, but I do not agree with your assertion that W was looking for any reason to go to war w/ Iraq. All of the authorities (including the UN) across the world agreed that Saddham had WMD. Thus, the whole world made a mistake, which I think shows us that it is not just George W. Bush on a mission to get Saddham.
> 
> This being an ideological debate, I will not agree with you, nor will you agree with me. I agree to disagree with you, and while respecting your views, I will continue to hold mine.


I agree. Thank you. By the way, I just want to say that I hope nobody takes any of my statements to be personal or ad hominem attacks. I am just engaging in spirited political debate, which I think is important to our country, and I mean no disrespect or insult to anyone.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by odoreater_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm tempted to agree, but I can't. It seems like a nice, sympathetic emotion and reasonable.

But I consider it a shame that after 200 years of sailing across oceans, fighting disease, and mother nature, and indians, and building a nation anyone calling themselves our own people can't fend for themselves in a major city. It just boggles my mind and shames me as an American. I guess I'm old school, but I believe any man calling himself an American should have the spine and should be able to protect and provide for his family and help his neighbors do the same. I really don't get the govt angle at all. I've lived through hurricanes my whole life 40 years in Florida and I never have needed anyone other than my family and my neighbors. Perhaps I sound too "survival of the fittest". I'm not and I believe in Charity and helping less fortunate, but the competence level in NOLA is unacceptable to me in my own people. I just can't relate to people that react that way as Americans. That's not what it means to me to be an American.

FWIW and I shouldn't have to say this, but I want to be extra careful and point out I'm not refering to race here. I'm refering to the 'American Spirit' that is exemplified for example in Vietnamese and Cubans that ride rafts to find and make a better life. Where is that spirit in these NOLA people? I don't see it.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by odoreater_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I thought both Syria and Iran are on pretty thin ice and know it. Don't they?

I wouldn't be surprised if we have had 'teams' working in Syria for the last several years working on terrorism and WMD issues.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

Just three more short questions:

1) Do you support or oppose a wealth cap?

2) Should every gentleman have a pistol?

3) Does anyone here still follow what I call the American classic/trad look?


----------



## lawschool82 (Oct 29, 2005)

Good questions.

(1) I oppose a wealth cap, as I eschew most means of redistribution.
(2) I do believe that every man should own a pistol.
(3) I do follow the trad look, although I will occasionally make room for darts and pleats.


----------



## lawschool82 (Oct 29, 2005)

JLP, I assure you the sarcasm was not lost on me.


----------



## arbitrage (Jan 13, 2006)

A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat, and was very much in favor of the redistribution of wealth.

She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his. 

One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the addition of more government welfare programs. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how she was doing in school.

Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many college friends because she spent all her time studying.

Her father listened and then asked, "How is you friend Audrey doing?" 

She replied, "Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus, college for her is a blast. She's always invited to all the parties, and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes because she's too hung over."

Her wise father asked his daughter, "Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct a 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA."

The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, "That wouldn't be fair! I have worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!"

The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, "Welcome to the Republican Party."

Knowledge is power.


----------



## lawschool82 (Oct 29, 2005)

I love the story!


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

I like that story too, but if only it were that simple in real life. It seems like the Republicans today no longer stand for the spirit that the story conveys. I agree with a lot of what many Republicans have to say on the economics side, but I disagree with most of what they have to say on the social side - especially where civil liberties are involved. Even though the Republicans are in power in all three branches of government, the government seems to be more involved in our lives today than ever.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

And they're still complaining about the old liberal media bogeyman.



> quote:_Originally posted by odoreater_
> 
> I like that story too, but if only it were that simple in real life. It seems like the Republicans today no longer stand for the spirit that the story conveys. I agree with a lot of what many Republicans have to say on the economics side, but I disagree with most of what they have to say on the social side - especially where civil liberties are involved. Even though the Republicans are in power in all three branches of government, the government seems to be more involved in our lives today than ever.


********************************
"It's about time some publicly-spirited person told you where to get off. The trouble with you, Spode, is that just because you've succeeded in convincing a handful of half-wits to disfigure the London scene by going about in black shorts, you think you're someone."


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Great story!

Demonstrates well the absence of thought or intellectual dishonesty required to be a Republican. The father is obviously an idiot!!!

Any more like that?

------------------


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> Great story!
> 
> ...


I personally would replace "Democrat" with socialist and "Republican" with free marketeer or something similar as I do not believe the parties are monolithic in their orientation. However, that being said, I agree gmac, the father is an idiot. If the girl's professors are as described he is obviously spending his hard earned cash at a sub-par university and receiving a negative ROI in regards to her education!

