Would you vote for George Bush [Archive]

Darth Rotor

23rd March 2007, 09:28 PM

Assuming that Bush was eligible to run in 2008 would you vote for him?
No.

Ever read this? It's called the XXIId Amendment.

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.
Pointless poll.

DR

ConspiRaider

23rd March 2007, 10:04 PM

Ah the joys of democracy and free speech. You go. :D
Well, his lies about Iraq and the subsequent war have taken thousands of American lives and tens of thousands of Iraqi lives. Hundreds of thousands maimed and wounded. And we're not even done yet.

I figure, at least, we take his 2 and a half square mile ranch. Maybe set it up as a giant recuperation place for the tens of thousands of returning wounded vets.

RandFan

23rd March 2007, 11:49 PM

Well, his lies about Iraq and the subsequent war have taken thousands of American lives and tens of thousands of Iraqi lives. Hundreds of thousands maimed and wounded. And we're not even done yet.

I figure, at least, we take his 2 and a half square mile ranch. Maybe set it up as a giant recuperation place for the tens of thousands of returning wounded vets.Hey, you are entitled to see the world any way you want. As rhetoric goes you make a very good appeal to emotion and that is the currency of politics so it's certainly apropos for this forum.

Roswell-Perseis

24th March 2007, 12:07 AM

RandFan

24th March 2007, 12:19 AM

I was 17 when Bush II was elected. After these past six years, I do not know what could ever make me support republican outside of a small, limited, local position. My die hard republican parents have unwittingly seen to it that will become a democratic voter, unless there is a socialist party (with national credibility).Yes, the status quo relies on us vs them mentality. Party loyalty or hatred of the opposition is their stock in trade. You are just the mirror of your parents. The politicians have carved up their faithful and work hard to see to it that the sheep stay in line. So much for skepticism and critical thinking.

LawnOven

24th March 2007, 01:39 AM

yeah... says the guy who voted for bush twice.

fishbob

24th March 2007, 02:02 AM

I was looking for something along the line of: 'no, hell no, not in a million years no, I'd rather eat worms', but I settled for no. Just settling is appropriate in politics, so I don't feel too bad about the lack of relevant choices.

SezMe

24th March 2007, 02:29 AM

Pointless poll.
Indeed.

What in world did you hope to get from this meaningless exercise, Dave?

This Guy

24th March 2007, 05:13 AM

I wouldn't vote for him if he was the only one running ;)

I'm just glad he can't run again.

I just hope his god doesn't give him any strange orders before he leaves office :eek:

Dr Adequate

24th March 2007, 05:32 AM

Pointless poll. Suppose you were asked a hypothetical question --- would you answer it?

billydkid

24th March 2007, 06:55 AM

I would be seriously tempted to vote for Dubya just because it would be such an obscenely perverse thing to do. I would do it in the same spirit as a person scarifying themselves with razors or coat hanger brands. I would do it out of spite. It would be the same impulse as might compel me to force myself to eat raw habanero peppers until I vomited. I would do it out of self hatred. It's a mood thing.

I have an excuse why I would vote for Dubya - my insanity. I am just astonished that people who are not feeling insane would feel inclined to vote for him. I'm sorry, that is just willful stupidity. The man is a God-awful excuse for a human being and I could not imagine a worse person as President. I would argue that not only is the he worst President we have ever had, but he is also he is the worst President this country will ever have. How could a President be any more demented, dimwitted, self serving, incompetent and ethically bankrupt than GWB is?

rikzilla

24th March 2007, 07:37 AM

shemp

24th March 2007, 07:51 AM

The Central Scrutinizer

24th March 2007, 07:53 AM

shemp

24th March 2007, 08:08 AM

RandFan

24th March 2007, 08:25 AM

yeah... says the guy who voted for bush twice.What exactly do you think that proves? Unlike Rosewell I'm not adverse to crossing party lines. Hell, I'm campaigning for Obama.

billydkid

24th March 2007, 08:33 AM

That Bush inspires such irrational hatred in people who hold Marx, Stalin, Che, Castro, Chavez, and Arafat in high regard means he must be doing something so bloody wonderful that I would vote for him again in a NY minute.

No, I don't like everything about him. He's too fundy, he's makes too many mistakes he won't own. Other than that, when I see people so demented that they'd burn troops in effigy or crap on the flag while wearing disguises and chanting their desire to murder...when I see that these "people" hate Bush...well it reaffirms my vote.

He isn't the best President ever....but if "billydkid" hates him he can't be all bad.

-zAin't that the truth. I'd say I'm a pretty good barometer for stuff like this - if I like it it must suck and if I hate it it must have something important to offer.

I have to say I don't have any idea where you got the notion that I hold the people you listed in high regard - which is certainly implied by your post. Not only do I not, but I never gave anyone a reason to believe that I do. I guess it just fits your world view to believe that.

Also, I think you are confused about what actually constitutes patriotism. You apparently think that empty, symbolic, self congratulatory gestures while undermining fundamental American principles are the stuff that patriotism is made of. But I guess the real telling thing about your post is this - the bulk of the people who detest Bush are not the people you describe - the flag crappers, the troop haters, the flag burners and so on. The bulk of the people who detest Bush are people like me who donate significant amount of money every year to the DAV and don't want to see more people join their ranks pointlessly and who believe in the principles on which this country was founded and would not have a second thought about sacrificing their lives in defense of those principles and this country.

No, the real America lovers are not those self righteous posers wrapping themselves in the flag who wept as our great President stood on the flight deck of that carrier in his flight suit with the banner behind him claiming victory. It is not the people who mistake pure partisan loyalty and worship of authority and genuflect at the feet of our "war President" and felt inspired by the shock and awe they saw on TV who love America. The real patriots are those people who believe that what defines America are the principles on which it was founded and who believe speaking out and standing up against those who violate those principles is the most American and patriotic thing a citizen can do.

cgallaga

24th March 2007, 08:49 AM

I voted for him twice.

Didn't like Browne or Badenarik?

RandFan

24th March 2007, 09:06 AM

Didn't like Browne or Badenarik?No, though I wish there were a vibrant libertarian community. As it is it is the Libertarian party is full of disparate ideas and is not coherent IMO.

davefoc

24th March 2007, 09:24 AM

Indeed.

What in [the] world did you hope to get from this meaningless exercise, Dave?

A few somewhat ambiguous goals:

1. I think the principle support for Bush in this forum are from people that are fairly categorized as neocons with regard to their foreign policy ideas. I thought mostly they would be the only ones casting non-joke votes for Bush. But even for them, Bush has to be seen as a mixed bag. The Iraq occupation seems to have been implemented with a combination of incompetence and corruption. And unless they are mainlining Sean Hannity, it is hard to miss the unrelenting failures and scandals of Bushco in other areas besides Iraq. So I was wondering despite all that if there wouldn't be a few votes for Bush.

2. I figured the poll might generate a few good rants. So far I haven't seen any great ones but fuelair, BillyKid, fishbob and This Guy certainly deserve honorable mentions at least.

3. Just the very idea that somebody would vote for Bush again is sort of funny to me and I thought I'd share my little joke with the forum.

I'd also like to give Dr A. a little credit here for this:

Suppose you were asked a hypothetical question --- would you answer it?:)

ETA: I wish I'd turned on the option that would have allowed me to see who voted for what. I figured easycruise was the only sure Bush vote but The Painter would probably be another one. Beyond that I couldn't think of anybody that I expected to vote for Bush. Not counting SCRUT's vote there are still six people taking part in this forum that would vote for Bush again? It is possible that some people took the first option because they wanted to make a pro Bush statement but in actual practice they wouldn't vote for him again.

Kopji

24th March 2007, 09:48 AM

If Bush were not surrounded by all his evil henchmen (and henchwomen) by 2008 I might vote for him. That seems more and more likely btw (that he will be all alone).

It would be a pity vote, like voting for the last scraggly vulture after the other well fed ones have devoured the carcass and left for higher paying jobs in private industry.

Or perhaps a better metaphor is the lone rat silhouetted in the moonlight after the others have long abandoned the sinking ship.

To be associated with one of the worst presidents, if not the worst ever, is to live forever in infamy. Who would want that heading toward the end of their life?

But sure! he could stay four more years: Carefully working to undo the evil done in the first eight. Repairing the now ugly and festering portrait by doing good deeds. Taking care of the widows and orphans.

Kopji

24th March 2007, 09:52 AM

Bush / Carter 2008

rikzilla

24th March 2007, 10:46 AM

Ain't that the truth. I'd say I'm a pretty good barometer for stuff like this - if I like it it must suck and if I hate it it must have something important to offer.

I have to say I don't have any idea where you got the notion that I hold the people you listed in high regard - which is certainly implied by your post. Not only do I not, but I never gave anyone a reason to believe that I do. I guess it just fits your world view to believe that.

Also, I think you are confused about what actually constitutes patriotism. You apparently think that empty, symbolic, self congratulatory gestures while undermining fundamental American principles are the stuff that patriotism is made of. But I guess the real telling thing about your post is this - the bulk of the people who detest Bush are not the people you describe - the flag crappers, the troop haters, the flag burners and so on. The bulk of the people who detest Bush are people like me who donate significant amount of money every year to the DAV and don't want to see more people join their ranks pointlessly and who believe in the principles on which this country was founded and would not have a second thought about sacrificing their lives in defense of those principles and this country.

No, the real America lovers are not those self righteous posers wrapping themselves in the flag who wept as our great President stood on the flight deck of that carrier in his flight suit with the banner behind him claiming victory. It is not the people who mistake pure partisan loyalty and worship of authority and genuflect at the feet of our "war President" and felt inspired by the shock and awe they saw on TV who love America. The real patriots are those people who believe that what defines America are the principles on which it was founded and who believe speaking out and standing up against those who violate those principles is the most American and patriotic thing a citizen can do.

Nice reply. I'd nominate it but I'd hate to see the TLA thread spontaneously combust due to the infusion of such a critical mass of straw and superheated air.

Irrational and vehement hatred of Mr. Bush is a bizarre phenomenon of our times. It's hipster herd mentality, a kind of wooism that even the big-brained JREFers are drawn to in credulous unison. (see poll results for data) Just goes to show that no matter how smart you are you can be made to frog-march in the direction your knee jerks.

Personally speaking, I like to think for myself...regardless how popular or unpopular those rational thoughts are to the herd. Irrational Bush haters have much in common with irrational Clinton haters...they both place more importance on emotion than reason.
:irule

-z

latent aaaack

24th March 2007, 10:59 AM

RandFan

24th March 2007, 11:02 AM

rikzilla

24th March 2007, 11:18 AM

Every popular position is wrong because people only have them to be popular? You're probably one of those people who hate the Beatles because everybody likes them.

Number 8? Number 8? Number 8? Number 8? Number 8? Number 8? Number 8?
Number 8? Number 8? Number 8? Number 8? Number 8? Number 8? Number 8?
Number 8? Number 8? Number 8? Number 8? Number 8? Number 8? Number 8?
Number 8? Number 8? Number 8? Number 8? Number 8? Number 8? Number 8?
Number 8? Number 8? Number 8? Number 8? Number 8? Number 8? Number 8?
Number 8? Number 8? Number 8? Number 8? Number 8? Number 8? Number 8?
Number 8? Number 8? Number 8? Number 8? Number 8? Number 8? Number 8?
Number 8? Number 8? Number 8? Number 8? Number 8? Number 8? Number 8?
Number 8? Number 8? Number 8? Number 8? Number 8? Number 8? Number 8?
Number 8? Number 8? Number 8? Number 8? Number 8? Number 8? Number 8?
Number 8? Number 8? Number 8? Number 8? Number 8? Number 8? Number 8?
Number 8? Number 8? Number 8? Number 8? Number 8? Number 8? Number 8?
Number 8? Number 8? Number 8? Number 8? Number 8? Number 8? Number 8?
Number 8? Number 8? Number 8? Number 8? Number 8? Number 8? Number 8?
Number 8? Number 8? Number 8? Number 8? Number 8? Number 8? Number 8?
Number 8? Number 8? Number 8? Number 8? Number 8? Number 8? Number 8?

Looky...I just wrote a completely new Beatles song!

I don't hate the Beatles...just the stuff that John wrote under the evil influence of Yoko. That's rational. Mark David Chapman was the irrational type led by emotion.

-z

davefoc

24th March 2007, 11:38 AM

Kind of disappointing but so far the best rant award has to go to rikzilla.
Nice reply. I'd nominate it but I'd hate to see the TLA thread spontaneously combust due to the infusion of such a critical mass of straw and superheated air.Good stuff.

As to the substance of what he had to say:

I'm not sure what to make of this Bush hatred phenomena myself. I'm basically in the Bush hater camp* and I am not sure that provides much insight on the issue because it is always possible that one's biases are leading one to not see the situation objectively.

I think there are some issues which strongly strike at the hot buttons of people. Bush seems to have a genuinely cruel side to him. Clearly innocent people have been caught up in some of the torture or near torture schemes of Bushco. Bush seems unwilling to acknowledge these kind of errors. This strikes me as unusually cruel, but perhaps it is just pragmatic. I don't think Bush's "biring them on" quote was an aberration. I think this was really representational of the way this chickenhawk thinks. For at least some of us this kind of callus disregard for the huge consequences war will have on people's life is a reasonable justification for at least strong dislike if not hatred.

I also think Bush used the war as a means to generate profit for crony corporations and to create positions for political cronies. This means that while many people's lives are being destroyed fighting and dying in a war started by Bush, Bush was exploiting the war for his political purposes and personal gain and almost certainly more people have died because of this. I think there is some justification for Bush hatred there.

It also seems that a great deal of the story behind what has gone on in Bushco is that Bush has been cynically manipulated by Cheney and Rove to implement their personal agendas. The personality characteristic that Rove and Cheney exploit to achieve their power is Bush's need for simplistic ego gratification. I, at least, find this an almost evil characteristic in Bush's makeup.

But perhaps a lot of what is going on in my own case is that I am a lifelong mostly Republican voter. I vote for Republicans because they represent themselves as the party of the free market and fiscal conservatism. Bush continues to be identified for that by his left wing critics. But in fact, Bush's brand of corrupt and incompetent governance have nothing to do with supporting the ideals of free markets and limited government. So Bush has not only harmed the country with an unnecessary war incompetently and corruptly fought, and absurd fiscal irresponsibility, and abuses of power by the judicial branch and terrible corruption, Bush has harmed the country because he has trashed the very values he has claimed to represent. And in the end, it is for that that the country might pay the highest cost.

