[modusmorons]

I am offended by the double standard (i.e. N. Korea is arch-enemy, China is best friend, but doubtful that the latter's human rights record is far better than the former). Likewise, if he is the most "honest" man we've had in the whitehouse why this sort of stonewalling?

The lack of direction of this war scares me. What are our objectives and what is the best way of achieving those? Ultimately, it is peace. Peace means safety. So what is the best way to secure long-term peace (understanding that the gov'ts job technically is long term peace for Americans, so an egocentric view is understandable, but it is also true that peace/safety of others = same for us). A war in which unknown numbers of civilians are being killed (and western reporters kept out). As we expand without clear objectives a comparsion with Vietnam is becoming more and more salient. I think Daschle and others are right to question the course of the war, it is his duty as an elected official and profoundly patriotic. How this sort of democratic discussion either aids or abets the enemy...

I question the notion of justice and its relativism in those who speak of military tribunals and other uncostitutional measures, for how does it protect our freedoms to deny others theirs? Countless have reminded us that denying emancipation to one denies Liberty to all, and I wonder how one can say otherwise?

No, I don't like George W., nor his administration. I find his opinion on the environment disgusting and dangerously short-sighted. I thought the economic "trickle-down" theory behind this sort of big business stimulation had proven pretty ineffective. It is in our best interests to preserve the environment at all costs.

I also am offended by the unilateralism of it all. "If your not with us, your against us" is an incredibly dangerous attitude and difficult to justify. Most importantly, it is not an effective attitude for securing peace. It is a catalyst for increased ignorance and consequently hatred.

now...

smacintush :
As for Clinton being "the greatest president of all time"�[snip] he let every scum imaginable (including Ken Lay) sleep in the lincoln bedroom for money [...]

lie

and...

TNproud2b (re: poocat):
Wow....where did you go to school, homie?

poor question to ask, trust me.


I don't like him at all. I have tried to note not just my opinions, but some support for those opinions. It is not at all enough. I think I'm going to go read some Latin now.

-jon

PS before you start flaming me because you notice where I'm posting from, I am an American.

[ 03-03-2002: Message edited by: modusmorons ]

[milhous]

Originally posted by ringo:
<STRONG>

LOL. Bush can't really speak about drugs, considering his old habits. His papa was a crack-pusher anyway. Read about it here.

Besides, the US has been funding terror for years. Hell, we trained Osama Bin Laden when the CIA funded anti-soviet fighting back in the Regan administration.</STRONG>

Go ahead and read all the Lyndon Larouche publications you want. *hysterical laughter* Nothing better then getting the "truth" from a convicted felon who is bitter and wants to seek revenge against the people that put him away.

So what are you trying to say about Bin Laden? Are you saying that the government hired him to kill Americans in return? Reagan needed all the help he could get in the 80's to fight these brushfire wars to contain Communism and it worked. Bin Laden as well as Saddham Hussein were with us at one point, but today they are against us. Now they must pay the ultimate price, with their lives.

Bush is a good man and I like him. I don't believe he was criminally involved with Enron and will continue to believe so until evidence otherwise disproves it. Furthermore, I agree with the White House's decision not to release information to the GAO as it would affect future administrations from keeping information privileged from the public for good reason.

In this time of crisis, the people need a no-nonsense President they can trust and depend on. They don't need an intellectual from academia to be playing roulette with opinion polls and saying whatever will make people happy. The President has done an excellent job in communicating to the people in a down-to-earth manner as well as setting the tone and rapport for national discourse.

Yes, Bush may not be booksmart, but the fact that he can speak a second language fluently and craft IMHO, one of the finest cabinets in presidential history is proof positive that he's intelligent.

[yoyo52]

Originally posted by TNproud2b:
<STRONG>Wow....where did you go to school, homie?

I'm not sure that any of your words are spelled correctly.

But it's not YOUR fault, is it? It's MY fault that you cannot achieve.</STRONG>

The implications of "homie" in this response boggle the mind, don't they? To make the remark more or less on topic, I don't doubt that Dubya would agree with the drift of the innuendo and of the implications thereof. I love an argument, but it's stuff like this that drove me out of this forum a while ago, and may well drive me out again.

[ 03-03-2002: Message edited by: yoyo52 ]

[poocat]

maxintosh, i'm with you all the way.
thanks for putting intelligent words near at hand where i can agree with them.

modusmorons the same.

there are people here who understand that there are more issues here than our anger/hatred/bigotry.
we _are_ an egotistical and self-centered country that breeds bigotry. if this statement seems harsh, please, move out of the us and look at the opinion of the rest of the world without the blinders provided by american media. in fact, move and then look at the blinders directly. it's scary. our media is incredibly condescending and completely political, as you may suspect.

if you think we don't need to care what the rest of the world thinks, as some americans do, you clearly have not realized the fact that _because_ we have the largest army we should be _more_ concerned with the world's opinion, not less. power and responsibilty should bring out mercy and understanding, instead of self-centered short-sightedness. your children will have to live with their children... unless we kill their children right now, of course.

please, look at us from a different view. think without anger (a great thing for me to be saying, after last night's drunken angry posting, i know) and act without prejudice. if our president understood any of this, he could be great. unfortunately, the flaws of the father are inherent in the son, and for this, i guess, we can't blame him.

...or can we?

poocat.

[Joshua]

I like George W. Bush, and I can happily say I voted for him. I certainly don't agree with all of his political views, but I realize that within our political system, he was the best candidate. He's always struck me as more of a CEO than a President, and in my opinion, that's a very good thing.