My new motto: Humour kills trolls 

Warmest regards


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

It's a bad analogy. The person with the lower grades probably understands that coursework is only one part of her college education and she will be better prepared for the real world than the woman with the great grades who isn't interacting with her peers. She probably understands that unless she wants to pursue a graduate degree, her grades will be meaningless to most employers. And while at college, she will enjoy (well, eat) the same cafeteria food and live in the same dorms as those who work harder, so studying less creates no immediate hardship. Too, some people have lower grades because they must work their way through college instead of spending all those hours in the library while living off daddy's money (in prep school my class rank dropped from ninth to 35th while I worked 24 hours per week at a job), so it's ridiculous to assume everyone with a C average is slacking off. Also, some people reach college with less intelligence or bad educations from bad school systems and have to work twice as hard to get that C. It's arrogant and ignorant to believe that those who get an A or earn more money are somehow harder-working or more virtuous than those who don't. The playing field is not as level as this stupid story would have us believe.

If this is supposed to be a rationalization for letting the less fortunate, the less skilled and the less intelligent starve to death, it's a pretty weak (and greedy) one.


----------



## I_Should_Be_Working (Jun 23, 2005)

The comparison of taxes and grades does have merit, even if the story is flawed.

For those who support graduated taxation rates, what is wrong with a scheme that redistributes grades. The logic of giving points to those with learning disabilities or aptitude deficiencies doesn't really differ. Why should the naturally gifted coast through class while the dyslexic struggle?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by crs_
> 
> It's a bad analogy. The person with the lower grades probably understands that coursework is only one part of her college education and she will be better prepared for the real world than the woman with the great grades who isn't interacting with her peers. She probably understands that unless she wants to pursue a graduate degree, her grades will be meaningless to most employers. And while at college, she will enjoy (well, eat) the same cafeteria food and live in the same dorms as those who work harder, so studying less creates no immediate hardship. Too, some people have lower grades because they must work their way through college instead of spending all those hours in the library while living off daddy's money (in prep school my class rank dropped from ninth to 35th while I worked 24 hours per week at a job), so it's ridiculous to assume everyone with a C average is slacking off. Also, some people reach college with less intelligence or bad educations from bad school systems and have to work twice as hard to get that C. It's arrogant and ignorant to believe that those who get an A or earn more money are somehow harder-working or more virtuous than those who don't. The playing field is not as level as this stupid story would have us believe.
> 
> If this is supposed to be a rationalization for letting the less fortunate, the less skilled and the less intelligent starve to death, it's a pretty weak (and greedy) one.


So then you would agree, the grade greedy, short sighted, anti-social, hard studying, exploitative girl that selfishly takes difficult classes should equalize her GPA with that of the party hard, often hung over, never stuyding, often absent from class due to hangovers, generously easy course load girl?

Warmest regards


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Of course I didn't write that. What I'm saying is that college (and this story) are far removed from real life, especially for those who have the luxury of concentrating on nothing but their studies. College grades can't be used as a metaphor for life. I reject all premises put forth by the story.

Obviously you have a reading deficiency. That's unfortunate, but hopefully the Canadian government will offer you special help to overcome your handicap.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by odoreater_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


FTR, you only brought this up when I asked you to specifically list mistakes that W made which was the tangential point 'W makes too many mistakes' after no one could explain the first point 'W is always wrong'.

I'm still waiting for anyone to give an instance where W was wrong or made a mistake.

I think this is important because obviously no one is perfect even W. I'm tired of people claiming he is perfect or the best President, yada yada.

Help me out here! Anyone?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by crs_
> 
> Of course I didn't write that. What I'm saying is that college (and this story) are far removed from real life, especially for those who have the luxury of concentrating on nothing but their studies. College grades can't be used as a metaphor for life. I reject all premises put forth by the story.
> 
> Obviously you have a reading deficiency. That's unfortunate, but hopefully the Canadian government will offer you special help to overcome your handicap.


Ah yes, insult vs. engage.

If you simply refuse to deal with the thought experiment, a common approach in philosophical examination of ideas, that is fine. Please, why did you feel the need to insult not only me but the Canadian educational system? Have I done this to you? I cannot recollect where I have.

Warmest regards


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

I still suffer a surreal and vertiginous attack whenever GWB appears on television. Despite the passage of time, I cannot fully believe he is the U.S. president.



> quote:_Originally posted by ksinc_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


********************************
"It's about time some publicly-spirited person told you where to get off. The trouble with you, Spode, is that just because you've succeeded in convincing a handful of half-wits to disfigure the London scene by going about in black shorts, you think you're someone."