* although I might to tend to weasel this a bit and characterize myself more as a Bush critic than a Bush hater, the truth is that as time as gone on I think I have moved at least next door to the Bush hater camp.

Tricky

24th March 2007, 11:46 AM

I voted "Hell yes" as a joke, thinking I would be the lone loony to screw up the poll. Then I discovered 6 other people already had. Which means we have 6 other people screwing around, or 6 rather stupid people.
I refuse to vote on this poll because there is not an option that gives enough emphasis to the vigor and sincerity of my "no" vote. There are three versions of "yes" but only one puny little "no" which is certainly not on the level of "not if nearsighted terrorist wombats were poised with rusty sporks to carve me open and devour my spleen after dousing it with habenero sauce if I refused to vote for Bush."

That I could vote for.

Dr Adequate

24th March 2007, 11:49 AM

That Bush inspires such irrational hatred in people who hold Marx, Stalin, Che, Castro, Chavez, and Arafat in high regard means he must be doing something so bloody wonderful that I would vote for him again in a NY minute. What do you make of the totally rational contempt with which Bush is regarded by people who also loathe Marx, Stalin, Che, Castro, Chavez, and Arafat?

For a bonus point, what do you make of this Hitler guy, given that his worshippers hate Marx, Stalin, Che, Castro, Chavez, and Arafat?

Darth Rotor

24th March 2007, 11:49 AM

A few somewhat ambiguous goals:

1. I think the principle support for Bush in this forum are from people that are fairly categorized as neocons with regard to their foreign policy ideas.
Broad brush much, Dave? Not all conservatives are neocons. Got it?
Bush has to be seen as a mixed bag. Or a bag of broken promises.
The Iraq occupation seems to have been implemented with a combination of incompetence and corruption. And unless they are mainlining Sean Hannity, it is hard to miss the unrelenting failures and scandals of Bushco in other areas besides Iraq. So I was wondering despite all that if there wouldn't be a few votes for Bush.
How is Bush relevant to a vote? This puts the finger on the absurdity of raising your question.

He can't run again. The Republican Party, of its various flavors, has to form a coherent platform that distances itself from Bush's failures, and stands on his successes . . . whatever those may be.
2. I figured the poll might generate a few good rants. So far I haven't seen any great ones but fuelair, BillyKid, fishbob and This Guy certainly deserve honorable mentions at least.
Ah, so you are trolling. Noted.
3. Just the very idea that somebody would vote for Bush again is sort of funny to me and I thought I'd share my little joke with the forum.
Millions of people already voted for Bush, in two elections, and he can't run again. The joke is on you.
I'd also like to give Dr A. a little credit here for this:
Why? How is a Brit's opinion, or position, relevant to people voting for a Bush who can't run for an election in the US, nor in the UK? (Bush is an American.)

DR

Darth Rotor

24th March 2007, 11:52 AM

Bush / Carter 2008
Jeb? GHW? (He has six years of eligibility left) Laura? Neil?

Which Bush?

Which Carter? Jimmy?

DR

Dr Adequate

24th March 2007, 11:53 AM

Why? How is a Brit's opinion, or position, relevant to people voting for a Bush who can't run for an election in the US, nor in the UK? (Bush is an American.) Astonishingly, the fact that I am impartial and disinterested on the subject I posted about does not necessarily mean that I'm wrong.

Darth Rotor

24th March 2007, 11:56 AM

For a bonus point, what do you make of this Hitler guy
I think that he only had one ball.

DR

rikzilla

24th March 2007, 11:58 AM

Kind of disappointing but so far the best rant award has to go to rikzilla.
Good stuff.

As to the substance of what he had to say:

I'm not sure what to make of this Bush hatred phenomena myself. I'm basically in the Bush hater camp* and I am not sure that provides much insight on the issue because it is always possible that one's biases are leading one to not see the situation objectively.

I think there are some issues which strongly strike at the hot buttons of people. Bush seems to have a genuinely cruel side to him. Clearly innocent people have been caught up in some of the torture or near torture schemes of Bushco. Bush seems unwilling to acknowledge these kind of errors. This strikes me as unusually cruel, but perhaps it is just pragmatic. I don't think Bush's "biring them on" quote was an aberration. I think this was really representational of the way this chickenhawk thinks. For at least some of us this kind of callus disregard for the huge consequences war will have on people's life is a reasonable justification for at least strong dislike if not hatred.

I also think Bush used the war as a means to generate profit for crony corporations and to create positions for political cronies. This means that while many people's lives are being destroyed fighting and dying in a war started by Bush, Bush was exploiting the war for his political purposes and personal gain and almost certainly more people have died because of this. I think there is some justification for Bush hatred there.

It also seems that a great deal of the story behind what has gone on in Bushco is that Bush has been cynically manipulated by Cheney and Rove to implement their personal agendas. The personality characteristic that Rove and Cheney exploit to achieve their power is Bush's need for simplistic ego gratification. I, at least, find this an almost evil characteristic in Bush's makeup.

But perhaps a lot of what is going on in my own case is that I am a lifelong mostly Republican voter. I vote for Republicans because they represent themselves as the party of the free market and fiscal conservatism. Bush continues to be identified for that by his left wing critics. But in fact, Bush's brand of corrupt and incompetent governance have nothing to do with supporting the ideals of free markets and limited government. So Bush has not only harmed the country with an unnecessary war incompetently and corruptly fought, and absurd fiscal irresponsibility, and abuses of power by the judicial branch and terrible corruption, Bush has harmed the country because he has trashed the very values he has claimed to represent. And in the end, it is for that that the country might pay the highest cost.

* although I might to tend to weasel this a bit and characterize myself more as a Bush critic than a Bush hater, the truth is that as time as gone on I think I have moved at least next door to the Bush hater camp.

Aw Dave! Cut it out man...you're embarrassing me! :redface1

Your use of "Bushco" and "Chickenhawk" are a fine attempt, and you use them to great effect, but you are right about yourself; you're only a Bush critic.

May I suggest a more liberal use of "ChimpyMcBusHitler" coupled with a rambling yet intelligently worded style. See the UnaBomber's Manifesto for more info.

there's hope for you yet sir!
-z

billydkid

24th March 2007, 12:04 PM

Nice reply. I'd nominate it but I'd hate to see the TLA thread spontaneously combust due to the infusion of such a critical mass of straw and superheated air.

Irrational and vehement hatred of Mr. Bush is a bizarre phenomenon of our times. It's hipster herd mentality, a kind of wooism that even the big-brained JREFers are drawn to in credulous unison. (see poll results for data) Just goes to show that no matter how smart you are you can be made to frog-march in the direction your knee jerks.

Personally speaking, I like to think for myself...regardless how popular or unpopular those rational thoughts are to the herd. Irrational Bush haters have much in common with irrational Clinton haters...they both place more importance on emotion than reason.
:irule

-zWow, is it really that obvious from my post that I only hate Bush because I want to go along with the crowd? It is amazing the way you can see right through me. Or maybe I am just completely transparent. I think it's obvious from everything I have ever posted that I can't think for myself or arrive at my own positions. Yeah, that's me - hot to be with the in-crowd and join the herd. I'm sure you can see that illustrated in all my posts. Just the kind of guy I am.

But you, striding boldly and independently, not afraid to take the unpopular view. What a guy! Never mind that Bush has done more than any other President to undermine the rule of law and the principle of the balance of power. Never mind that mendacity and prevarication seem to be the only governing principles to which he adheres. Never mind that his administration manipulated and deceived the American people to get us into the quagmire that is Iraq and demonstrated utter incompetence in conducting that fiasco.

Never mind that political loyalty is single significant consideration when choosing candidates for his various appointments and that competence is not a consideration at all. Just never mind that stuff and stick to your guns. Anybody who doesn't like Bush is just following the crowd like a bunch of lemmings. That's me. Just ask anyone who has ever read any of my posts. I'm all about getting line and following the herd. Oh, and by the way, we were never about staying the course.

davefoc

24th March 2007, 12:04 PM

Broad brush much, Dave? Not all conservatives are neocons. Got it?

Broadly, Conservatives fall into at least one of these three groups:
1. neocons
2. Social conservative
3. Fiscal/economic conservative

Clearly fiscal conservatives are none too happy with Bush and there are very few social conservatives in this forum. So my assumption is that most of the remaining support for Bush in this forum would be from the neocon branch of conservatism.

Ah, so you are trolling. Noted. As the creator of numerous zero response threads, is it really such a big crime if every now and then I actually try for a thread that might generate a little interest?

Why? How is a Brit's opinion, or position, relevant to people voting for a Bush who can't run for an election in the US, nor in the UK? (Bush is an American.)

DRI think you missed my intent there. I thought Dr. A's comment was a nice blend of subtlety and wit and it made me laugh.

Darth Rotor

24th March 2007, 12:22 PM

Broadly, Conservatives fall into at least one of these three groups:
1. neocons
2. Social conservative
3. Fiscal/economic conservative

Clearly fiscal conservatives are none too happy with Bush and there are very few social conservatives in this forum. So my assumption is that most of the remaining support for Bush in this forum would be from the neocon branch of conservatism.
Right, so you admit it, you were trolling for neocons.

To what end? To start a fight?
As the creator of numerous zero response threads, is it really such a big crime if every now and then I actually try for a thread that might generate a little interest?
No. You post, and accept such lumps as you get. All's fair, in that regard.
I think you missed my intent there. I thought Dr. A's comment was a nice blend of subtlety and wit and it made me laugh.
Which one?

DR

davefoc

24th March 2007, 12:40 PM

Right, so you admit it, you were trolling for neocons.

To what end? To start a fight?

I don't know if I was trolling for them so much as wondering if their strong feelings about the benefits of US military intervention in the middle east and for strong support of Israel would be enough to justify a vote for Bush again.

I was hoping that a few of them might have something to say about that.

As an aside, I think Bushco will be the last neocon dominated administration for a very long time.

Which one?Originally Posted by Darth Rotor
Pointless poll.Originally Posted by Dr Adequate
Suppose you were asked a hypothetical question --- would you answer it?Maybe it's because my mother was English that I find a comment like this funny.

Darth Rotor

24th March 2007, 12:45 PM

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate
Maybe it's because my mother was English that I find a comment like this funny.
I hope you realize why I didn't answer it. ;)

I got the joke.

DR

RandFan

24th March 2007, 01:03 PM

I think that he only had one ball.

DR

Göring has only got one ball
Hitler's [are] so very small
Himmler's so very similar
And Goebbels has no balls at all!

IllegalArgument

24th March 2007, 01:05 PM

Tony

24th March 2007, 01:06 PM

Personally speaking, I like to think for myself...
:irule

-z

So you were lying when you said:

That Bush inspires such irrational hatred in people who hold Marx, Stalin, Che, Castro, Chavez, and Arafat in high regard means he must be doing something so bloody wonderful that I would vote for him again in a NY minute.

You don't think, as evidenced by the above, you have kneejerk reactions. The same people who hold Marx, Stalin, Che, Castro, Chavez, and Arafat in high regard also hate Franco and Hitler. By your logic, they must have been bloody wonderful.

regardless how popular or unpopular those rational thoughts are to the herd. Irrational Bush haters have much in common with irrational Clinton haters...they both place more importance on emotion than reason.

I agree. Although you're making a mistake to include yourself in with the reason crowd.

Roswell-Perseis

24th March 2007, 01:08 PM

Yes, the status quo relies on us vs them mentality. Party loyalty or hatred of the opposition is their stock in trade. You are just the mirror of your parents. The politicians have carved up their faithful and work hard to see to it that the sheep stay in line. So much for skepticism and critical thinking.

Yes, I am buying into the status quo. I do not see another way. I do not see a republican who believes what I want to see in a politician. Even the barely palatable Guiliani now panders to the conservatives with promises to temper his more liberal values- such as appointing strict constitutional interpreters as judges?

I, by the way, am still selling out with the dems because I don't like them much either. I simply find them less disgusting. Find me a republican who is pro-choice, pro-national health care, believes in huge taxes on the rich and will end lobbying (something no dem will do either) and I will vote for them, campaign for them, believe in them.

The democrats are closer now; perhaps your experience leads you to believe it will change. Perhaps you will tell me what would actually break up the two-party national monopoly. Switching between parties? Unless there is a phenomenal candidate, why? Voting for independents? Perhaps, but I have the feeling that our system, upon seeing a new party candidate that was succesful, would simply integrate them into whichever party bought first.

This leads me to the conclusion that there must be another way. I do not want to believe I have this one pathetic option. I do not see it; I have no faith in government and, yes, complete hatred for the republican party. That have not run far and fast and hard enough to break them from Bush, not for me at least.

So criticize me, it is fair. I would rather get a solution to my quandry. I will keep looking, will you help me? I do not want to be so bitter about this government I was raised to love, but what options do I have?

Roswell-Perseis not Rosewell, thank you.

Tony

24th March 2007, 01:10 PM

Waving Marx around like he's the epitome of evil is silly, he was wrong and people used his ideas to validate their horrible acts. Marx did not pull the trigger or give the order, so how is he evil?

He's not. Rik doesn't know what he's talking about.

Kopji

24th March 2007, 01:13 PM

Jeb? GHW? (He has six years of eligibility left) Laura? Neil?

Which Bush?

Which Carter? Jimmy?

DR
Merely an attempt at a humorus continuation of the idea proposed by the topic, 'what if GWB could run in 2008?' In a 2008 election he would want to run with someone that could help him build houses for the poor - Jimmy Carter.

I will be very surprised if history is not completely brutal to GWB. There is a common thread of foolishness to his actions, and non-action, that becomes more apparent over time. A foolish person is not stupid, or mean, or evil. It is hard to hate them since it would be a waste of time. A fool does not care to learn from previous mistakes and so repeats them - choosing to see only the tiny and isolated successes within a vast landscape of ignored failure and mistakes.

It a strategic distortion of facts and reality that allows people to demonize 'haters of Bush' as a type of irrational thinker; it is a glorification of foolishness, positive thinking or patrotism gone awry and put to service in the denial of a national tragedy.

Tony

24th March 2007, 01:16 PM

Darth Rotor

24th March 2007, 01:22 PM

If I was on a jury, I'd vote for the death penalty, but that's about it. I regret voting for him in '98 and '00 and I regret voting for the candidates he supported in '02. It will take a massive change (like a complete marginalization of the religious right) or the emergence of a really worthwhile candidate for me to consider voting republican again.
The Hair's re-election was not a good thing. A drinking buddy of mine claims that-- get this -- Kinky Friedman was induced to run to water down Strayhorn's shot at winning as an independent. I had to ask, "OK, so is this a Jewish plot deal here?" and he replied "I think so."