It would be nice to see an argument against Bush that doesn't rely on silly ad hominem's and horribly biased sources.

[driven]

Originally posted by milhous:
<STRONG>

Go ahead and read all the Lyndon Larouche publications you want. *hysterical laughter* Nothing better then getting the "truth" from a convicted felon who is bitter and wants to seek revenge against the people that put him away.

So what are you trying to say about Bin Laden? Are you saying that the government hired him to kill Americans in return? Reagan needed all the help he could get in the 80's to fight these brushfire wars to contain Communism and it worked. Bin Laden as well as Saddham Hussein were with us at one point, but today they are against us. Now they must pay the ultimate price, with their lives.

Bush is a good man and I like him. I don't believe he was criminally involved with Enron and will continue to believe so until evidence otherwise disproves it. Furthermore, I agree with the White House's decision not to release information to the GAO as it would affect future administrations from keeping information privileged from the public for good reason.

In this time of crisis, the people need a no-nonsense President they can trust and depend on. They don't need an intellectual from academia to be playing roulette with opinion polls and saying whatever will make people happy. The President has done an excellent job in communicating to the people in a down-to-earth manner as well as setting the tone and rapport for national discourse.

Yes, Bush may not be booksmart, but the fact that he can speak a second language fluently and craft IMHO, one of the finest cabinets in presidential history is proof positive that he's intelligent.</STRONG>

I think he has to have a certain amount of booksmarts ... he graduated Harvard.

[driven]

Originally posted by poocat:
<STRONG>maxintosh, i'm with you all the way.
thanks for putting intelligent words near at hand where i can agree with them.

modusmorons the same.

there are people here who understand that there are more issues here than our anger/hatred/bigotry.
we _are_ an egotistical and self-centered country that breeds bigotry. if this statement seems harsh, please, move out of the us and look at the opinion of the rest of the world without the blinders provided by american media. in fact, move and then look at the blinders directly. it's scary. our media is incredibly condescending and completely political, as you may suspect.

if you think we don't need to care what the rest of the world thinks, as some americans do, you clearly have not realized the fact that _because_ we have the largest army we should be _more_ concerned with the world's opinion, not less. power and responsibilty should bring out mercy and understanding, instead of self-centered short-sightedness. your children will have to live with their children... unless we kill their children right now, of course.

please, look at us from a different view. think without anger (a great thing for me to be saying, after last night's drunken angry posting, i know) and act without prejudice. if our president understood any of this, he could be great. unfortunately, the flaws of the father are inherent in the son, and for this, i guess, we can't blame him.

...or can we?

poocat.</STRONG>

Kind of a context switch: I've seen this come up in these forums about a dozen times ... folks say something, perhaps somewhat mean spirited or angry. A day later they say "I was drunk when I posted that."

How often do people here get drunk? How many folks here are angry drunks?

I can't recall the last time I got drunk and went off on a tangent. (Actually I usually laugh my a$$ off, but it's been a few years so who knows.)

Just curious.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by driven:
<STRONG>


I think he has to have a certain amount of booksmarts ... he graduated Harvard.</STRONG>

Sorry, GWB is a Yale man. Get it right!

[driven]

Originally posted by vmarks:
<STRONG>

Sorry, GWB is a Yale man. Get it right!</STRONG>

His undergrad is Yale. (Also no easy feat). His MBA is from Harvard.

[Millennium]

I apologize in advance for this post's length...

Originally posted by KellyHogan, in reference to my original belief that Ashcroft wouldn't try projecting his religion onto the law:
<STRONG>

How did you even believe that in the first place?</STRONG>

It's called "innocent until proven guilty". Unlike some people I've discussed this matter with, I actually understand this concept of separating one's religion from one's job and that yes, Christians can and do practice this concept nearly all the time. He said he'd keep his religion out of the law, and there was no reason not to believe it. In short, I -and many others- were tricked. I'm ashamed to have been suckered in by the ploy, but it seems I was.

Now, as for poocat:

GLOBAL WARMING IS A FACT.

The ozone hole is shrinking (estimated to be gone by 2010) and the Earth is getting cooler, not warmer, every passing year. No doubt it is possible, and precautions should be taken to guard against it, but your alarmism is unfounded.

Check your facts. GW has lied consistently and thoroughly throughout the Enron scandal...

Examples, please? I haven't yet seen him say anything which could be verified as false, and very few things which couldn't be verified as true.

He lied during his election campaign and he's lying now. The man does not give a single shit about you or anyone you know (unless of course you have a few million you wanna throw his way, or you want to lend him your private jet, or bail him out, or...).

Examples? I have no doubt he probably lied a few times (all politicians do), but I can't think of any examples off the top of my head.

He treats this country and its citizens as his own personal objects, which sickens me, frankly.

You're confusing him with his cronies on this one.

As for Earth Mk. II:

If by honest you mean, "forming shadow governments and not telling anyone about it," then yes. W. is the most honest person I know.

Strange; I seem to remember being told about that one. He waited until it was set up, but that's only prudent. And it can't even do anything unless the "real" government is somehow obliterated. So unless someone happens to drop a nuke on DC, I don't think we'd have to worry (and given my present location, if someone did drop a nuke on DC I don't think I'd be in much of a position to worry).
dgs212:

Please explain how shadow governments and secret military tribunals and horrific recession and corporate control of the government is "better than Clinton" (Okay, okay, Clinton's administration was just as mired in corporate control).