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by BertieW_
> 
> I still suffer a surreal and vertiginous attack whenever GWB appears on television. Despite the passage of time, I cannot fully believe he is the U.S. president.


And that is a bad thing for W because? [}]


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

Well, here's my final word on this topic (probably). In response to the original inquiry "Who still supports the Bush Administration?" My answer is: I do not because I find them to be highly incompetent. And that's the bottom line.


----------



## Preston (Aug 8, 2003)

I do. I'm not a fan of his amnesty program or outrageous spending. I think his leniency on the southern border, in particular, will be the bane of his War on Terror.

But anything his administration does has to be better than that coming from the other side of the isle. In other words, even on their worst day, they are still better, IMO, than the alternative Socialistic Left.

I do think he has done an amazing job turning around the economy, despite all the country has been through since the internet bubble burst. Remarkable turnaround really, in terms of market trendlines. I think he has gotten a lot of good done, relating to taxes in particular. Despite what the Liberals would have you believe, the military effort in Iraq has been very successful, when compared with other wars in history. The aftermath of this one has been a challenge to be sure. But I think there has been a lot of good come from it as well, as I've seen our military posters describe here regularly.

I just find it sad that there are those who are SOOoo angry and bitter that they refuse to believe any good news, and always view it through goggles of doubt. If they were equally as discerning of the bad news coming from the region, I would have a little more respect (patience?) with them. But their rhetoric leads me to believe that bad news doesn't require a filter. In fact, it has it's very own red carpet.

Bear in mind, that when you hear that the 50ish percent has dropped to 37%, this doesn't mean that the country is getting more liberal necessarily. It means that conservatives such as myself are getting increasingly annoyed with his more liberal tendencies like border amnesty and big spending in particular.


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

I support him, just to be ornery.

Besides, when there's a stampede like this, I figure it's comprised primarily of morons who could just as easily take the opposite position next week - especially if Bush could take credit for the price of iPods going down or something.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Patrick06790_
> 
> I support him, just to be ornery.


Good reason. I like Rummy for the same.[}]


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Preston_
> 
> I do. I'm not a fan of his amnesty program or outrageous spending. I think his leniency on the southern border, in particular, will be the bane of his War on Terror.


You seem too well informed to think the President is the one doing the outrageous spending.

I think his earn your way program is a good compromise. It's not pure amnesty which is what some want. I'm refering to the one that is: register, show you have a job, get a background check, do 5 years of legal work and pay taxes, pay a fine, do another background check to show you have not broken any laws, do 5 more years of work, pay another fine, do another check, then go through the process to become a citizen.

In the mean time they make it a crime barring anyone coming over the fence after that point from ever becoming a citizen.

I figure that's the best we can hope for NOW. They aren't all going back. That ship sailed a long time ago.


----------



## Preston (Aug 8, 2003)

> quote:_Originally posted by ksinc_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I suppose. I have other ideas, but you're probably right.

On the spending, I know that President Bush isn't signing the checks himself. But the original question was referring to the entire Bush administration. I would like to think he has SOME influence on the Republican congress. He certainly hasn't VETO'd any spending bills, to speak of.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Preston_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


He keeps proposing spending cuts. He keeps getting them passed. He can only cut discretionary spending by budget proposal.

It's the entitlements that are growing out of control. He can't get cuts in those. No President probably can. It's like 1,000 other issues that no incumbent Congressman seeking re-election can vote for. Remember how Social Security Reform went last year?

But, I hear you and I agree. The spending particularly on nonsense pork is out of control. I don't know how those in Congress can complain about spending on the War and then ask for $millions for pork projects and sleep at night.


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

Well, considering we have one of the biggest budget deficits ever in history (the outstanding public debt is currently: $8,411,754,685,017.83), somebody must be doing that spending and considering we have a Republican administration, a Republican House and a Republican Senate...you come to your own conclusion.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by odoreater_
> 
> Well, considering we have one of the biggest budget deficits ever in history (the outstanding public debt is currently: $8,411,754,685,017.83), somebody must be doing that spending and considering we have a Republican administration, a Republican House and a Republican Senate...you come to your own conclusion.


my conclusion: you paint with a wide brush


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by ksinc_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


my conclusion: so do you


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by odoreater_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks. I figured you weren't really reading what I wrote before you responded, but I wasn't sure until now.


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by ksinc_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I was reading what you wrote, it just doesn't make any sense. You said that Bush hasn't been wrong, I gave you five examples of when he's been wrong, you then respond that everyone makes mistakes, but you still haven't been shown when Bush was wrong. To say that Bush hasn't been wrong on major issues and in making major decisions is just blind and irrational. It's hard to argue with someone who's being irrational, so what's the point.


----------

