[maxelson]

http://www.slate.com/id/2125224/?nav=tap3#HittingBottom

[kmkkid]

Originally Posted by maxelson

http://www.slate.com/id/2125224/?nav=tap3#HittingBottom

Indeed.

[mr. natural]

max, you just broke rule pol/war #8: "No posting and running. Give an opinion, your slant, anything in regards to what you're posting. Simply posting a news story and no context or direction is not conducive to fostering discussion. Avoid it."

I know your title is something of a commentary, but I also know you can do way better than that.

AFAIC, America as a viable country has long since lost control of its destiny. Bush is just the biggest smirking huckster to come along down the political cesspool pipe to push us over the edge...

down the river we go and there be a huge waterfall ahead but most folks don't see it coming. Hell, they don't even hear the sound of rapids swirling 'round, the spray of whitewater gathering, the froth and foam of a future that ends in disaster.

Can't wait to see it.

[maxelson]

Originally Posted by mr. natural

"No posting and running. Give an opinion, your slant, anything in regards to what you're posting. Simply posting a news story and no context or direction is not conducive to fostering discussion. Avoid it."

I disagree.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by maxelson

I disagree.

Whether or not you agree with the rules is irrelevant. Them's the rules we all play by.


And as for my comment . . . meh.

I didn't put much faith in the polls showing Bush with a high approval rating and I don't put much faith in the polls showing Bush with a low approval ratings.

[ThinkInsane]

"Truman got some of the lowest poll numbers any president ever got," said Jones, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. "Now when we look back on Truman, he's the highest ranked of the post-World War II presidents."

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...40_bush15.html

Sometimes things only become clear in hindsight. Sometimes, in hindsight things look exactly like they did at the time. Only time will tell I guess.

[davesimondotcom]

It could easily be argued that Bill Clinton, one of the most "popular" Presidents ever, was that popular simply because he governed by which way the political wind blew. If the majority of people in a poll say that he should stand on his left foot while rubbing his belly and patting his head while giving a speech, he would.

Meanwhile, the argument could be made that Bush is showing more leadership than Clinton ever did. Whether or not it is a good thing, history will say. But everyone knows where Bush stands.

[spauldingg]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

But everyone knows where Bush stands.

Yeah, on a Tarmac, eating cake, while New Orleans is Sinking.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by spauldingg

Yeah, on a Tarmac, eating cake, while New Orleans is Sinking.

He's flying back to DC tonight--I'll know if he does as his heli's usually flies over my condo--to deal with the disaster caused by Katrina. He's already declared a disaster emergency. Geez!
Your bigger concern should be with how he is letting Homeland Security dismantle FEMA and diminish its involvement in just these types of events. Now that is something to get worked up about.

[spauldingg]

And the fact that 40+ percent of Louisiana's guard is in Iraq, along with most of their water filtering equipment and high water vehicles. And he cut 72 million dollars from New Orleans Army core of engineers (about 14 hours of Iraq war fundage.)

And as usual, like with the Tsunami, he's 3 days late. He also went golfing yesterday. And played guitar with some country yokel. And finally, he agreed with mojo about the REAL reason we are in Iraq.

He avoided Hurricane Cindy, and now he is going tomorrow, (maybe thursday, maybe friday) to a safe place far away from the actual damage. Cutting short his five week vacation by several hours, except that it wasn't a vacation, they kicked him out to reupholster the furniture, except now it's a vacation again, because that's what they say he is cutting short...)

[maxelson]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

It could easily be argued that Bill Clinton, one of the most "popular" Presidents ever, was that popular simply because he governed by which way the political wind blew. If the majority of people in a poll say that he should stand on his left foot while rubbing his belly and patting his head while giving a speech, he would.

Meanwhile, the argument could be made that Bush is showing more leadership than Clinton ever did. Whether or not it is a good thing, history will say. But everyone knows where Bush stands.

This is all a matter of opinion. "showed more leadership". What does that mean, exactly?
Unilateral action? Politicking? Being an ideologue and forcing ideals upon a nation? Going to war? Being decisive? What is your definition of "leadership"? Knowing where someone stands does not indicate good leadership. Bringing a group along on that stance, allowing the people to see your way and then act on its behalf- I'd say that is an element of good leadership.
I feel that I am not "lead" anywhere by this administration. Dragged kicking and screaming, sure, but "lead"? No. Decisiveness does not equal leadership. A leader also unites for a cause. Where has Bush united? And is that his fault? Yes. It is. He's the "leader".

Your opinion of Clinton is that- an opinion. I thought the Clinton administration did a fine job of leading. I didn't agree with a whole hell of a lot, but quite a bit of the world followed where he lead. Bush does not have that. Are you writing it off to popular stupidity and/ or charisma? That would be selling short.

[maxelson]

Oh. And I see a discussion is being had here.
I am happy to follow parameters. But not arbitrary ones. The post had the desired effect. A discussion is being had. Why all the stickiness about it?

[Atomic Rooster]

Can anything worse happen during Bush's term in office? Just about everything has.

Maybe "The Rapture"?

I think I can hear horses.

[maxelson]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Whether or not you agree with the rules is irrelevant. Them's the rules we all play by.


And as for my comment . . . meh.

I didn't put much faith in the polls showing Bush with a high approval rating and I don't put much faith in the polls showing Bush with a low approval ratings.

Of course it is relevant. My opinion on the rule is without worth simply because the rule "is"?


You commented. My goal was to see the comments on the item. Not reactions to MY comments on the item.

I have an opinion on the rule. It is not irrelevant. Again. Discussion is being had. Perhaps this shows a flaw in this rule?

[ThinkInsane]

The reason for the rule is quite simple. In your absence, some members came up with the tactic of linking incendiary articles, just to stir the shitpot, and then leave the thread to degenerate into a flamefest without ever actually having to be involved.

[rambo47]

Originally Posted by spauldingg

Yeah, on a Tarmac, eating cake, while New Orleans is Sinking.

Betten than sitting at his desk, with an intern eating him!

[RAILhead]

Poor little spauldingg.

[spauldingg]

What?

[James L]

Originally Posted by rambo47

Betten than sitting at his desk, with an intern eating him!

Really? You would rather eat a piece of cake with some old man than have oral sex performed on you by a female intern?

....interesting.

[RAILhead]

Originally Posted by James L

Really? You would rather eat a piece of cake with some old man than have oral sex performed on you by a female intern?

....interesting.

Dude, Monica was a double-wide. I'd take eating cake over her large arse any day.

[spauldingg]

Her 'arse' had nothing to do with it.

[maxelson]

I find that continuous running back to the Monica thing to be a sign of weakness on the part of Bush supporters.