The military tribunals are a Very Bad Thing. The shadow government is neither good nor bad; it's wise to have a backup plan, but as it stands that backup has no power whatsoever at this point, not even in an advisory standpoint. The recession is Clinton's fault, not Bush's, if it's anyone's fault at all; economic policies take time to have any effect at all, and the Bush administration's policies haven't had time to have that effect just yet (the slide into recession, incidentally, began while Clinton had a significant amount of time left in office, and the recession itself, which started only a quarter ago, is both quite small and projected to end next quarter; far less "horrible" in scope than the last one we had, even if it's still a Bad Thing).

As for maxintosh:

First, I think this "war on terrorism" is cowardly and has no point. It's stooping to the level of those who bombed us in the first place.. further proof that humans are humans (read: idiots), no matter what country they live in.

I disagree. At least we're not trying to kill innocent. Some do get killed of course, and this is an inestimable shame, but at least they can honestly be said to be accidental. Unlike those of a certain man whose name starts with O.

Secondly, John Ashcroft should be shot.

No, he shouldn't. Run out of office in disgrace, yes. Buried under a (well-deserved) reputation from which he'll never escape, most certainly. But not physically harmed. That would be too good for him.

What a prick. He can go run some funda-seriously-mental Christian group with Fallwel et al and get his bigoted ass out of government.

I don't know if I'd want him running one of those groups. The man's got a level of charisma that Falwell and company lack. That makes him a lot more dangerous.

Thirdy, Bush's "Christian revivalism" bugs me in the way he's always talking about his faith. He's not a priest. He's our president (unfortunately). I loved it when he was talking about his Christianity with the prime minister of China... here he is, sitting with the man ruling over one of the oldest countries in the world which has borne countless religions and fascinating culture, telling him why he believes in Jesus. For Christ's sake!

The man's entitled to his faith, just like anyone else. We've had religious discussions on these forums, in the past; should the mods not be allowed to discuss their beliefs in such threads, because "it might be seen as coercive"? I don't think so.

What was the context of the discussion with the leader of China, by the way? It should also be noted that China is officially atheist at the moment (a few religions are allowed to be practiced, most notably a kinda-sorta mutated version of the Catholic Church, but a couple of others too). It is quite possible that he was curious, not necessarily about Dubya's specific faith, but religion in general; I know many atheists who claim to not understand why a rational person would be religious.

Ringo:

LOL. Bush can't really speak about drugs, considering his old habits.

His old habits are irrelevant, if he has in fact changed his ways. If he's still doing drugs, that's another story, but according to all evidence, he doesn't even drink alcohol anymore. People have a right to change, do they not?

Poocat again:

we _are_ an egotistical and self-centered country that breeds bigotry.

Whoa, hold on a sec! I'll grant that we're an egotistical and self-centered society. But breeding bigotry? No way.

if you think we don't need to care what the rest of the world thinks, as some americans do, you clearly have not realized the fact that _because_ we have the largest army we should be _more_ concerned with the world's opinion, not less.

There is a difference between being concerned with the world's opinion and being enslaved by the world's opinion. We have as much a right to be our own nation as any other nation has a right to be its own. However, read below...

power and responsibilty should bring out mercy and understanding, instead of self-centered short-sightedness. your children will have to live with their children... unless we kill their children right now, of course.

The kind of power you speak of -having an army large enough to quite possibly take on the rest of the world and win- is a power neither the US, the UN, or anyone esle should have. That's why I think we shoudl overhaul the US armed forces into a Japan-style self-defense force (which basically means no bases in foreign countries), and then trim the fat. No nation should have the power to direct the whole world, but by the same token no nation should be forced to submit to the rest of the world, except in cases where people are being directly harmed.

It's why the UN makes me uneasy. More and more, the UN proper (I'm not saying anything here about the various agencies under its control) seems to be used more and more as a tool for nations to bully other nations around. That just isn't right.

[ringo]

So what are you trying to say about Bin Laden? Are you saying that the government hired him to kill Americans in return? Reagan needed all the help he could get in the 80's to fight these brushfire wars to contain Communism and it worked. Bin Laden as well as Saddham Hussein were with us at one point, but today they are against us. Now they must pay the ultimate price, with their lives.

Not at all. I'm saying that we need to take a closer look at the way we've been operating before we can expect the rest of the world to treat us any differently.

We created this enemy. We trained it and funded it. Then we lost control of it. I think there are lessons here about calling up things that can't easily be put down. American citizens paid the ultimate price, with their lives, for something that *might* have been avoided.

[yoyo52]

Originally posted by vmarks:
<STRONG>

Sorry, GWB is a Yale man. Get it right!</STRONG>

He went to Harvard Business School, while his daddy was Veep, I believe. Knowing something about the way IV schools work, I'm not surprised that a legacy (which is affirmative action for families of the rich and famous) got him into the one school, and politics into the other. I both cases dollar signs were no doubt in the eyes of the admissions officers.

[driven]

Originally posted by yoyo52:
<STRONG>

He went to Harvard Business School, while his daddy was Veep, I believe. Knowing something about the way IV schools work, I'm not surprised that a legacy (which is affirmative action for families of the rich and famous) got him into the one school, and politics into the other. I both cases dollar signs were no doubt in the eyes of the admissions officers.</STRONG>

How cynical.

If he were a democrat I'm sure he would have gotten in on his own merits, eh?