*sigh*

Could Ma Strayhorn have won if Kinky had stuck to being funny? Well, if most votes to Kinky had gone to Strayhorn, she'd have had just over 31% of the vote, and IIRC, The Hair had 34% or so.

He has not impressed me at all. Yes, I voted for him in 2002. Silly ****** me.

DR

RandFan

24th March 2007, 01:23 PM

So criticize me, it is fair. Fair enough, I agree.

RandFan

24th March 2007, 01:27 PM

Merely an attempt at a humorus continuation of the idea proposed by the topic, 'what if GWB could run in 2008?' In a 2008 election he would want to run with someone that could help him build houses for the poor - Jimmy Carter.

I will be very surprised if history is not completely brutal to GWB. There is a common thread of foolishness to his actions, and non-action, that becomes more apparent over time. A foolish person is not stupid, or mean, or evil. It is hard to hate them since it would be a waste of time. A fool does not care to learn from previous mistakes and so repeats them - choosing to see only the tiny and isolated successes within a vast landscape of ignored failure and mistakes.

It a strategic distortion of facts and reality that allows people to demonize 'haters of Bush' as a type of irrational thinker; it is a glorification of foolishness, positive thinking or patrotism gone awry and put to service in the denial of a national tragedy.I distrust any analysis of Bush at this time including my own. I'm angry at a lot that has transpired but then I can get mad as hell at Lincoln, FDR and JFK for many reasons and I think they were great presidents.

I don't see Bush's presidency the way you do. I don't think I'm an unreasonable person so I'm not sure how to view those who see Bush the way you do. I'm willing to simply disagree. I hope that is ok.

Tony

24th March 2007, 01:30 PM

The Hair's re-election was not a good thing. A drinking buddy of mine claims that-- get this -- Kinky Friedman was induced to run to water down Strayhorn's shot at winning as an independent. I had to ask, "OK, so is this a Jewish plot deal here?" and he replied "I think so."

*sigh*

Could Ma Strayhorn have won if Kinky had stuck to being funny? Well, if most votes to Kinky had gone to Strayhorn, she'd have had just over 31% of the vote, and IIRC, The Hair had 34% or so.

He has not impressed me at all. Yes, I voted for him in 2002. Silly ****** me.

DR

What don't you like about ole "good hair"? Are you a fan of the TTC?

Darth Rotor

24th March 2007, 01:38 PM

What don't you like about ole "good hair"? Are you a fan of the TTC?
TTC? OK, my acronyms are failing me today.

Hair's budget slash a few years back, to the tune of about 9 billion, would not have irritated me so much had not the impact on our local school districts been so marked. Ma Strayhorn's "here's the surplus" gambit (and here she was the financial controller for The Hair) seemed a strange concidence . . . once she began to run. :cool:

The Hair's recent "executive decree" on shots seemed rather brash, even if there is some good medical reasoning behind the desire to innoculate against predictable hazards.

Why wasn't this done via a more consensual process: Hey, legislature, here's why it is a good idea, let's do it, who is with me? Let's put this in place together.

Ya know, leadership. Sorry, The Hair just isn't doing it for me.

(Also, a very liberal buddy of mine who lives in Austin hates Hair's guts, and has on a number of occasions shared with me his up close views on interactions in the capital. While I take what he says with a grain of salt, I can see where his distaste comes from.)

DR

Tony

24th March 2007, 01:48 PM

TTC?

Trans Texas Corridor. One of good hair's pet projects.

Hair's budget slash a few years back, to the tune of about 9 billion, would not have irritated me so much had not the impact on our local school districts been so marked. Ma Strayhorn's "here's the surplus" gambit (and here she was the financial controller for The Hair) seemed a strange concidence . . . once she began to run. :cool:

I was unaware of that. Honestly, there are a lot of details about texas politics I don't know about.

The Hair's recent "executive decree" on shots seemed rather brash, even if there is some good medical reasoning behind the desire to innoculate against predictable hazards.

Yeah. I had a problem with that too. Although it did make me smile that he pissed off the "parent's should be able to expose their daughters to diseases to scare them from having sex" fundies.

Why wasn't this done via a more consensual process: Hey, legislature, here's why it is a good idea, let's do it, who is with me? Let's put this in place together.

3 reasons as I see it:

1. We should inoculate people against deadly viruses.

2. We should inoculate people against deadly viruses regardless of what their parents want or what the fundy opposition thinks.

3. I read somewhere (forgot where, I'm sure it can the article can be found online) about a connection to drug company lobbyists.

Darth Rotor

24th March 2007, 01:49 PM

Trans Texas Corridor. One of good hair's pet projects.
Not so keen on that one.

I read somewhere (forgot where, I'm sure it can the article can be found online) about a connection to drug company lobbyists.
Yep, Merck lobbyists, one of whom was IIRC The Hair's chief of staff.

DR

fuelair

24th March 2007, 01:57 PM

RandFan

24th March 2007, 01:58 PM

...I hate shrub coldly and rationally ...Which is to say that your emotional response is rational. I guess that is possible but emotional responses would cause me to question ones rational.

Tony

24th March 2007, 01:59 PM

Just curious fualair, what's your beef against Robespierre?

fuelair

24th March 2007, 02:02 PM

wolfgirl

24th March 2007, 02:14 PM

Irrational and vehement hatred of Mr. Bush is a bizarre phenomenon of our times. It's hipster herd mentality, a kind of wooism that even the big-brained JREFers are drawn to in credulous unison. (see poll results for data) Just goes to show that no matter how smart you are you can be made to frog-march in the direction your knee jerks.I personally take offense at the idea that all Bush-haters only hate him because it is somehow socially acceptable to do so now. I have hated him right from the start!

When he ran the first time, I remember saying things like, "I don't know what kind of trouble he's going to get us into, but we're going to be sorry if we put him in office."

I have consistently refused to call him the president from the very beginning; he's just "Bush" to me. On a good day.

I opposed the war from the very start, and I resent all of the people who have so recently climbed on the anti-war bandwagon but who still somehow found it in themselves to vote for him not once but TWICE! (I have a bumper sticker on my car that says "How You Like Him Now?") Where were you all when we needed you, when you could've made the difference and voted him out of office once we'd seen what a disaster he was? Why was somebody as simple as I am able to see the lies for what they were?

I wrote letters to the editor practically BEGGING people not to vote for him, explaining that he was determined to remake the face of the Supreme Court, which would have consequences long after he left office.

He makes my blood boil. I can feel my blood pressure rise just by seeing him on television or hearing his voice on the radio. I can't stand him. I have disliked presidents in the past, but never have I felt this strongly. Hate is definitely not too strong of a word to describe how I feel about him.

But I have felt this from before he was ever elected. So please don't tell me that I am part of some "herd mentality" or that I am drawn to some "credulous unison" or that my feelings are a "knee-jerk reaction." I hated Bush long before it was cool to do so. A fact of which I am eminently proud.

(deep breaths...in...out...in...out...)

RandFan

24th March 2007, 02:20 PM

When he ran the first time, I remember saying things like, "I don't know what kind of trouble he's going to get us into, but we're going to be sorry if we put him in office." Hi Wolfgirl,

I would be willing to respect, to some degree, that you disagreed with Bush's politics in the beginning and by the end found that his actions demonstrated to you that he was inept, foolish, dishonest or whatever.

I have to be honest though, I have a damn hard time accepting that you knew from the beginning. This sound awfully woo to me and I can only say that once you make this claim then any analysis you make would be circumspect since it could be argued to be self fulfilling, post hoc reasoning. You seem to be going out of your way to prove rik right.

This is why I have a very hard time accepting the analysis of most people. It seems very contrary to what skepticism is all about.

He makes my blood boil. I can feel my blood pressure rise just by seeing him on television or hearing his voice on the radio. I can't stand him. I have disliked presidents in the past, but never have I felt this strongly. Hate is definitely not too strong of a word to describe how I feel about him.I can only say that I hope I never become so overcome by negative emotion.

Roswell-Perseis

24th March 2007, 02:25 PM

But I have felt this from before he was ever elected. So please don't tell me that I am part of some "herd mentality" or that I am drawn to some "credulous unison" or that my feelings are a "knee-jerk reaction." I hated Bush long before it was cool to do so. A fact of which I am eminently proud.

(deep breaths...in...out...in...out...)

No, hating Bush is herd mentality. Defending Bush is not. Obviously, when something hits the main stream, it is no longer skeptical.

hgc

24th March 2007, 02:33 PM

RandFan

24th March 2007, 02:44 PM

This post represents an interesting strain, also found in high echelon punditry, wherein those who were right about Bush or about Iraq are wrong anyway, because they supposedly had no way of knowing. Just another flavor of black is white, up is down -- right is wrong.But that is not my position and I most certianly am not making any such argument.

IllegalArgument

24th March 2007, 02:46 PM

No, hating Bush is herd mentality. Defending Bush is not. Obviously, when something hits the main stream, it is no longer skeptical.

Yes, it is! No, it isn't.

Oh, no if the mainstream, what ever the means, agrees on something, it can't be skeptical!

What in the world does that mean?

fuelair

24th March 2007, 02:52 PM

Just curious fualair, what's your beef against Robespierre?

http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/robespierre.html

Just my silly predjudices against murders/terrorists whether voted in or not, whether thought of as freedom fighters or not. The above is just an intro to the slime with minor mention of some of his co-rectums. French Revolution - unlike the much more civilised A. R. -was nothing but a cycle of violence, cruelty, lies, incivility, anti-intellectualism and general evil.

This is not to say that the Royalty and Church were beacons of shining light, but................

Should add my list is much longer - I pulled R and L from a Jefferson Airplane anthem for (mostly) rectums (unfortunate since I mostly enjoy Jefferson Airplane). Left out others who either were not rectums about "freedom fighting" or are questionable (R. was, Danton there is argument about).

SezMe

24th March 2007, 03:05 PM

I would be willing to respect, to some degree, that you disagreed with Bush's politics in the beginning and by the end found that his actions demonstrated to you that he was inept, foolish, dishonest or whatever.
I won't claim NEAR the certainty that wolfgirl claims, but I do claim to have had serious doubts about his presidential qualifications from the get go. As I remember, his only real claim that I found reasonable was that he was a "uniter, not a divider" based on his performance as Texas governor. Other than that, there was not much there, there.

SezMe

24th March 2007, 03:08 PM

Obviously, when something hits the main stream, it is no longer skeptical.
No, it's not "obvious". In fact, the only thing that is obvious about that statement is that it is asinine. As an obvious example, disbelief in UFOs is mainstream yet is the skeptical position to take. Ditto all the 911 conspiracies.

RandFan

24th March 2007, 03:10 PM

I won't claim NEAR the certainty that wolfgirl claims, but I do claim to have had serious doubts about his presidential qualifications from the get go. As I remember, his only real claim that I found reasonable was that he was a "uniter, not a divider" based on his performance as Texas governor. Other than that, there was not much there, there.Yeah, I swallowed that line hook line and sinker. Tricky disabused me of that notion.

latent aaaack

24th March 2007, 03:16 PM

wolfgirl

24th March 2007, 03:23 PM

Hi Wolfgirl,

I would be willing to respect, to some degree, that you disagreed with Bush's politics in the beginning and by the end found that his actions demonstrated to you that he was inept, foolish, dishonest or whatever.

I have to be honest though, I have a damn hard time accepting that you knew from the beginning. This sound awfully woo to me and I can only say that once you make this claim then any analysis you make would be circumspect since it could be argued to be self fulfilling, post hoc reasoning. You seem to be going out of your way to prove rik right.I don't mean that I knew in any sort of "woo" way. I simply mean that I felt very strongly that he would be inept and worse, based on his past performance and simply the content of his character as best I could tell from seeing him talk and in debates and such. He just struck me as insincere at best and a liar at worst. Not to mention his religious leanings. And his "service" in the National Guard during Vietnam, while decrying Clinton as a draft-dodger. And the fact that I believed him to be someone who had gotten everything he has by virtue of his father (daddy gave him a baseball team, which he screwed up, then daddy gave him an oil company to run, which he screwed up, etc.). And...and...and...the list goes on. Bottom line, I just didn't trust him.

And that annoying smirk! (Don't you just want to slap him every time he does that? No? How can you not? Argh!)
And I don't think my analysis of what's happened is self-fulfilling prophecy, as so many people who voted for him have come to the same conclusions.

I didn't make him start a war over a lie, totally bungle its execution, appoint conservative justices to the SCOTUS, fire USAs for political reasons, find weasely ways to condone torture with the help of his loyal sidekick the AG, etc., etc., etc. All I'm doing it noticing it. I suppose I could quit listening to the news and ignore it. Then perhaps I wouldn't know what he's done and thus, not be able to hate him for it.I can only say that I hope I never become so overcome by negative emotion.I hope I never have to be again, too!

I'm embarrassed for us as a country that this idiot is our "leader." (Like when he said "Yo, Blair!" (that's how you address the leader of another country?) and then proceeded to yap at him with his open mouth full of food - an embarrassment if there ever was one.)

Once the reign of George II is over, hopefully, I can go back to my usual peaceful, quiet and reserved self. :)

thaiboxerken

24th March 2007, 03:26 PM

Suppose you were asked a hypothetical question --- would you answer it?

That's hilarious!!:D

RandFan

24th March 2007, 03:29 PM

Someone could oppose a candidate based on either his/her perception that:

-the candidate's political positions will harm the country.

-people who hold such positions are more likely to be poor leaders in less predictable ways by for example lack of intelligence, dishonesty, and emotional instability.

-the individual candidate himself has such negative qualities based on observations of his speech, his ideas, his ability to express of his ideas, his personal and occupational background, his actions, his emotional actions and temperment, the people and movements he associates with, and so on. I don't necassarily disagree but this has nothing to do with my point.

I understand why you might disagree with the application of those negative assessments and I don't know what observations wolfgirl employed to come to her conclusion but what would be 'woo' about correctly assessing a candidate based on any of those grounds?Post hoc reasoning.

Assuming that she was right, and I'm not necassarily agreeing, she happaned to be right. Woos do that all of the time. It's anecdoatal and proves nothing.

thaiboxerken

24th March 2007, 03:31 PM

I hope you realize why I didn't answer it. ;)

I got the joke.

DR

But not the point, eh?

RandFan

24th March 2007, 03:43 PM

I don't mean that I knew in any sort of "woo" way. I simply mean that I felt very strongly that he would be inept and worse, based on his past performance and simply the content of his character as best I could tell from seeing him talk and in debates and such. Fair enough. You get my point. Thanks.