Let's say he did get in with influence. No professor at those schools is going to pass him through a course just because he is someone important. He graduated because he passed those courses.

Someone becomes something successful and it's "because they cheated" or "because Daddy helped."

[olePigeon]

He's a racist, ignorant, dumbass who has no business being a president. Apparently 48% of America approves of racist, ignorant, dumbasses.

[Earth Mk. II]

Originally posted by Millennium:
<STRONG>Strange; I seem to remember being told about that one. He waited until it was set up, but that's only prudent. And it can't even do anything unless the "real" government is somehow obliterated. So unless someone happens to drop a nuke on DC, I don't think we'd have to worry (and given my present location, if someone did drop a nuke on DC I don't think I'd be in much of a position to worry).</STRONG>

well, first I will kindly ask you to recognize that the quote you pulled from my post had faux-html "&lt;cheep shot&gt;" tags which were intended to imply that that specific comment was humorous... though it was a nice quote to pull, I would of done it myself (and I can identify on the whole location issue)

That being said, this is not the thread to be discussing the shadow gov't issue... I'll dig up the other Shadow Government thread and post there.

[driven]

Originally posted by olePigeon:
<STRONG>He's a racist, ignorant, dumbass who has no business being a president. Apparently 48% of America approves of racist, ignorant, dumbasses.</STRONG>

Name calling. Sweet.

"Anyone who does not agree with me is a dumbass!"

[cpt kangarooski]

No, that's pretty accurate, I suspect. You'd be amazed at how many idiots get into top notch schools. Often it involves donating a lot of money, but it happens _very_ often. I know several people who went to Harvard who are idiots through and through.

They were in the undergrad program (which I understand isn't all that good) and I've heard plenty of horror stories about the law school. I don't see why the business school would be any different.

A good rule of thumb might be to be suspicious of the children of the wealthy or powerful who go to such schools. Maybe they deserved it, maybe they didn't. If you're a poor nobody, it's a lot more likely, though not entirely certain, you earned it.

[theolein]

1. If somebody should want to drop a atom bomb on DC, NY or even Sioux Falls, would it not be worth asking oneself why they would want to do that?
2. Isn't the whole shadow government thing perhaps more of a propaganda tool to ward off possible future attacks because they would then be useless?
3. Since the US spends more on it's military than the next five largest military nations combined, what do you have to fear?
4. What would the american media say if they found one of GW's daughters practising a bit of non sexual abstinence?
5. Why did GW not do well in the Gallup poll taken throughout the moslem world?
6. What does the phrase "Southern Comfort" mean to GW?
7. Would GW be able to find his way around the metro in suburban Paris?
8. Does GW post in internet forums when drunk and apoligise for it the next day?

[Face Ache]

And what threat exactly is Iraq to the US?

Or Iran?

Or North Korea?

These aren't soldiers fighting a war.

They are policemen enforcing the American way of life.

[driven]

Originally posted by cpt kangarooski:
<STRONG>No, that's pretty accurate, I suspect. You'd be amazed at how many idiots get into top notch schools. Often it involves donating a lot of money, but it happens _very_ often. I know several people who went to Harvard who are idiots through and through.

They were in the undergrad program (which I understand isn't all that good) and I've heard plenty of horror stories about the law school. I don't see why the business school would be any different.

A good rule of thumb might be to be suspicious of the children of the wealthy or powerful who go to such schools. Maybe they deserved it, maybe they didn't. If you're a poor nobody, it's a lot more likely, though not entirely certain, you earned it.</STRONG>

Two things:
1) Why are they idiots? Is it simply that they disagree with you, or is it more than that? I hate to use subjective terms to describe people. There are MANY folks here who disagree with me, and some of them have ideas that to me seem really off the wall. However I doubt I'd call any of them an idiot. Everyone's got their right to their own point of view. I like it better when folks justify their points of view with more than emotion, but that's rare.

2) My problem with this argument is that the children of a rich or politically influential person simply can't win. If they work hard and are successful, then it was money or daddy's influence. If they don't work hard and are successful same thing. Your argument leaves them no room to get credit for anything. (And there are many rich children who fail miserably in life ... so it isn't all money.)

[driven]

Originally posted by theolein:
<STRONG>1. If somebody should want to drop a atom bomb on DC, NY or even Sioux Falls, would it not be worth asking oneself why they would want to do that?
</STRONG>

Not after they attack. There is no good excuse for an attack on civilians. It must be punished. To do otherwise is to encourage future attacks.

<STRONG>
2. Isn't the whole shadow government thing perhaps more of a propaganda tool to ward off possible future attacks because they would then be useless?
</STRONG>

Quite possible. If so then the invocation of such a government takes it out of mythology and places it into quite visible reality.

<STRONG>
3. Since the US spends more on it's military than the next five largest military nations combined, what do you have to fear?
</STRONG>

Since we are a wide-open free country that takes their civil liberties quite seriously we have quite a bit to fear. Freedom comes at a price, and one of those prices is diminished security. Our carefree "non-hassle by the government" lives creates opportunities for terror. If this is a bad thing or a good thing is open to debate.

<STRONG>
4. What would the american media say if they found one of GW's daughters practising a bit of non sexual abstinence?
</STRONG>

"Keep practicing until you get it right" ?

<STRONG>
5. Why did GW not do well in the Gallup poll taken throughout the moslem world?
</STRONG>

Why did the Hindu's not rate too highly on their list? (Multiple recent attacks against Hindus) Why did the Buddhists not rate too highly? (Destroying of the Buddhist statues ... outlawing Buddhism under the Taliban, Muslum uprisings in southern Thailand against the Buddhists.) There are a lot of folks that the Muslum extremists do not like. Maybe we should all convert to Islam and appease them.

<STRONG>
6. What does the phrase "Southern Comfort" mean to GW?
</STRONG>

A chair on his ranch in Texas?

<STRONG>
7. Would GW be able to find his way around the metro in suburban Paris?
</STRONG>

Would he have to? --or-- Is the Metro in Paris THAT complex?

<STRONG>
8. Does GW post in internet forums when drunk and apoligise for it the next day?</STRONG>

ROFL!

[TNproud2b]

Originally posted by olePigeon:
<STRONG>He's a racist, ignorant, dumbass who has no business being a president. Apparently 48% of America approves of racist, ignorant, dumbasses.</STRONG>

Good thing we do. Else you'd have no friends.

[Face Ache]

Erm, if the son or daughter of a wealthy family become successes in a totally unrelated field to that of their forebears, then kudos to them and they deserve everything they get.

But the son of a former President becoming President? That's not Democracy, surely?

Out of 300 million Americans, if there's NO nepotism, I figure the odds at 1 in 473 830 053 334.6

[TNproud2b]

we won't talk about NASCAR then.

[Face Ache]

Al Unser Jr ain't likely to bomb Iraq though.

[driven]

Originally posted by Face Ache:
<STRONG>Erm, if the son or daughter of a wealthy family become successes in a totally unrelated field to that of their forebears, then kudos to them and they deserve everything they get.

But the son of a former President becoming President? That's not Democracy, surely?

Out of 300 million Americans, if there's NO nepotism, I figure the odds at 1 in 473 830 053 334.6</STRONG>

I thought we were talking about his Harvard & Yale education.

Normally folks with political aspirations pursue political science and law degrees. He pursued a business background (MBA).

Since he only entered politics like 9 years ago I'd say that politics were more of an after-thought.

Did his family background help him in politics? Almost absolutely. Did it help him in school? I have my doubts.

[driven]

Originally posted by Face Ache:
<STRONG>Al Unser Jr ain't likely to bomb Iraq though.</STRONG>

Al Unser Jr. is IRL, not NASCAR.

[Face Ache]

Sorry. I'm an Aussie and NASCAR is stupid anyway.

The name rang a bell so I did a search to check the spelling. I supposed I should have checked out where he works while I was at it.

It's pretty hard using a culture that isn't yours.

And to brilliantly get back on topic...

I watched the US version of Meet the Press last night with Daschle and Lott (from memory � it was 3am here).

Daschle says "we need to cut fuel emissions" and Lott says "Nanny Government telling us what to drive!".

So your right to drive whatever you want overrides your reliance on other countries for oil.

So all of this war stuff is about defending your right to drive SUV's when it comes down to it. Wow!

I think you should drill the crap outta Alaska and get out of the Middle East altogether.

[theolein]

Originally posted by Face Ache:
<STRONG>Sorry. I'm an Aussie and NASCAR is stupid anyway.

The name rang a bell so I did a search to check the spelling. I supposed I should have checked out where he works while I was at it.

It's pretty hard using a culture that isn't yours.

And to brilliantly get back on topic...

I watched the US version of Meet the Press last night with Daschle and Lott (from memory � it was 3am here).

Daschle says "we need to cut fuel emissions" and Lott says "Nanny Government telling us what to drive!".

So your right to drive whatever you want overrides your reliance on other countries for oil.

So all of this war stuff is about defending your right to drive SUV's when it comes down to it. Wow!

I think you should drill the crap outta Alaska and get out of the Middle East altogether.</STRONG>

They could also scrape the grease off the palms of their politicians and then they'ld be totally self reliant.

[TomCondon]

I voted for Bush. He won the election (constitutionally speaking) and boy am I glad of that. I cannot imagine fighting this war with Al Gore as president. Those who call him stupid or racist or whatever are just showing their ignorance of the man.

I think the American-hating postmodern lefties hate the man because he is so honest. And he doesn't spend all his spare time trying to get blowjobs from interns. If Clinton spent half as much energy trying to deal with terrorism as he did fondling Monica, the two towers might still be standing now.

[Face Ache]

ROFL!!!

Honest!

Hahahaha!

[KellyHogan]

Originally posted by TomCondon:
<STRONG>I voted for Bush. He won the election (constitutionally speaking) and boy am I glad of that. I cannot imagine fighting this war with Al Gore as president. .</STRONG>

You realize you voted for a man who told the FBI to hold back and stop investigating the Bin Ladins? Would Gore have done that?

In other words you might be an accomplice to the murder of several thousand New Yorkers and Afghani civilians. Not wanting to upset you, I hope you understand. But the Bush family is as a clean as dirt and they and their friends don't mind making money off the back of human life.

[zigzag]

1) I didn't vote for Bush, mostly because (a) I'm a bit of an environmentalist wacko, (b) I feared that he would try to pack the Supreme Court with right-wingers, (c) I feared that he might get religion and public policy mixed up, and (d) he just seemed terribly unseasoned. Not Presidential, in other words. Bad public speaker, no international experience, no intellectual curiosity, etc. Not that Gore presented a particularly inspiring alternative.