He just struck me as insincere at best and a liar at worst. That annoying smirk! (Don't you just want to slap him every time he does that? No? How can you not? Argh!) No, I don't think this way at all. This is the kind of stuff I put up with for 8 years of Clinton. All of my friends and family hated him and wanted to just slap him and couldn't figure out why no one else didn't want to.

I don't see the world that way.

And I don't think my analysis of what's happened is self-fulfilling prophecy, as so many people who voted for him have come to the same conclusions. Not exactly scientific. I don't share your views. I've been critical of Bush and stated that knowing what I know now I would not vote for him. Please don't lump me in with everyone else. I have a feeling that many people feel the way I did.

I didn't make him start a war over a lie, totally bungle its execution, appoint conservative justices to the SCOTUS, fire USAs for political reasons, find weasely ways to condone torture with the help of his loyal sidekick the AG, etc., etc., etc. All I'm doing it noticing it. I suppose I could quit listening to the news and ignore it. Then perhaps I wouldn't know what he's done and thus, not be able to hate him for it.I hope I never have to be again, too!There are some very real and very important issues here. I'll just say that while I agree to some degree I don't quite see them as you do. Like I said, I'm critical of Bush but I don't come to the same conclusion. And I'm not turning a blind eye so just "noticing it" is not really a compelling argument.

I'm embarrassed for us as a country that this idiot is our "leader." (Like when he said "Yo, Blair!" (that's how you address the leader of another country?) and then proceeded to yap at him with his open mouth full of food - an embarrassment if there ever was one.) Well there are anecdotes for all presidents.

Once the reign of George II is over, hopefully, I can go back to my usual peaceful, quiet and reserved self. :)Perhaps. I sincerely wish that for you. Of course you could come to terms with your emotions. I have friends and family that are just worried sick that Hillary will become president. It dominates their discussion. I suppose that if she wins any and every misstep by her will be proof that they were right.

RandFan

latent aaaack

24th March 2007, 03:51 PM

I don't necassarily disagree but this has nothing to do with my point.

Post hoc reasoning.

Assuming that she was right, and I'm not necassarily agreeing, she happaned to be right. Woos do that all of the time. It's anecdoatal and proves nothing.

I don't necessarily agree with the first two ways of assessing a candidate but I do believe you can assess the candidate based on the third way. You seem to be saying you can't correctly guess about a candidate's character and intentions based on criteria like his speech, his temperment, prior actions, and so on.

People often portray those apparent attributes as a smokescreen hiding great subtlety and acuity behind but that seems like wishful dangerous thinking to me and the possibility should be taken into account that what you see really is what you get.

RandFan

24th March 2007, 04:01 PM

I don't necessarily agree with the first two ways of assessing a candidate but I do believe you can assess the candidate based on the third way. You seem to be saying you can't correctly guess about a candidate's character and intentions based on criteria like his speech, his temperment, prior actions, and so on. You can make a reasonable assumption about what is likely. Just don't jump and say, "I knew it, I just knew it".

People often portray those apparent attributes as a smokescreen hiding great subtlety and acuity behind but that seems like wishful dangerous thinking to me and the possibility should be taken into account that what you see really is what you get. I'm trying to parse this but I'm at a loss. Could you restate it? I'm sorry if I'm just being thick. It's not intentional I assure you.

thaiboxerken

24th March 2007, 04:02 PM

If you can't judge a person by their performance, their speech, their actions or their writings....... what's left?

RandFan

24th March 2007, 04:02 PM

If you can't judge a person by their performance, their speech, their actions or their writings....... what's left?Is someone arguing otherwise?

latent aaaack

24th March 2007, 04:13 PM

You can make a reasonable assumption about what is likely. Just don't jump and say, "I knew it, I just knew it".

I'm trying to parse this but I'm at a loss. Could you restate it? I'm sorry if I'm just being thick. It's not intentional I assure you.

Pretty much what thaiboxerken said. I'm referring to Bush's image as a blue-collar type of average guy who distrusts 'intellectual elites,' who seems worse than an average American at using language, and who often seems petty and emotionally unstable both in his past and in the debates. His supporters have often said that you can't use that image to discern his leadership ability, that behind those attributes he's a great leader but I strongly disagree.

Like the previous poster said, what's left if you can't use any of that to judge his leadership capability? So my question is what is the criteria you use to determine how great a president will be and how do you think it differs from people who politically disagree with you, like 'Bush-haters' or 'Clinton-haters'?

RandFan

24th March 2007, 04:48 PM

Pretty much what thaiboxerken said. I'm referring to Bush's image as a blue-collar type of average guy who distrusts 'intellectual elites,' who seems worse than an average American at using language, and who often seems petty and emotionally unstable both in his past and in the debates. "Seems"? He doesn't "seem" that way to me.

His supporters have often said that you can't use that image to discern his leadership ability, that behind those attributes he's a great leader but I strongly disagree. I don't accept that the image is correct. I don't know of any supporters that have accepted that image.

Like the previous poster said, what's left if you can't use any of that to judge his leadership capability? This is a red herring and has nothing to do with anything that I have said. Please feel free to use anything that you like. I would only ask that you be willing to question your assumptions and conclusions.

So my question is what is the criteria you use to determine how great a president will be and how do you think it differs from people who politically disagree with you, like 'Bush-haters' or 'Clinton-haters'? I don't see Bush as a "great" president but then I don't see him as the worst. I'll leave his legacy to the historians of the future. In the meantime How do I differ? I don't judge Bush or Clinton based on preconcived notions, emotion and ideology.

latent aaaack

24th March 2007, 05:06 PM

This is a red herring and has nothing to do with anything that I have said. Please feel free to use anything that you like. I would only ask that you be willing to question your assumptions and conclusions.

I was referring to your disbelief that someone could know that Bush would be a bad president based on the information available about him at the time. That implies you don't think the information available about him at the time was enough to be able to know if he would be a good president. I disagree that a president going dramatically sour is an occasion to accuse those who saw it coming of being lucky guessers, because there are always signs.

RandFan

24th March 2007, 05:17 PM

I was referring to your disbelief that someone could know that Bush would be a bad president based on the information available about him at the time. That implies you don't think the information available about him at the time was enough to be able to know if he would be a good president. I disagree that a president going dramatically sour is an occasion to accuse those who saw it coming of being lucky guessers, because there are always signs. This does not fairly represent my view.

Let's assume that Bush's presidency is a net negative. How bad was he? Is it possible that the degree to which one thinks the president is "bad" is based in part on preconceived notions?

I don't at all accept wolfgirls assessment. So what am I to make of her judgment?

For the record, I don't see the president as having "gone sour". So if you think he has and you didn't like him to begin with then what is the likelihood that the judgments of one or both of us are clouded by our preconceived notions?

SezMe

24th March 2007, 06:02 PM

Hang in there, RandFan. :)

cgallaga

24th March 2007, 06:18 PM

I "not if nearsighted terrorist wombats were poised with rusty sporks to carve me open and devour my spleen after dousing it with habenero sauce if I refused to vote for Bush."

Real wombats would use a Splayd (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splade)

cgallaga

24th March 2007, 06:20 PM

Nice reply. I'd nominate it but I'd hate to see the TLA thread spontaneously combust due to the infusion of such a critical mass of straw and superheated air.

I think he may have put the true Scotsman in there just to keep the fire under control. ;)

latent aaaack

24th March 2007, 06:40 PM

cgallaga

24th March 2007, 06:44 PM

A view of Bush Hating from an American living abroad.

In his first term run, there were a lot of people on the left pretty upset with GWB for how he ran his campaign and what happened in Florida.

I think after 9/11 nearly everyone in the US loved bush. To an outsider having lived overseas since 94 and not being steeped in the intensity of the emotions and such (I flew back to HK on 9/11 and got home just in time to see it all unfold on CNN) I was amazed at the upsurge of irrational support first for Afghanistan (Even Al Franken was supportive) and then Iraq. Dissent was not allowed. Even now when I come for home leave the xenophobia of many in the states is still apparent. I think the terror did win something that day.

But by his second term election after being mired in Iraq and many of the lies being outed, there was a pretty strong Bush hatred shown in the media reports of that election. Of course by the time Iraq was forced the international man-on-the-street opinion was pretty anti Bush (policy anyway).

I can't believe he was elected again, really.

I don't hate him, don't know him really. But I think his politics is about as corrupt as it gets. And that is a bad thing.

I voted for Bush the first time because I think Al Gore is no good, and I understood his politics and was opposed. I thought GWB was a bit simple and wouldn't make too much of a mess. I woefully underestimated the ability of his team. I voted for Badnarik last time round because I thought the whole field is a mess. Time to start using my vote to show support for a multiple party choice.

Maybe in another couple dozen election cycles America will have a true multi-party field of choice rather than the fake choice of the two party system as it is now.

RandFan

24th March 2007, 06:44 PM

That would be a different conversation about what wolfgirl observed in Bush's behavior and whether that behavior really is predictive of bad judgement in a leader.I don't know about that but I do know that wolfgirl and I resolve the issue between us sometime ago. In any event I will agree with you just to bring the discussion to a close. :)

But what I do agree with you on is that the world is going to change so much in the next fifty years that we can't know what's really going on yet or under what cup the real issue is.Yes, I agree. For the record it's not looking like its going to be glowing for Bush and he has himself to blame for much of that.

Darth Rotor

24th March 2007, 07:21 PM

But not the point, eh?
From you, that's risible.

DR

Kopji

24th March 2007, 07:45 PM

I distrust any analysis of Bush at this time including my own. I'm angry at a lot that has transpired but then I can get mad as hell at Lincoln, FDR and JFK for many reasons and I think they were great presidents.

I don't see Bush's presidency the way you do. I don't think I'm an unreasonable person so I'm not sure how to view those who see Bush the way you do. I'm willing to simply disagree. I hope that is ok.

Sure, and I can be wrong.

I think that Bush inspires intense dislike because love or hate him, his policies (or lack of policies) will influence decades after he is gone.

I did not vote for Bush, but I was ok with what the Supreme Court did at the time. The action seemed a way to move forward, and frankly, Gore did not fight hard enough. Bush ran on a fairly moderate platform.

I think that history will judge him harshly because what was needed was an intelligent and crafty statesman like Churchill (ironic that Bush recently compared himself to Churchill) and we got something, well, much less. To my thinking Bush is just the wrong guy at the wrong time.

thaiboxerken

24th March 2007, 07:56 PM

Uh oh, you better call up the "pray the gay away" people to help cure you of your sinful thoughts, Darth.

President Bush

24th March 2007, 08:15 PM

Suppose you were asked a hypothetical question --- would you answer it?
Can I ask a rhetorical question, too? Well, can I?

Lonewulf

24th March 2007, 08:20 PM

President Bush, are you sure that you can vote in this thread while avoiding a conflict of interest, sir?

Tricky

24th March 2007, 08:24 PM

Real wombats would use a Splayd (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splade)
Wonderful things, splayds. I actually own a set. So if the wombats were using splayds rather than sporks, I would be even less likely to vote for Bush, innit?

Darth Rotor

24th March 2007, 08:26 PM

Uh oh, you better call up the "pray the gay away" people to help cure you of your sinful thoughts, Darth.
What is your problem, KenWithNoBrain?

DR

thaiboxerken

24th March 2007, 08:34 PM

What is your problem, KenWithNoBrain?

DR

I have no problem with you thinking of my "rising point" but, as a christian, I figured you might.

President Bush

24th March 2007, 09:06 PM

President Bush, are you sure that you can vote in this thread while avoiding a conflict of interest, sir?
Call me Ishmael.

RandFan

24th March 2007, 09:09 PM

Call me Ishmael.Hunting whale?

President Bush

24th March 2007, 09:18 PM

Hunting whale?
Ishmael: wicked, though repentant. What do you think?

RandFan

24th March 2007, 09:20 PM

Ishmael: wicked, though repentant. What do you think?Sure, though I personally would prefer Good Will Hunting to Hunting Whale.

ConspiRaider

24th March 2007, 09:23 PM

I personally take offense at the idea that all Bush-haters only hate him because it is somehow socially acceptable to do so now. I have hated him right from the start!

When he ran the first time, I remember saying things like, "I don't know what kind of trouble he's going to get us into, but we're going to be sorry if we put him in office."

I have consistently refused to call him the president from the very beginning; he's just "Bush" to me. On a good day.

I opposed the war from the very start, and I resent all of the people who have so recently climbed on the anti-war bandwagon but who still somehow found it in themselves to vote for him not once but TWICE! (I have a bumper sticker on my car that says "How You Like Him Now?") Where were you all when we needed you, when you could've made the difference and voted him out of office once we'd seen what a disaster he was? Why was somebody as simple as I am able to see the lies for what they were?

I wrote letters to the editor practically BEGGING people not to vote for him, explaining that he was determined to remake the face of the Supreme Court, which would have consequences long after he left office.

He makes my blood boil. I can feel my blood pressure rise just by seeing him on television or hearing his voice on the radio. I can't stand him. I have disliked presidents in the past, but never have I felt this strongly. Hate is definitely not too strong of a word to describe how I feel about him.

But I have felt this from before he was ever elected. So please don't tell me that I am part of some "herd mentality" or that I am drawn to some "credulous unison" or that my feelings are a "knee-jerk reaction." I hated Bush long before it was cool to do so. A fact of which I am eminently proud.

(deep breaths...in...out...in...out...)
Basically mirrors where I'm at. Wow. I knew there was somebody out there. :)

You must be good at reading people. I'm good at that. I can't throw a 92 MPH cut fastball and you wouldn't ever want any advice from me on real estate, or investments, or the stock market - but I can read people rather well, and quickly.

Stupid-Boy is running in 1999. I'm watching him. Didn't take long to read him, basically, back to front. I'm visiting my immediate family in Ohio, 5 of whom I know will vote for Stupid-Boy, and tell them:

"Mom, brother and sisters: Don't vote for this guy - please?"

"Why, Dave? He seems fine."

"Because he's a dangerous man. I don't trust him. He's dangerous."

"What do you mean? Specifically?"

"I don't have anything specific. I'm just reading him. And what I read is that he's a dangerous man. That's all I've got at this point."

You must have seen the same things I did, WG. Same as you, I never called him President. Never watched him speak, couldn't stand the sight of him.