2) In terms of being Presidential, I think Bush has grown in the job. All Presidents do, but Bush in particular has come a long way, largely due to the force of events. He's still capable of strangling the English language, but he seems more at ease, and he's got a better haircut and better-fitting suits. It may seem shallow to consider these things, but they count when you're in a position of leadership. Clinton masked a lot of flaws by having remarkable communication skills.

3) Don't forget that Bush got where he did by being the Republican version of Clinton. In order to have a prayer of taking the White House, the Republicans needed a personable Baby Boomer, and Bush fit the bill. It didn't hurt that he was rich and well-connected, but it was his relative youth and his apparent ability to charm and persuade that made him attractive to the party. Since Bush Sr. wasn't particularly popular, nepotism alone doesn't explain Bush Jr.'s success. He did manage to get re-elected by a large margin as Governor of Texas, not necessarily an easy task.

I know people who hated Clinton who, upon meeting him, admitted that he was irresistable. I've heard the same said of Bush.

4) Just as Clinton moved the Democratic Party to the center and co-opted certain conservative ideas, Bush has co-opted some liberal ideas. That certainly doesn't make him a Liberal, but it's a lesson that he learned from Clinton. And just as Clinton had to throw occasional sops to his ultra-liberal constituency, Bush has to throw occasional sops to his ultra-conservative constituency (Ashcroft). But in the end I think that they'll both prove to be relatively moderate Presidents. As demonstrated by the close election, this is what the country wants, and Bush knows it.

5) There's something to be said for Bush's management style - relying on an experienced staff and not micro-managing. He obviously learned this from Reagan, and did not want to repeat the mistakes of Carter and Clinton. I wish he had more intellectual depth, and a better sense of history, but you can't have everything. FDR, Truman, and Reagan were not particularly deep either but they are widely admired for their willingness to make tough decisions.

6) Bush attended Yale at a time when legacy and money and background still counted as much as academic ability (you don't think all those Kennedys who attended Ivy League schools were dedicated students, do you?). In fact, he's quite open about the fact that he felt alienated by the Ivy League/academic environment, and has publicly distanced himself from it. This doesn't mean that Bush isn't intelligent. I think Bush is certainly an intelligent man, even if it doesn't come across on TV, but he would be the first to admit that he's not an intellectual, and in fact he regards that as part of his appeal. He's selling decisiveness and virtuousness, not intellect.

7) I like Rumsfeld. I may not always agree with him, but I like him because he's not in constant spin mode, he doesn't sugarcoat. He has the luxury of being Secretary of Defense and not having to worry about getting elected, but I certainly wish more people in government were as forthright as he is. Cheney seems rather shifty by comparison.

8) Clinton deserves partial credit for the long economic expansion, if only by leaving it alone. But I think he also deserves credit for getting a risky tax bill passed that was generally very beneficial in reducing government debt, and for keeping a lid on government bloat. At the same time, I don't think one can blame Bush or Clinton for the recession - there's only so much a President can do to influence natural economic cycles. Bush Sr. had the dumb luck of having to face re-election at the ass-end of a recession.

9) If you need an example of Bush lying, you can start with "I'm an environmentalist" and "I'm in favor of a patient's rights bill," both of which he said on national TV in front of God and everybody. I'm sure one could go on and on with other examples. This isn't to suggest that he's any worse than Clinton or Gore, only that you can catch any politician lying if you're paying attention.

10) It's strange how polarized people get when it comes to politics. Once they choose a side, they seem to think that the opposition can't do anything right, and they take horrible offense at the suggestion that their own side is capable of doing anything wrong. The truth is that all politicians lie, cheat, and steal, they all do some good and some bad, and the best we can hope for is that things will balance out in the long run, which they tend to do.

11) I'd rather not have to contemplate Bush's love-making skills, thanks very much.

[VRL]

"Do you like George W. Bush?"

Yes.

[ 03-04-2002: Message edited by: VRL ]

[driven]

Originally posted by KellyHogan:
<STRONG>

You realize you voted for a man who told the FBI to hold back and stop investigating the Bin Ladins? Would Gore have done that?
</STRONG>

Sources? (Don't have any, eh?)

Clinton DID that! Clinton gave opportunities to capture Bin Laden because he was worried about how strong the legal case was. (And yes, for THAT I can find sources.)

I'm thinking you've confused your administrations.

[driven]

Originally posted by zigzag:
[QB]
10) It's strange how polarized people get when it comes to politics. Once they choose a side, they seem to think that the opposition can't do anything right, and they take horrible offense at the suggestion that their own side is capable of doing anything wrong. The truth is that all politicians lie, cheat, and steal, they all do some good and some bad, and the best we can hope for is that things will balance out in the long run, which they tend to do.
QB]

Folks tend to deal with emotion in these debates and dismiss logic and reality out the window.

[Hawkeye_a]

I dont like him. He is living proof that a chimpanzee can grow up to be the president of the United States. Oh and he is also living proof democracy does not exist.

[poocat]

zigzag, that was tight.

i'm quite amused by the various references to angry drunken rants, which, by virtue of this being a method of communication available to us at all hours of the day and night, do happen fairly often here. are you saying i shouldn't apologize? that i shouldn't say what i'm thinking when i'm thinking it? when i pop on here and have to listen to a bunch of you saying we're right to try people by tribunal, take away their rights, destroy the environment, and follow ashcroft, it makes me angry. i won't apologize for that. but i will, later and far more sober, attempt to continue what i otherwise regard as an informed and useful discussion, if one slightly blunted by our complete differences of opinion.

the other brilliant thing is how, if people say they don't like bush, everyone attacks back with "well clinton/gore/dems aren't any better!". it's true. they aren't. it's also true that both are far more similar than different, that bush definitely lifted from clinton's book, and gore didn't, and that was influential in the election. it's true that they both rely upon charisma... clinton often too much. it's true that bush is going overboard... korea/iraq/iran _are_ threats because we created them, if not directly (in the case of korea) then indirectly with our attempt to dominate world lifestyle. does anyone else think it's strange that we think everyone should live like an american? why? what if they don't want to? not everyone has the need for a suv...

i'm not saying anyone's right or wrong, but that there are definitely problems with _every_ political system right now. no, perhaps gore would not have been a better choice, but does that make gw a good one?

and i thankfully respect all those who admit ashcroft was a poor choice. it's ok to make mistakes, y'know, it's just not ok to hide them... at least not when you're in charge of a country with as large a military and as glacial an international ignorance as ours. we really are ignorant. if you watch the people here, or anywhere you travel, the americans are _always_ the most obnoxious/self-centered. it's true. it's also true that we're occasionally brilliant beyond belief, that we're for the most part independent and priveliged and, sometimes, even generous and compasionate. and that's never bad.

poocat.

[Lerkfish]

Millenium said: ... The recession is Clinton's fault, not Bush's, if it's anyone's fault at all; economic policies take time to have any effect at all, and the Bush administration's policies haven't had time to have that effect just yet (the slide into recession, incidentally, began while Clinton had a significant amount of time left in office, and the recession itself, which started only a quarter ago, is both quite small and projected to end next quarter; far less "horrible" in scope than the last one we had, even if it's still a Bad Thing).

(to the thread in general, but millenium sparked this thought)

As much as I'd personally like to blame Bush for the recession, the reality is that matters of the US economy are incredibly complex, with a variety of factors, including unquantifiable ones like "consumer confidence". My own theory is that Greenspan did more to derail the economy, and did it intentionally, and stated it as such during Clinton's presidency. He raised the prime rate several times, and each time it was to "slow down the economy". As soon as Bush was president, he lowered the prime rate a record number of times in a short time frame, to "boost the economy". During Clinton years, Greenspan increase the prime only, During Bush tenure (thus far) he drastically decreases it.
Like I said, the economy is incredibly complex, but if you could pin it on one guy, Greenspan should be your first investigatory target.

Secondly, this thread was started as a poll of whether people liked or didn't like Bush. As such, its essentially stating your own opinion, so even if people get their opinions from Larouche (shudder) that still constitutes as a valid source for their opinion. So trying to hold people to rigid standards of proof for their opinions is probably asking too much. Additionally, the very nature of politics is that the general population does not have complete access to the whole truth on any matter that is not tainted in some way by who tells it.

so, in the nature of the spirit of the original intent of this poll:

No, I don't like Bush. I don't have to like a president to respect him professionally. Unfortunately, I also don't respect him professionally, both for his own stated platform, and for the cronies of his pappy's regime he surrounds himself with. He's getting a free ride right now because of 9/11, and the tendency of the nation in a crisis to consider any criticism of the president unpatriotic or treasonous (as will be proven by those types of responses to what I just said). Keep in mind, though, this is my opinion, and I don't have to provide barrels of provenance for having it.

[malvolio]

No.

[Lerkfish]

Choose your leaders
with wisdom and forthought.
To be led by a coward
is to be controlled
by all the coward fears
To be led by a fool
is to be led
by the opportunists
who control the fool.
To be led by a theif
is to offer up
your most precious treasures
to be stolen.
To be led by a liar
is to ask
to be told lies.
To be led by a tyrant
is to sell yourself
and those you love
into slavery

------------Octavia E. Butler Parable of the Talents


and...


Beware:
Ignorance
Protects itself.
Ignorance
Promotes suspicion.
Suspicion
Engenders fear.
Fear quails,
Irrational and blind.
Or fear looms,
Defiant and closed.
Blind, closed,
Suspicious, afraid.
Ignorance
Protects itself,
And protected,
Ignorance grows.

------------Octavia E. Butler Parable of the Talents


I just happened to read these two passages at my lunch hour and thought how wise these are and should be applied to our thoughts about any ruler.

[driven]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
<STRONG>Choose your leaders
with wisdom and forthought.
To be led by a coward
is to be controlled
by all the coward fears
To be led by a fool
is to be led
by the opportunists
who control the fool.
To be led by a theif
is to offer up
your most precious treasures
to be stolen.
To be led by a liar
is to ask
to be told lies.
To be led by a tyrant
is to sell yourself
and those you love
into slavery

------------Octavia E. Butler Parable of the Talents


and...


Beware:
Ignorance
Protects itself.
Ignorance
Promotes suspicion.
Suspicion
Engenders fear.
Fear quails,
Irrational and blind.
Or fear looms,
Defiant and closed.
Blind, closed,
Suspicious, afraid.
Ignorance
Protects itself,
And protected,
Ignorance grows.

------------Octavia E. Butler Parable of the Talents


I just happened to read these two passages at my lunch hour and thought how wise these are and should be applied to our thoughts about any ruler.</STRONG>

The problem with both of these passages is that they both use very subjective terms. Ignorance, coward, etc. They depend on your personal views for interpretation. I'm sure that there are many liberals who would call the conservatives ignorant. The reverse is also true. There are many conservatives who would call Clinton a coward. I'm sure the liberals can find a way to call Bush a coward. See my point? In the end the passages become nothing more than a rant similar to what all of us have been expressing here.