I happened to be on the set of West Wing on election night, 2000, as a background actor (Secret Service agent). Between shots, we'd all pile into the TV room to get the latest on the returns. As the Florida drama was unfolding - it was quiet as a tomb in there. Most people looking at the floor (including Martin Sheen). Occasionally people would make eye contact and the expressions were all the same. Kind of an angry fear - that this thing could actually happen. That this Stupid-Boy could actually be the president for the next 4 years.

2004? I hardly spoke to anyone for almost 2 months after the election, and for me - that's quite out of character. The holidays were glum. If 2000 was shocked anger - this was simply intolerable. That's when the thought that had never occurred in my 47 years as an American floated into my head for the first time: If I had to leave America for good - where would I go? What country?

It's why the elation of the November Blue Miracle of 2006 was so sweet. Just when you thought America had really lost it - we pull this off. WOW! I have to assume, WG, that you were among the 16 or 17 percent of voter-eligible Americans who pulled the Blue lever in November. Thanks!

President Bush

24th March 2007, 09:25 PM

Sure, though I personally would prefer Good Will Hunting to Hunting Whale.

Foster family/orphan themes...

Dr Adequate

24th March 2007, 09:49 PM

The Hair's re-election was not a good thing. A drinking buddy of mine claims that-- get this -- Kinky Friedman was induced to run to water down Strayhorn's shot at winning as an independent. I had to ask, "OK, so is this a Jewish plot deal here?" and he replied "I think so."

*sigh*

Could Ma Strayhorn have won if Kinky had stuck to being funny? Well, if most votes to Kinky had gone to Strayhorn, she'd have had just over 31% of the vote, and IIRC, The Hair had 34% or so.

He has not impressed me at all. Yes, I voted for him in 2002. Silly ****** me.

DR I know you've objected to me posting about American politics, but this, sir, is ridiculous.

Roswell-Perseis

24th March 2007, 11:39 PM

Yes, it is! No, it isn't.

Oh, no if the mainstream, what ever the means, agrees on something, it can't be skeptical!

What in the world does that mean?

It means that I see three types of people:

1. Those who hate bush because they believe he has been wrong on almost every important issue Americans face today.

2. Those who will defend Bush until the end- because he is a republican? because they love him? Are there any major policy decisions that has helped this country that Bush can claim credit for?

3. People who discuss issues and try to stay neutral.

I wish I were the third, but until I see some positive spec of the Bush II presidency, I'm a one. Some people are a two, and whatever. It is the people that are a two but say they are a three that I criticize. I should criticize those that are ones and say they are threes, I grant you. I do respect the people who admit to being a two- though I don't respect their position. At least they are honest.

Perhaps the next president will be less incompetent, and the policies could get more attention. Maybe that will be the last shred of idealism I lose.

RandFan

24th March 2007, 11:48 PM

1. Those who hate bush because they believe he has been wrong on almost every important issue Americans face today.

2. Those who will defend Bush until the end- because he is a republican? because they love him? Are there any major policy decisions that has helped this country that Bush can claim credit for?

3. People who discuss issues and try to stay neutral.

I wish I were the third, but until I see some positive spec of the Bush II presidency, I'm a one. I don't meet any of those criteria.

fishbob

25th March 2007, 12:41 AM

Darth Rotor

25th March 2007, 05:41 AM

I know you've objected to me posting about American politics, but this, sir, is ridiculous.

Dr A, Texas politics is very much an acquired taste. :D

DR

Darth Rotor

25th March 2007, 05:42 AM

He had a public record for his term as goober of Tx and in the baseball and oil businesses. No woo required, just a bit of research.

He had a certain talent as gov for working bipartisan consensus, but that was made somewhat easier for him by the fact that the economy was in decent shape when he was the Gov. Had the economy been less buoyant, I am not sure how he would have handled it.

DR

RandFan

25th March 2007, 05:51 AM

He had a public record for his term as goober of Tx and in the baseball and oil businesses. No woo required, just a bit of research.Which would tell you what exactly? Assuming all that is implicit in your post many successful people fail spectacularly before becoming successful. Some people fail at many endeavors before becoming great surceases. At best it would tell us that something is to some degree likely. I stand by my position.

President Bush

25th March 2007, 06:07 AM

... many successful people fail spectacularly before becoming successful.
Learning curves are for people spending their own money.

RandFan

25th March 2007, 06:15 AM

Learning curves are for people spending their own money.But that's not the point. We are talking about whether the results of electing Bush were known. The answer is no. Otherwise we would know that any failed business person would always fail in the future. History demonstrates that this is clearly wrong.

President Bush

25th March 2007, 06:37 AM

... we would know that any failed business person would always fail in the future.
Yes, it depends on the specific instance you base your reasoning upon.

RandFan

25th March 2007, 06:46 AM

Yes, it depends on the specific instance you base your reasoning upon.So you say. What is your basis for this?

billydkid

25th March 2007, 06:48 AM

But that's not the point. We are talking about whether the results of electing Bush were known. The answer is no. Otherwise we would know that any failed business person would always fail in the future. History demonstrates that this is clearly wrong.There were many, many people who greatly feared Bush would be the God-awful President he in fact turned out to be. That they couldn't have known all the particulars of his failings is relevant to nothing. Many, many people suspected the kind of person Bush is - they had seen clips of him from his days as Governor and other parts of his public life. I'm sure you remember him mocking the death row inmate. I don't know, but I'd say that's pretty telling in a public official who holds the power of life and death over others. (I'm not an apologist for the inmate. I have no real knowledge of the case. She may well have deserved to die.)

Also, everyone knew he was a person who's failures in business and life in general would have doomed any person who had not been born into great privilege - people without a wealthy, powerful family and with countless wealthy and powerful connections. And certainly anyone with any sense of character could tell he was person who felt fully comfortable with his privilege and had little understanding or appreciation for the concept of struggling. He is a person who was born into a position where he could not lose no matter what he does and yet views himself as a winner. What's the expression? - He was born on third base and thinks he hit a triple. I think Dubya's character, lack of empathy and sense of entitlement was obvious from the beginning to anyone who was paying attention. Not to mention his complete lack of interest in or understanding of international relations.

RandFan

25th March 2007, 06:57 AM

There were many, many people who greatly feared Bush would be the God-awful President he in fact turned out to be. That they couldn't have known all the particulars of his failings is relevant to nothing. Many, many people suspected the kind of person Bush is - they had seen clips of him from his days as Governor and other parts of his public life. I'm sure you remember him mocking the death row inmate. I don't know, but I'd say that's pretty telling in a public official who holds the power of life and death over others. (I'm not an apologist for the inmate. I have no real knowledge of the case. She may well have deserved to die.)

Also, everyone knew he was a person who's failures in business and life in general would have doomed any person who had not been born into great privilege - people without a wealthy, powerful family and with countless wealthy and powerful connections. And certainly anyone with any sense of character could tell he was person who felt fully comfortable with his privilege and had little understanding or appreciation for the concept of struggling. He is a person who was born into a position where he could not lose no matter what he does and yet views himself as a winner. What's the expression? - He was born on third base and thinks he hit a triple. I think Dubya's character, lack of empathy and sense of entitlement was obvious from the beginning to anyone who was paying attention. Not to mention his complete lack of interest in or understanding of international relations. Every president is predicted to be a loser by someone. Lots of people predicted that Bill Clinton would bring ruin on the country.

You are rationalize post hoc. This is why politics and logic don't fly. One can always find reasons why the prediction that was right should have been right.

I don't buy it Billy. Of course I don't buy all of the conclusions about Bush either but that is not my main point.

Further, I think your analysis mostly popsycholgy. Which is fine, while this is a skeptics forum I have to remember that this is politics which doesn't really adhere to the general tenants of critical thinking.

billydkid

25th March 2007, 07:11 AM

You are rationalize post hoc. This is why politics and logic don't fly. One can always find reasons why the prediction that was right should have been right.

Look, anything anyone says now is going to be "post hoc". You have a convenient out no matter what anyone says. You do the same thing when people talk about how they opposed the Iraq invasion before it happened. I'm sorry, I think there is at least an element of dishonesty in it. Nothing I described was not known or felt about Bush by many people before he was elected. I don't remember everything, but what I describe are among the many things that formed my original opinion about Bush. The fact that he went on to confirm the opinions many of us had about him, somehow that confirms your contention that we couldn't have known what kind of President he would have been before he was elected.

Tricky

25th March 2007, 07:11 AM

There were many, many people who greatly feared Bush would be the God-awful President he in fact turned out to be. That they couldn't have known all the particulars of his failings is relevant to nothing. Many, many people suspected the kind of person Bush is - they had seen clips of him from his days as Governor and other parts of his public life.
As a person who lived under the Governorship of Bush, I can honestly say I was unprepared for what an awful president he would be. Sure, I opposed him in the election and was more than a little upset that he won and about the way he won, but I told myself, "He's not smart enough to do much damage." I was right about the smart part, but wrong about the damage part.

The thing is, the Texas Governor has almost no power. The Lieutenant Governor has more power, and Bush served under one of the smartest Texas politicians ever to hold that post, Bob Bullock. Not that nice, but very smart and very willing to cross the aisle to get things done. I should have known better about what he would do when he (and more importantly, his cronies) got real power. One of his last actions as Governor was to veto a Patients' Bill of Rights, a populist bit of legislation that gave the patients a little more power against a health industry that had contributed heavily to his campaigns. The Lege (as Molly Ivins called it) passed it anyway over his veto. In his first presidential campaign, Bush crowed to an ignorant nation about how he had passed a Patients' Bill of Rights in Texas. Red flags should have gone up right there. The man has almost no morals.

Still, I had no idea how bad it could be. And it wouldn't have been so bad except for 9-11. Before that, Bush was already dropping steadily in the polls and was almost certain to be a one-term president. Did the terrorists know how badly they were hurting the US by handing Bush this bulletproof armor? Did they know that Bush would squander every single bit of political capital gained from 9-11 in a disastrous invasion of Iraq?Did they know how much he would help their recruiting? I'd like to think they're not that clever, but you have to wonder.

The good news is that as bad as he is, the US will recover quickly once he is gone. Our allies know that he is an aberration and they will be willing to give our new leader a chance to rebuild those bridges. Sure, there will be some hard feelings, but time heals, so they say. So I hope.

RandFan

25th March 2007, 09:54 AM

RandFan

25th March 2007, 09:56 AM

As a person who lived under the Governorship of Bush, I can honestly say I was unprepared for what an awful president he would be. Sure, I opposed him in the election and was more than a little upset that he won and about the way he won, but I told myself, "He's not smart enough to do much damage." I was right about the smart part, but wrong about the damage part.

The thing is, the Texas Governor has almost no power. The Lieutenant Governor has more power, and Bush served under one of the smartest Texas politicians ever to hold that post, Bob Bullock. Not that nice, but very smart and very willing to cross the aisle to get things done. I should have known better about what he would do when he (and more importantly, his cronies) got real power. One of his last actions as Governor was to veto a Patients' Bill of Rights, a populist bit of legislation that gave the patients a little more power against a health industry that had contributed heavily to his campaigns. The Lege (as Molly Ivins called it) passed it anyway over his veto. In his first presidential campaign, Bush crowed to an ignorant nation about how he had passed a Patients' Bill of Rights in Texas. Red flags should have gone up right there. The man has almost no morals.

Still, I had no idea how bad it could be. And it wouldn't have been so bad except for 9-11. Before that, Bush was already dropping steadily in the polls and was almost certain to be a one-term president. Did the terrorists know how badly they were hurting the US by handing Bush this bulletproof armor? Did they know that Bush would squander every single bit of political capital gained from 9-11 in a disastrous invasion of Iraq?Did they know how much he would help their recruiting? I'd like to think they're not that clever, but you have to wonder.

The good news is that as bad as he is, the US will recover quickly once he is gone. Our allies know that he is an aberration and they will be willing to give our new leader a chance to rebuild those bridges. Sure, there will be some hard feelings, but time heals, so they say. So I hope.The politics forum. Where reality is what we say it is.

ETA: Tricky, you are entitled to any opinion and I'm sure that many if not most here would agree with you. But you are not making an argument. You are engaging in rhetoric. That's fine of course but let's understand that is what it is.

slingblade

25th March 2007, 10:52 AM

I remember all the hoo-ha when he showed himself totally clueless about who led other countries. Or how to pronounce their names. Even with help.

I had an inkling things weren't going to be great.

Tricky

25th March 2007, 11:24 AM

The politics forum. Where reality is what we say it is.

ETA: Tricky, you are entitled to any opinion and I'm sure that many if not most here would agree with you. But you are not making an argument. You are engaging in rhetoric. That's fine of course but let's understand that is what it is.
Perhaps it may be called rhetoric. I was telling a little of my experience with government under Bush. I don't think that is inconsequential to the question posed in the thread topic. Admittedly, it is biased by my politics, but if I am biased, at least I recognize it. I have never liked the politician, though I might like the man well enough under certain circumstances. I simply never thought that he could do as much damage as he has. I admit, I misunderestimated him.

davefoc

25th March 2007, 11:27 AM

ETA: Tricky, you are entitled to any opinion and I'm sure that many if not most here would agree with you. But you are not making an argument. You are engaging in rhetoric. That's fine of course but let's understand that is what it is.

Yes, Tricky is engaging in rhetoric as I suspect he would acknowledge. I think, and I think Randfan agrees (if I understand his post) that rhetoric is a reasonable way for a person to summarize their thinking without writing something much longer that provides evidence and argument for each of his summarized points.

But even if what Tricky wrote is rhetoric I thought there was something to it. There were troubling issues with Bush that existed before his election that might have been seen as warning signs.

1. Bush was clearly one of the least articulate individuals to ever become president.
2. Bush's earlier bouts with alcoholism
3. The questionable election tactics with regard to McCain.
4. The questionable national guard service record.
5. Some questionable business dealings.
6. Making fun of the woman about to executed
7. The unusual evocation of religion into some of his answers

For me, I was somewhat aware of all these issues in 2000, but I still voted for him. With hindsight these issues seem to foreshadow some of the issues that would underlie the failed Bush presidency. But I am not sure they add up to enough to mean that a vote for Bush wasn't right given my overall view of the world.

The two things that I wasn't aware of at the time but that were knowable was the existence of PNAC and how neocon ideas had become part of the Republican mainstream and the significant role that the religious right played in the selection of Bush and the election of Republicans in general. If I had a better understanding of both of those issues in 2000 I would not have voted for Bush.

I sympathize quite a bit with the people that thought this guy was a bozo in 2000 based on a combination of gut feel and evidence. I think, most of the time that is all we have to base our decisions on and using that kind of approach is not irrational. I think Randfan's point is not that using that kind of approach as a basis for decision making is irrational, it is just that after the fact deciding that thinking which has a good component of gut feel in it was so logically consistent that people that did the opposite were being logically inconsistent. I agree with RandFan there.

I would like to digress into a little personal story here that is mostly unrelated to this thread so please skip it if you feel like it.

I was an engineer for thirty years. When I was 52 I quit to run some rental property that we own. When I took over the day to day management I thought that I knew what I was doing. I had owned rental property for almost thirty years and had some involvement in the running of it for most of that time. But my wife and another individual had done the detailed management of the property for the last ten years or so.

Many of the early decisions that I made about which tenants to rent to were disastrous. My gut feel was that they would be problematic but my engineering and skeptical mindset suggested that I didn't have enough evidence to know that and that it was more important to be logical than to use an illogical approach that involved gut feel.

This didn't work out well. What I learned there was that I needed to make decisions based on evidence and unknowable unknowns and that it wasn't a bad idea to let my gut feel play a more significant role in the decision process. So the earlier posts that outlined some similar thinking about Bush resonated quite a bit with me.

That's the end of my little personal note here. I now return control of this thread back to relevant posting.

RandFan

25th March 2007, 11:43 AM

But even if what Tricky wrote is rhetoric I thought there was something to it. There were troubling issues with Bush that existed before his election that might have been seen as warning signs. I've not at all argued against this point of view. Of course many would argue that Bill Clinton had a number of "warning signs". The whitewater deal and his obvious kowtowing to Tyson to name but two.

It's easy to fit past events to our preconceived notions. That is what Randi rails on week in and week out. Don't get me wrong, I have no doubt that Randi would add his voice to the many here as to his displeasure of Bush. In fact he has voiced his displeasure of Bush.

It is human nature to pick the hits and discount the misses. To say that this outcome proves you right (assuming the outcome is what you believe it is) is to reason post hoc. That is a logical fact that you simply can't escape. Getting mad at me and calling me dishonest won't alter that reality. I know how much you all want to believe that you are experts at figuring out the future, however we are, or should be, skeptics. We should be skeptical of that kind of reasoning.

The point is, we should be willing to question our held assumptions, assuming we are skeptics and critical thinkers of course. It's easy to play Sylvia Browne and say "I told ya so" but do we really "know" or did we simply have a reasonable basis as to what was likely?

I think the later and not the former, without of course agreeing with many of the conclusions about Bush. In fairness to me please note that I have said that I would not vote for Bush knowing what I know now. I have conceded many errors on his part and have been more than willing to be critical of him.

davefoc

25th March 2007, 11:51 AM

Just to make it clear RandFan, I think I understood your point and I agree with it.

RandFan

25th March 2007, 11:54 AM

Just to make it clear RandFan, I think I understood your point and I agree with it.Thanks. I appreciate that. :)

Roswell-Perseis

25th March 2007, 12:19 PM

Every president is predicted to be a loser by someone. Lots of people predicted that Bill Clinton would bring ruin on the country.

You are rationalize post hoc. This is why politics and logic don't fly. One can always find reasons why the prediction that was right should have been right.

I don't buy it Billy. Of course I don't buy all of the conclusions about Bush either but that is not my main point.

Further, I think your analysis mostly popsycholgy. Which is fine, while this is a skeptics forum I have to remember that this is politics which doesn't really adhere to the general tenants of critical thinking.

So talk about what he did right. Talk about the policies that helped this country or about any successes he earned in the past. You are not discussing an issue, you are discussing your feelings. That is what I did. Judging my opinion is your right. Judging me for doing what you do (but with a different opinion) is hypocritical.

RandFan

25th March 2007, 12:32 PM

So talk about what he did right. Talk about the policies that helped this country or about any successes he earned in the past. You are not discussing an issue, you are discussing your feelings. That is what I did. Judging my opinion is your right. Judging me for doing what you do (but with a different opinion) is hypocritical.No, I'm not discussing my feelings. They are entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I have one point and one point only. Anyone declaring that they "knew" that this was going to be the outcome is intellectually naive or intellectually dishonest. Such a position is not a skeptical one. However, anyone declaring that they believed that this outcome was likely given what they knew then is perfectly fine. It's arguable as to how likely but I can live with such a statement.

That's it. I'm not here to try and convince anyone of my beliefs of Bush's presidency that are contrary to conventional wisdom. I'm just not that much of a masochist. I share the sentiment of many that Bush has erred in many aspects and I'm not against many of the criticisms so I hardly see the point in sharing what I think are positives of the Bush presidency. To what end?

Tony

25th March 2007, 01:01 PM

SezMe

25th March 2007, 01:02 PM

Getting mad at me and calling me dishonest won't alter that reality.
Deep breath here, RandFan. I don't think anyone is getting mad at you or asserting you are dishonest. You have made some good points, others have in rebuttal. Don't let the disagreement get under your skin.

To contribute some substance, I would emphasize a point Tricky touched on. In some ways, the greatest damage of 911 was the economic, foreign relations and human rights (both domestic and international) policies that the Bush Administration has been able to enact that would have been unthinkable otherwise. To take just one example, who would have ever thought that an Attorney General of the USA would opine that the Geneva Conventions were "quaint" and would write an opinion justifying torture. Worse, who would have thought the VP would make a joke about that torture?

Absent 911 and the response by Bush these things would not have come to pass and I think Tricky is right that it would have been another one-term Bush presidency. Where I depart from Tricky is how easy it will be to reverse the effect of these policies. Much depends, of course, on the outcome of the 2008 campaign. But even under the best of circumstances, some effects of his Administration, most notably his environmental record, are irreversible or will take decades to recover.

RandFan

25th March 2007, 01:16 PM

What about Tricky's post was in error?I don't know. Please point out any statements of objective fact and I will tell you if I think they are in error or not?

Tony

25th March 2007, 01:22 PM

I don't know. Please point out any statements of objective fact and I will tell you if I think they are in error or not?

There are a few, I'll point them out.

As a person who lived under the Governorship of Bush, I can honestly say I was unprepared for what an awful president he would be. Sure, I opposed him in the election and was more than a little upset that he won and about the way he won, but I told myself, "He's not smart enough to do much damage." I was right about the smart part, but wrong about the damage part.

The thing is, the Texas Governor has almost no power. The Lieutenant Governor has more power, and Bush served under one of the smartest Texas politicians ever to hold that post, Bob Bullock. Not that nice, but very smart and very willing to cross the aisle to get things done. I should have known better about what he would do when he (and more importantly, his cronies) got real power. One of his last actions as Governor was to veto a Patients' Bill of Rights, a populist bit of legislation that gave the patients a little more power against a health industry that had contributed heavily to his campaigns. The Lege (as Molly Ivins called it) passed it anyway over his veto. In his first presidential campaign, Bush crowed to an ignorant nation about how he had passed a Patients' Bill of Rights in Texas. Red flags should have gone up right there. The man has almost no morals.

Still, I had no idea how bad it could be. And it wouldn't have been so bad except for 9-11. Before that, Bush was already dropping steadily in the polls and was almost certain to be a one-term president. [The following are rhetorical questions based on objective fact Did the terrorists know how badly they were hurting the US by handing Bush this bulletproof armor? Did they know that Bush would squander every single bit of political capital gained from 9-11 in a disastrous invasion of Iraq? Did they know how much he would help their recruiting? I'd like to think they're not that clever, but you have to wonder.

The good news is that as bad as he is, the US will recover quickly once he is gone. Our allies know that he is an aberration and they will be willing to give our new leader a chance to rebuild those bridges. Sure, there will be some hard feelings, but time heals, so they say. So I hope.

RandFan

25th March 2007, 01:22 PM

Deep breath here, RandFan. I don't think anyone is getting mad at you or asserting you are dishonest. Thanks Sez.

The point about dishonesty was in regards to something billydkid said.

I'm sorry, I think there is at least an element of dishonesty in it. For what it is worth, I really like billy and enjoy reading his posts. I don't take anything personal and have no hard feelings even though I might get my emotions up. I really appreciate that though.

You have made some good points, others have in rebuttal. Don't let the disagreement get under your skin. Fair enough.

To contribute some substance, I would emphasize a point Tricky touched on. In some ways, the greatest damage of 911 was the economic, foreign relations and human rights (both domestic and international) policies that the Bush Administration has been able to enact that would have been unthinkable otherwise. To take just one example, who would have ever thought that an Attorney General of the USA would opine that the Geneva Conventions were "quaint" and would write an opinion justifying torture. Worse, who would have thought the VP would make a joke about that torture? Valid points. And to be sure there no posters that I have more respect for than Tricky. Though I think his view is colored a bit by his emotion. That's fine, he's human and lord knows I'm capable of letting emotion color my opinion. I think that can be a good thing. I wouldn't begin to begrudge anyone of their emotions. It is what gives us our humanity. I only ask that we be willing to question our beliefs. Be skeptical.
Absent 911 and the response by Bush these things would not have come to pass and I think Tricky is right that it would have been another one-term Bush presidency. Where I depart from Tricky is how easy it will be to reverse the effect of these policies. Much depends, of course, on the outcome of the 2008 campaign. But even under the best of circumstances, some effects of his Administration, most notably his environmental record, are irreversible or will take decades to recover.[/quote]

RandFan

25th March 2007, 01:34 PM

There are a few, I'll point them out.Thanks.

The thing is, the Texas Governor has almost no power. The Lieutenant Governor has more power... Please to explain how this is a statement of objective fact?
One of his last actions as Governor was to veto a Patients' Bill of Rights, a populist bit of legislation that gave the patients a little more power against a health industry that had contributed heavily to his campaigns. The Lege (as Molly Ivins called it) passed it anyway over his veto. In his first presidential campaign, Bush crowed to an ignorant nation about how he had passed a Patients' Bill of Rights in Texas. I would need more information about the particulars and what motivated Bush to do what he did. In any event it most certainly was not unprecedented. Clinton had many such lapses. He most certainly caved to Tyson which should have been a red flag for his charachter. But that's fine. This could be a statement of objective fact. That is 1.

The man has almost no morals. Please to explain how this is an objective statement of fact?

Did the terrorists know how badly they were hurting the US by handing Bush this bulletproof armor?Let me make sure I understand, you are saying that a question is an objective statement of fact? Really? You stand by that?

Did they know that Bush would squander every single bit of political capital gained from 9-11 in a disastrous invasion of Iraq? Did they know how much he would help their recruiting? Tony, I'm reasonably certian that Tricky would not himself declare that a question is an objective statement of fact.

I'd like to think they're not that clever, but you have to wonder. "you have to wonder"? Tony, wonder and statement of objective fact don't go together.

The good news is that as bad as he is, the US will recover quickly once he is gone. Why do you think this is a statement of objective fact?

Our allies know that he is an aberration and they will be willing to give our new leader a chance to rebuild those bridges. Sure, there will be some hard feelings, but time heals, so they say. So I hope. "So I hope" is not indicitive that the person making the statement believes that the statement is an objective fact.

So I'm curious. One potential statement of fact. What exactly was that all about?

Tony

25th March 2007, 01:52 PM

Please to explain how this is a statement of objective fact?

I don't get what you mean. It's an objective fact, it's how the Texas Constitution is set up. Most of the executive power rests with the Lt. Governor. What evidence do you have to the contrary?

I would need more information about the particulars and what motivated Bush to do what he did.

Why? How is this relevant to whether that was an objective fact?

In any event it most certainly was not unprecedented. Clinton had many such lapses.

So? How is this relevant to whether that was an objective fact?

Please to explain how this is an objective statement of fact?

It's not. I made a mistake.

Let me make sure I understand, you are saying that a question is an objective statement of fact?

Nope. Read what I wrote dude:

The following are rhetorical questions based on objective fact

"you have to wonder"? Tony, wonder and statement of objective fact don't go together.

I didn't highlight that part.

Why do you think this is a statement of objective fact?

On second thought, it isn't. But I know the US will recover once Bush is history.

"So I hope" is not indicitive that the person making the statement believes that the statement is an objective fact.

I didn't highlight that part.

RandFan

25th March 2007, 02:13 PM

Tony,

Trickys post is largely his subjective feelings. I count 1 or 2 "facts" and I'm confused as to what you think is or is not a fact. I hardly see the point of arguing over the minutae of what is and is not a fact in his post especially when what is questionable are not the few "facts" but the conclusions which you yourself seem to agree are not facts.

wolfgirl

25th March 2007, 02:34 PM

I have friends and family that are just worried sick that Hillary will become president. It dominates their discussion. I suppose that if she wins any and every misstep by her will be proof that they were right.Well, it seems to me that they would be right. If they have truly compelling arguments for believing that she will be a bad president, and then she is a bad president in the ways that they are saying she will be, they will have been right, no? Not in any sort of psychic or magical way, but just by virtue of having seen the correct warning signs.

wolfgirl

25th March 2007, 02:45 PM

Basically mirrors where I'm at. Wow. I knew there was somebody out there. :)

You must be good at reading people. I'm good at that. I can't throw a 92 MPH cut fastball and you wouldn't ever want any advice from me on real estate, or investments, or the stock market - but I can read people rather well, and quickly.

Stupid-Boy is running in 1999. I'm watching him. Didn't take long to read him, basically, back to front. I'm visiting my immediate family in Ohio, 5 of whom I know will vote for Stupid-Boy, and tell them:

"Mom, brother and sisters: Don't vote for this guy - please?"

"Why, Dave? He seems fine."

"Because he's a dangerous man. I don't trust him. He's dangerous."

"What do you mean? Specifically?"

"I don't have anything specific. I'm just reading him. And what I read is that he's a dangerous man. That's all I've got at this point."

You must have seen the same things I did, WG. Same as you, I never called him President. Never watched him speak, couldn't stand the sight of him.

I happened to be on the set of West Wing on election night, 2000, as a background actor (Secret Service agent). Between shots, we'd all pile into the TV room to get the latest on the returns. As the Florida drama was unfolding - it was quiet as a tomb in there. Most people looking at the floor (including Martin Sheen). Occasionally people would make eye contact and the expressions were all the same. Kind of an angry fear - that this thing could actually happen. That this Stupid-Boy could actually be the president for the next 4 years.