[theolein]

Originally posted by TomCondon:
<STRONG>I voted for Bush. He won the election (constitutionally speaking) and boy am I glad of that. I cannot imagine fighting this war with Al Gore as president. Those who call him stupid or racist or whatever are just showing their ignorance of the man.

I think the American-hating postmodern lefties hate the man because he is so honest. And he doesn't spend all his spare time trying to get blowjobs from interns. If Clinton spent half as much energy trying to deal with terrorism as he did fondling Monica, the two towers might still be standing now.</STRONG>

No, instead he spends his time giving them to Ken Lay and co.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by poocat:
<STRONG>i'm quite amused by the various references to angry drunken rants, which, by virtue of this being a method of communication available to us at all hours of the day and night, do happen fairly often here. are you saying i shouldn't apologize? that i shouldn't say what i'm thinking when i'm thinking it?</STRONG>

No, as lerkfish said, the original question asked for subjective responses, so I guess it makes sense for people to rant one way or the other. I just get tired of seeing political debates go in the same polarized circles.

It's true that this medium lends itself to extreme, heated rhetoric. Because we're only looking at a screen, we tend to say things that we would probably never say to a person's face. Especially if we're drunk.

[dgs212]

Originally posted by zigzag:
<STRONG>
9) If you need an example of Bush lying, you can start with "I'm an environmentalist" and "I'm in favor of a patient's rights bill," both of which he said on national TV in front of God and everybody. I'm sure one could go on and on with other examples. This isn't to suggest that he's any worse than Clinton or Gore, only that you can catch any politician lying if you're paying attention.

10) It's strange how polarized people get when it comes to politics. Once they choose a side, they seem to think that the opposition can't do anything right, and they take horrible offense at the suggestion that their own side is capable of doing anything wrong. The truth is that all politicians lie, cheat, and steal, they all do some good and some bad, and the best we can hope for is that things will balance out in the long run, which they tend to do.
</STRONG>

I've got one word for y'all: Nader. Now before you let your personal feelings on Nader get in the way (and I know a lot of you hate his damn guts), just listen calmly and carefully. Nader is a politician. He's not very good at it though. I'll be the first to admit that he has very little charisma. What his in spades, though, and what bush and gore are devoid of, is integrity. You'd never catch nader lying to get voter support.Christ, nader spent the last 30 years making sure your car had seatbelts, pointing out the flaws of a corporate controlled government, etc. How can you no respect a man who gives of himself so thoroughly. Now here's the part where you say: I can not respect him because he stole the election from Gore. Or you say, a man with integrity would have stepped down when he knew his presence could sway the election one way or the other. Go ahead and say those things. On some level you're right. But on another level, Nader's performance in the last election can be viewed as entirely virtuous. Al Gore did not deserve to win. Neither did Bush. Neither did Nader. And perhaps Nader's presence cost Gore votes, ensuring a Bush victory. From Nader's perspective (and from the perspective of several hundred thousand americans) whether bush won or gore won made little difference. What was important was to make a stand. If you are happy with a two party system divided over one issue (abortion), then I guess you have nothing to complain about. But a lot of us are sick and tired of bought-and-paid politicians who lie to our faces. Not every politician lies, cheats, and steals, and you needn't tolerate those who do.

*waves american flag*

[zigzag]

Don't follow leaders, watch yer parkin' meters.

[Lerkfish]

LOL! loved the dylan reference.

(deleted earlier, pointless post. I'm sorry, but the rest of my pointless posts will remain.)



[ 03-04-2002: Message edited by: Lerkfish ]

[vmarks]

Originally posted by dgs212:
<STRONG>

I've got one word for y'all: Nader. Now before you let your personal feelings on Nader get in the way (and I know a lot of you hate his damn guts), just listen calmly and carefully. Nader is a politician. He's not very good at it though. I'll be the first to admit that he has very little charisma. What his in spades, though, and what bush and gore are devoid of, is integrity. You'd never catch nader lying to get voter support.Christ, nader spent the last 30 years making sure your car had seatbelts, pointing out the flaws of a corporate controlled government, etc. How can you no respect a man who gives of himself so thoroughly. Now here's the part where you say: I can not respect him because he stole the election from Gore. Or you say, a man with integrity would have stepped down when he knew his presence could sway the election one way or the other. Go ahead and say those things. On some level you're right. But on another level, Nader's performance in the last election can be viewed as entirely virtuous. Al Gore did not deserve to win. Neither did Bush. Neither did Nader. And perhaps Nader's presence cost Gore votes, ensuring a Bush victory. From Nader's perspective (and from the perspective of several hundred thousand americans) whether bush won or gore won made little difference. What was important was to make a stand. If you are happy with a two party system divided over one issue (abortion), then I guess you have nothing to complain about. But a lot of us are sick and tired of bought-and-paid politicians who lie to our faces. Not every politician lies, cheats, and steals, and you needn't tolerate those who do.

*waves american flag*</STRONG>

Here you go- I respect Mr. Nader for his perserverence in what he believes is right. It is laudable that he has the dedication to act on his beliefs, however misguided.

I'll be happy to take an outsider to the two-party system, and one who's dedicated to his beliefs- I'll just take one that isn't Mr. Nader, thank you.

[TNproud2b]

*everyone stops and stares at the Nader supporter*


It's all fun and games until you mention Perot or Nader - then we worry about your ability to judge a person's character.

[daimoni]

.