2004? I hardly spoke to anyone for almost 2 months after the election, and for me - that's quite out of character. The holidays were glum. If 2000 was shocked anger - this was simply intolerable. That's when the thought that had never occurred in my 47 years as an American floated into my head for the first time: If I had to leave America for good - where would I go? What country?We felt exactly the same way. I remember walking around in a daze for some time after the 2004 election. Going to work the next day and commiserating with other like-minded people at work, but doing so in hushed tones as though we were afraid somehow of being branded the enemy. It was unreal, since it just seemed so certain that he couldn't win again...not again...not after everything that had happened. It's why the elation of the November Blue Miracle of 2006 was so sweet. Just when you thought America had really lost it - we pull this off. WOW! I have to assume, WG, that you were among the 16 or 17 percent of voter-eligible Americans who pulled the Blue lever in November. Thanks!Yes! I told people at the time that it was the first election in eight years where I hadn't woken up the next morning feeling like I'd been punched in the gut!

And yes, I most certainly was one of the blue-lever people, in a red state, no less. Just trying to do my part! So you're welcome, and thank you for the same, ConspiRaider!

wolfgirl

25th March 2007, 02:52 PM

Which would tell you what exactly? Assuming all that is implicit in your post many successful people fail spectacularly before becoming successful. Some people fail at many endeavors before becoming great surceases. At best it would tell us that something is to some degree likely. I stand by my position.Having conceded that it's impossible to "know" whether someone will be a good president or not, I still believe that it's reasonable to have a good degree of certainty about it. As you say, a person's failures can tell us if it's "likely" that they will fail in the future. And isn't "likelihood" a better reason to choose than not?

If you were a businessman hiring a manager for an extremely important position, and you had two candidates before you, one of whom had done well in his past managerial positions and one of whom had not, are you telling me that you wouldn't consider the one who had done well previously to be the better choice? Certainly there might be other factors, but I think that would be an important one. Yes, the other guy might turn out to be excellent, but it's not as "likely." And if the position is an important one, such as oh, say, the president of the USA, I'm going to go with what seems most "likely." Which I did.

wolfgirl

25th March 2007, 02:56 PM

Also, everyone knew he was a person who's failures in business and life in general would have doomed any person who had not been born into great privilege - people without a wealthy, powerful family and with countless wealthy and powerful connections. And certainly anyone with any sense of character could tell he was person who felt fully comfortable with his privilege and had little understanding or appreciation for the concept of struggling. He is a person who was born into a position where he could not lose no matter what he does and yet views himself as a winner. What's the expression? - He was born on third base and thinks he hit a triple.He was born on third base and thinks he hit a triple! I love that! I think it totally captures what I was trying to say about his getting where he is due to daddy. Would you mind if I used it in my sig? With credit, of course!

wolfgirl

25th March 2007, 03:06 PM

I think after 9/11 nearly everyone in the US loved bush.I can't let this go without declaring that I did not love Bush after 9/11. I didn't even hate him any less that I had previously. If anything, I may have hated him more after seeing him sitting there for all that time reading that stupid book after hearing that we had been attacked. He looked like a deer caught in the headlights. "What? I thought being President just meant reading little books to little kids. I didn't know there'd be a crisis of epic proportion that I'd have no idea how to handle!"

People may have been less critical of him in the early days post-9/11 (not me, of course :)), but I'm not sure that many people "loved" him. It's simply a natural reaction for people to rally around a leadership figure during a time of crisis. They'd have done the same regardless of who was actually the president at the time.

RandFan

25th March 2007, 03:08 PM

Having conceded that it's impossible to "know" whether someone will be a good president or not, I still believe that it's reasonable to have a good degree of certainty about it. As you say, a person's failures can tell us if it's "likely" that they will fail in the future. And isn't "likelihood" a better reason to choose than not?

If you were a businessman hiring a manager for an extremely important position, and you had two candidates before you, one of whom had done well in his past managerial positions and one of whom had not, are you telling me that you wouldn't consider the one who had done well previously to be the better choice? Certainly there might be other factors, but I think that would be an important one. Yes, the other guy might turn out to be excellent, but it's not as "likely." And if the position is an important one, such as oh, say, the president of the USA, I'm going to go with what seems most "likely." Which I did.:) I have no disagreement wolfgirl. Sounds reasonable to me.

billydkid

25th March 2007, 03:09 PM

He was born on third base and thinks he hit a triple! I love that! I think it totally captures what I was trying to say about his getting where he is due to daddy. Would you mind if I used it in my sig? With credit, of course!Sure, whatever you like. I stole it from someone anyway. May have been Molly Ivins.

billydkid

25th March 2007, 03:12 PM

Thanks Sez.

The point about dishonesty was in regards to something billydkid said.

[/quote]I have to say Rand, I regretted posting that dishonesty thing no long after I posted it. I don't believe you are dishonest in anyway. I was responding to the way something you posted made me feel, but I don't even remember what it was. It was cheap and I apologize.

wolfgirl

25th March 2007, 03:17 PM

This does not fairly represent my view.

Let's assume that Bush's presidency is a net negative. How bad was he? Is it possible that the degree to which one thinks the president is "bad" is based in part on preconceived notions?

I don't at all accept wolfgirls assessment. So what am I to make of her judgment?

For the record, I don't see the president as having "gone sour". So if you think he has and you didn't like him to begin with then what is the likelihood that the judgments of one or both of us are clouded by our preconceived notions?Okay, you say that those of us who didn't like him in the beginning are only seeing the negative in him now because of our pre-conceived notions and a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy on our parts. But how then do you explain the masses of people (judging by his poll numbers) that liked him in the beginning, thought he would be a good president, trusted him in that matter enough to vote for him not once but twice, and now think he's doing a terrible job? Are they to be given MORE credit because they are viewing him fairly and impartially now as opposed to those of us who never liked him? Can't we who thought we saw a lot of bad in him from the start be given credit for perhaps seeing something that the rest of the country missed and is only just now seeing?

(RandFan, I want you to know that I do appreciate your viewpoint. I just think that it is possible that some of us made perhaps a better judgment about the man that the rest. I want my CREDIT, dammit! :))

SezMe

25th March 2007, 03:22 PM

Quick, RandFan, in post 139 you left out a [ quote ] so that some of my prose looks like yours. A fix up would be good for both of us...you surely don't want to have my blathering attributed to you. :)

SezMe

25th March 2007, 03:28 PM

Ya went up several notches on the respect ladder for #150, billydkid. But your dog is still ugly. :)

RandFan

25th March 2007, 03:43 PM

Post #139 should read as thus:

Valid points. And to be sure there no posters that I have more respect for than Tricky. Though I think his view is colored a bit by his emotion. That's fine, he's human and lord knows I'm capable of letting emotion color my opinion. I think that can be a good thing. I wouldn't begin to begrudge anyone of their emotions. It is what gives us our humanity. I only ask that we be willing to question our beliefs. Be skeptical.

Absent 911 and the response by Bush these things would not have come to pass and I think Tricky is right that it would have been another one-term Bush presidency. Where I depart from Tricky is how easy it will be to reverse the effect of these policies. Much depends, of course, on the outcome of the 2008 campaign. But even under the best of circumstances, some effects of his Administration, most notably his environmental record, are irreversible or will take decades to recover.

RandFan

25th March 2007, 03:49 PM

Thanks Billy, thanks Wolfgirl. Here's to 2008. I'm behind Obama and looking to the future. We don't have any rightwingers or neocons in the running so we have a good chance of reversing some of the losses of the last 8 years.

I'm interested in more moderate judges appointed to the bench and securing our ports and improving domestic security but that is another thread.

RandFan

:)

Tony

25th March 2007, 04:16 PM

Here's to 2008. I'm behind Obama and looking to the future.

What do you think Obama's chances are in the primaries?

Darth Rotor

25th March 2007, 04:22 PM

What do you think Obama's chances are in the primaries?
He's got a year to establish that. I have a feeling that Obama is playing the long game, and will build an incremental picture of his platform for the next year. Each piece will be carefully fit into the mosaic. He also has to make some leadership moves in the Senate, in terms of sponsoring legislation, or getting his name tagged onto significant legislation.

This was an area where Kerry's second fiddle role to Ted Kennedy hurt him: lack of demonstrated leadership.

Predicting primary play seems to me premature, since we have not seen enough of how the internal party dynamics have played out. Most of the players are keeping their cards close to the vest, and only Hillary (with the warchest she has accumulated) is obviously playing a table stakes game.

DR

billydkid

25th March 2007, 04:23 PM

Ya went up several notches on the respect ladder for #150, billydkid. But your dog is still ugly. :)The little dog in my avatar? Come one, he's just too cute. I think you just are responding to a cuteness overload. Pull yourself together.

Darth Rotor

25th March 2007, 04:27 PM

I can't let this go without declaring that I did not love Bush after 9/11. I didn't even hate him any less that I had previously. If anything, I may have hated him more after seeing him sitting there for all that time reading that stupid book after hearing that we had been attacked.
So much for your objectivity.

DR

Darth Rotor

25th March 2007, 04:28 PM

The little dog in my avatar? Come one, he's just too cute. I think you just are responding to a cuteness overload. Pull yourself together.
Sorry, it is ugly.

DR

SezMe

25th March 2007, 04:38 PM

DR and I agree - where's the bubbly?

RandFan

25th March 2007, 04:39 PM

What do you think Obama's chances are in the primaries?I honestly don't know but I at the moment I like his chances. Carter and Clinton were nationally unknown at this stage in the game of their political career. I think what is most important is that those people who would like him to win to not be self defeatist. Have faith that he can and project confidence.

Those that don't want him to win, well you can go to hell. ;)

Darth Rotor

25th March 2007, 04:41 PM

DR and I agree - where's the bubbly?
Here, have a Guinness, it's as close to bubbly as I have. :)

DR

Tricky

25th March 2007, 04:43 PM

Valid points. And to be sure there no posters that I have more respect for than Tricky.
Come on. There have to be some!:eek:

It is true though that RandFan and I are great friends who disagree on lots of stuff. I admit that my earlier post was a mixture of fact and rhetoric and strongly colored by my bias. (The fact that my bias is correct and RandFan's is wrong does not change that. :D ) I don't think it was wrong for RF to portray it as more editorial than reporting.

Though I think his view is colored a bit by his emotion. That's fine, he's human and lord knows I'm capable of letting emotion color my opinion. I think that can be a good thing. I wouldn't begin to begrudge anyone of their emotions. It is what gives us our humanity.
LOL. Yeah, RF and I are sometimes on the same side with our emotional posts. I wonder how Huntster is doing these days?

But yes, our emotions give us our humanity. What person have you ever respected who was never anything but coldly analytical about their beliefs? Heck, I even respect it when somebody calls me a fascist, so long as they back up their emotions with some reasoning.

I only ask that we be willing to question our beliefs. Be skeptical.
I agree and have said as much many times.

But back on topic, I have written records of my feelings and predictions about Dubya which date back to his Governorship (though it would take a lot of work to dig them out.) I was right about some things and wrong about some, but more right than wrong. Still, he has done some good things and I freely admit them. I am impressed with the way he stood with our allies and resisted popular pressure to bash the UAR group who had bid to run our ports. I think his "No child left behind" plan was well meaning and had some good points, though sadly, most of these were lost in the urge to find somebody to blame. I also respect that he has never pounded the "anti-illegal immigrant" drum, even though it might have been popular to do so.

Like I say, he might be a nice guy. He's simply an awful president. Many people say the same thing about Jimmy Carter, with some justification. But at his worst, Carter never damaged the country as much as Bush's cronies have. As alway, in my rhetorical opinion.

billydkid

25th March 2007, 05:18 PM

But yes, our emotions give us our humanity. Not to mention, that our emotions are there for a purpose and serve just as legitimate a roll in our evaluation of our experiences as does our logic. Factoring in your gut reaction to, say, your judgment of the character of GWBush is a perfectly legitimate thing to do and not to be discounted merely because it is "emotion". It isn't an either/or thing. This whole Spockian notion that logic is superior is just as absurd as going by your feelings alone or your feelings in spite of available evidence. Many times we are unable to name or describe the cause of our reaction to something simply because the cause is a complex or synergistic mixture of impressions. That doesn't mean the reaction is not valid and legitimate. In the case of Dubya, the available evidence merely serves to confirm what our guts have told us all along.

ConspiRaider

25th March 2007, 05:39 PM

...We felt exactly the same way. I remember walking around in a daze for some time after the 2004 election. Going to work the next day and commiserating with other like-minded people at work, but doing so in hushed tones as though we were afraid somehow of being branded the enemy. It was unreal, since it just seemed so certain that he couldn't win again...not again...not after everything that had happened.
I remember that feeling as well. Kind of like the Omega male in a wolf pack. :)

The things I read in Stupid-Boy while he was running in 1999-2000 - why I gave him the "Dangerous" tag:

1. I was picking up big signs of deception at places in his speeches and interviews. Wasn't what he was saying - it was his eyes, body language, vocal inflection. Dead giveaways.

2. I was picking up an undercurrent of implied threat at points in his speeches. Typically when he was mentioning the Middle East, Iraq, Saddam Hussein. At those places - I saw no deception. He meant the threats. Holy friggin' Toledo.

3. His strong emphasis on faith, God, religion and his push for the faith-based initiative. Oh no. There's nothing worse than having someone in charge who actually believes that God is on his side, guiding him. That was like a foghorn going off at 4 A.M., to me anyway. Trouble. Big Trouble In River City.

And for all that - I wished to be wrong. I wished my vibe-interpretation was out of whack. But: Stupid-Boy sallied forth bravely, and met my expectations.

davefoc

25th March 2007, 06:33 PM

I am finding that many posts in this thread resonate quite strongly with much of my thinking about this stuff.

Tricky's list of Bush's positive efforts was a good one I thought.

Overall, there has been an abnormal amount of agreement in this thread given that it is in the politics forum.

It is a little disappointing that scrut was the only poster to identify himself as one of the yes votes. I suspect that at least half of those might be jokes or people that just wanted to show strong support for some of Bush's middle east policies, without actually being particularly interested in voting for him again.

And then there has been no comment from easycruise. I thought he was the one sure yes vote for Bush. I wonder if that was true and he just dropped by and voted without leaving a comment. Or maybe he has sock puppets and dropped by and voted a few times and that explains part of the Bush yes vote total which is standing at 8 and 8.42% as I write this.

President Bush

25th March 2007, 07:07 PM

Yes, it depends on the specific instance you base your reasoning upon.
So you say. What is your basis for this?
Referring to inductive reasoning. Talk about the specific instance of President George W Bush failing is talk based on observation and experience.

An argument from the specific (each time George W Bush has been observed to fail) to the general (the prediction that George W Bush will fail again).

PixyMisa

25th March 2007, 07:09 PM

Darth Rotor

25th March 2007, 07:12 PM

LOL. Yeah, RF and I are sometimes on the same side with our emotional posts. I wonder how Huntster is doing these days?

Fine. :) We email about once a week. He's doing well.

I also respect that he has never pounded the "anti-illegal immigrant" drum, even though it might have been popular to do so.
You and I differ there.

But at his worst, Carter never damaged the country as much as Bush's cronies have. As alway, in my rhetorical opinion.
Not gonna take that bait. Jimmy meant well, didn't delegate well, and let's just say he's stayed true to his principles as a decent Christian now that he is a former President.

DR

RandFan

25th March 2007, 07:15 PM

Referring to inductive reasoning. Talk about the specific instance of President George W Bush failing is talk based on observation and experience. I don't disagree.

An argument from the specific (each time George W Bush has been observed to fail) to the general (the prediction that George W Bush will fail again).And is there anyone that this can't be said of? When JFK pulled that bay of pigs boner what was the inductive reasoning of that? When FDR locked up an entire group of people without due process what could one infer from that?

Interesting, thanks.

Dustin Kesselberg

25th March 2007, 07:20 PM

Those ******** "planet X" options always skew the results.

President Bush

25th March 2007, 07:47 PM

When JFK pulled that bay of pigs boner what was the inductive reasoning of that? When FDR locked up an entire group of people without due process what could one infer from that?
The subject of the thread is George W Bush. I should have known we were talking about JFK and FDR.

Referring, specifically, to George W Bush you said earlier that many successful people fail spectacularly before becoming successful.

Looks to me as if this deduction is a generality (many successful people fail spectacularly before becoming successful) induced from observations (George W Bush failing repeatedly) to which you, apparently, have applied special interpretive powers.

OK.

ConspiRaider

25th March 2007, 08:20 PM

Okay, normally I don't post in this sub-forum, or even read it, and with good reason, but here goes:

I'm an Australian so I can't vote in this anyway, but -

In 2000, I would have voted for Gore.
In 2004, I would have voted for Bush over Kerry, but not over Lieberman if he had won the Democratic candidacy.
If Bush were eligible to run in 2008, I would not vote for him unless the other candidates were truly awful.

But what strikes me is the level of irrationality invariably seen here in opposition to Bush. Yes, I disagree with the man on a lot of issues, but I don't go around complaining about his smirk or his shifty eyes or his belief in God or his fumbling of words as opposed to what he actually says and does. (What he actually says and does, too, not what other parties claim he has said or done.)

To take another example closer to (my) home, I think Bob Brown (leader of the Australian Green Party) is a dangerous lunatic because his stated economic policy is to close down factories and power stations, force farmers to abandon their farms, and tear up roads on a massive scale, not because he has a tic in his left ear and never, ever, blinks. (Neither of which is, as far as I know, true.)

You are (most of you), rational and intelligent people, but that is rarely shown in the Politics forum, which to me is terribly depressing.

And now I'll shut up again.
You really do have to be here - have to have been living in America for quite some time - to get a decent grasp on this particular issue - Bush as President.

You mentioned the level of irrationality concerning opposition to Bush. How so? What, exactly, are the instances of irrational statements?

When the day is over, those of us who are now opposed to Bush base that rationale primarily upon what he does and says. Not much on vibes or feelings. We don't need that anymore. Still, there is not much else to go on when an untested candidate is running for office. Right? He or she says what he or she will do when he or she gets into office, and your job is to decide whether to believe him or her. Or how much to believe him or her. Evaluation of character is what we had in 1999 and 2000. Bush was tucked away over there in Texas and the country didn't really know much about him.

Darth Rotor

25th March 2007, 08:29 PM

Evaluation of character is what we had in 1999 and 2000. Bush was tucked away over there in Texas and the country didn't really know much about him.
Think about what that says about you, and your fellow partisans.

The tone I got from the vitriol that erupted in 2000 was the outrage at loss of entitlement. However, since I was not living in all 50 states at once, I may have been somewhat influenced by the avalanche of media coverage.

DR

ConspiRaider

25th March 2007, 08:32 PM

Think about what that says about you, and your fellow partisans.

The tone I got from the vitriol that erupted in 2000 was the outrage at loss of entitlement. However, since I was not living in all 50 states at once, I may have been somewhat influenced by the avalanche of media coverage.
Darth, that didn't make a darned bit of sense to me. Mind trying again?

RandFan

25th March 2007, 09:30 PM

The subject of the thread is George W Bush. I should have known we were talking about JFK and FDR.I was just curious. You seemed to think there was some deep meaning to be derived from that fact that a leader has failed at one thing or another. I guess I was wrong in that assumption. Sorry.

Referring, specifically, to George W Bush you said earlier that many successful people fail spectacularly before becoming successful. Yes, to counter the notion that one could "know" the future based on a past failure.

Looks to me as if this deduction is a generality (many successful people fail spectacularly before becoming successful) induced from observations (George W Bush failing repeatedly) to which you, apparently, have applied special interpretive powers.No, I claim no such powers only note that the past can't always be indicitive of the future. Looks like I was right.

davefoc

26th March 2007, 12:12 AM

Tricky wrote:
I also respect that he has never pounded the "anti-illegal immigrant" drum, even though it might have been popular to do so.

DR wrote:
You and I differ there.

Since I agreed with what I thought Tricky meant let me say what I thought he meant when he said it.

Bush didn't pander to the base by making a lot of anti-immigrant rhetoric. It seems like political gain is possible for conservative politicians who "pound the illegal alien drum" and Bush took the higher road and didn't take advantage of that

Unfortunately he also did nothing about the illegal alien problem for six years which I think is an area where he deserves some criticism.

And now that I'm thinking about it a little bit more, it is also possible to see Bush's not banging the illegal alien drum for six years a bit more cynically than I did initially.

Maybe he didn't because he had made the political calculation that pounding the illegal alien drum when he wasn't doing anything about the illegal alien problem wasn't such a good idea.

And perhaps he wasn't doing anything about the problem because he hoped to widen his Hispanic voter base or because he hoped to placate businessmen that didn't want it stopped or both.

Tricky

26th March 2007, 05:32 AM

Since I agreed with what I thought Tricky meant let me say what I thought he meant when he said it.

Bush didn't pander to the base by making a lot of anti-immigrant rhetoric. It seems like political gain is possible for conservative politicians who "pound the illegal alien drum" and Bush took the higher road and didn't take advantage of that

Unfortunately he also did nothing about the illegal alien problem for six years which I think is an area where he deserves some criticism.
That's close to what I meant. To prevent derail, I didn't really get into what I thought should have been done about illegal immigration, just that Bush had a chance to ingratiate himself with the far right and chose not to do so. But as you say...

And now that I'm thinking about it a little bit more, it is also possible to see Bush's not banging the illegal alien drum for six years a bit more cynically than I did initially.

Maybe he didn't because he had made the political calculation that pounding the illegal alien drum when he wasn't doing anything about the illegal alien problem wasn't such a good idea.

And perhaps he wasn't doing anything about the problem because he hoped to widen his Hispanic voter base or because he hoped to placate businessmen that didn't want it stopped or both.
Indeed, this is a sticky point for any conservative politician. Big business (especially big agriculture) doesn't really want their flow of cheap labor cut off, but a lot of flag-waving, underemployed and/or xenophobic Americans do. This creates a big conflict between the Bush's economic base and his voting base, one that he would probably like to downplay as much as possible. So perhaps I'm wasn't cynical enough to see the possibility that his failure to pound the drum wasn't necessarily out of commitment to his personal values but rather out of political expediency.

I can be so naive sometimes.

President Bush

26th March 2007, 05:36 AM

Looks to me as if this deduction is a generality (many successful people fail spectacularly before becoming successful) induced from observations (George W Bush failing repeatedly) to which you, apparently, have applied special interpretive powers.
No, I claim no such powers only note that the past can't always be indicitive of the future. Looks like I was right.
Where were you right?

RandFan

26th March 2007, 06:23 AM

Where were you right?In my pajamas.

Tricky

26th March 2007, 06:32 AM

The subject of the thread is George W Bush. I should have known we were talking about JFK and FDR.

Referring, specifically, to George W Bush you said earlier that many successful people fail spectacularly before becoming successful.

Looks to me as if this deduction is a generality (many successful people fail spectacularly before becoming successful) induced from observations (George W Bush failing repeatedly) to which you, apparently, have applied special interpretive powers.

OK.
Um... Mr. President? You are dropping out of character. You're speaking of yourself in the third party. People can see the hand protruding from your underside. Please don't do this. People here count on you to provide political satire. It would almost be as if Stephen Colbert came out and said he was a liberal.

rikzilla

26th March 2007, 07:29 AM

Look, anything anyone says now is going to be "post hoc". You have a convenient out no matter what anyone says. You do the same thing when people talk about how they opposed the Iraq invasion before it happened. I'm sorry, I think there is at least an element of dishonesty in it. Nothing I described was not known or felt about Bush by many people before he was elected. I don't remember everything, but what I describe are among the many things that formed my original opinion about Bush. The fact that he went on to confirm the opinions many of us had about him, somehow that confirms your contention that we couldn't have known what kind of President he would have been before he was elected.

Any conservative Clinton-hater could say the same things and make them stick just as well. (actually works even better with him) It's called confirmation bias. So the only difference between you doing it and $ylvia Browne's fans doing it is....well....geez...there really isn't any difference at all is there?!

Perhaps, you and others have a point, Bush was "readable" the writing was on the wall etc...etc... In light of this subtly obvious flaw in Bush's character perhaps you could explain why, when the NIE for Iraq was presented to Congress in advance of the vote to approve military force, why did only 6 Senators....6 out of 100....read past the 5 page summary presented by the White House?

If as you folks are suggesting, Bush was such a transparent incompetent and corrupt warmongering moron, how is it that only 6% of our elected representatives in the Senate actually bothered to fact check him before voting to send troops into Iraq???

The truth of the matter...if you are willing to hear it...is that Saddam's purported threat was not controversial in the least. He was simply dangerously unfinished business and having the concept of "pre-emption or else" illustrated to us in a dramatic way by AQ on 9/11/01 we were a solid majority pretty interested in making sure that Saddam was neutered. The NIE was greeted by Congress as if the Bush White House had put out a document stating that the sky was blue. That is why no one bothered to check. Well we don't live in a world with Saddam anymore. He was a brutal dictator, now he's dead and gone.

Bush has made plenty of mistakes and there are plenty of other people who I would rather vote into that office. But against terrorist threats he has been steady and relentless. After watching ordinary people, like you and I, jumping from flaming buildings because of the murderous actions of religious zealots who want to create a worldwide paradise of sharia...well maybe that's all I need from my President.

History may, or may not judge GWB harshly. that he is judged harshly now is immaterial...this is not history...this is now. If we end up electing an administration that weathervanes with the polls and turns over international terrorism to law enforcement agencies inviting more and more deadly acts of terrorism....such an administration would do more to vindicate the historical legacy of GWB than anything old Georgie could ever do for himself at this point.

After all, for Churchill to be placed in a position to become the great leader he was he had to rise above the disaster that appeasement had left on his plate.

Break out the black umbrellas folks! Peace in our time is just an election away!

-z

rikzilla

26th March 2007, 07:38 AM

Okay, normally I don't post in this sub-forum, or even read it, and with good reason, but here goes:

I'm an Australian so I can't vote in this anyway, but -

In 2000, I would have voted for Gore.
In 2004, I would have voted for Bush over Kerry, but not over Lieberman if he had won the Democratic candidacy.
If Bush were eligible to run in 2008, I would not vote for him unless the other candidates were truly awful.

But what strikes me is the level of irrationality invariably seen here in opposition to Bush. Yes, I disagree with the man on a lot of issues, but I don't go around complaining about his smirk or his shifty eyes or his belief in God or his fumbling of words as opposed to what he actually says and does. (What he actually says and does, too, not what other parties claim he has said or done.)

To take another example closer to (my) home, I think Bob Brown (leader of the Australian Green Party) is a dangerous lunatic because his stated economic policy is to close down factories and power stations, force farmers to abandon their farms, and tear up roads on a massive scale, not because he has a tic in his left ear and never, ever, blinks. (Neither of which is, as far as I know, true.)

You are (most of you), rational and intelligent people, but that is rarely shown in the Politics forum, which to me is terribly depressing.

And now I'll shut up again.

Ahh....rational, dispassionate, cogent, sane....who left the forum window open?? A breath of fresh air is drafting in and mucking up our smoke and mirror filled fun house of debate!

Pixy you rock man. Viva the Lieberman! Last hope of the modern democratic party.

-z

Tricky

26th March 2007, 07:43 AM

The truth of the matter...if you are willing to hear it...is that Saddam's purported threat was not controversial in the least.
Treason doth never prosper:
what's the reason?
Why if it prosper,
none dare call it treason.

--- Sir John Harrington (http://www.worldofquotes.com/author/Sir-John-Harrington/1/index.html)

Or more simply, most politicians do not take positions that would result in them losing their jobs. At that time, opposing the invasion was political suicide. But Congress did not propose the invasion. That blame lies squarely on the Bush administration. That they were able to intimidate others into voting for it does not reduce the ultimate culpability for the action.

When the mobs have the torches out, bravery doth not prosper? What is the reason? When the mobs have the torches out, none dare call it bravery.

Take a look at what happened to those who did have the courage to speak out against the invasion. They weren't called "brave" at the time, were they?

ImaginalDisc

26th March 2007, 07:46 AM

Darth Rotor

26th March 2007, 07:47 AM

Take a look at what happened to those who did have the courage to speak out against the invasion. They weren't called "brave" at the time, were they?

But Ron Paul spoke out anyway, didn't he? Funny, he's still around. Why is that, do you think? He dared to brave the slings and arrows of outrageous political rhetoric, as did some others in the House.

DR

rikzilla

26th March 2007, 08:00 AM

Treason doth never prosper:
what's the reason?
Why if it prosper,
none dare call it treason.

--- Sir John Harrington (http://www.worldofquotes.com/author/Sir-John-Harrington/1/index.html)

Or more simply, most politicians do not take positions that would result in them losing their jobs. At that time, opposing the invasion was political suicide. But Congress did not propose the invasion. That blame lies squarely on the Bush administration. That they were able to intimidate others into voting for it does not reduce the ultimate culpability for the action.

When the mobs have the torches out, bravery doth not prosper? What is the reason? When the mobs have the torches out, none dare call it bravery.

Take a look at what happened to those who did have the courage to speak out against the invasion. They weren't called "brave" at the time, were they?

Hillary Clinton proudly reciting the Pledge of Allegiance on the Capitol steps along with her fellow pand..e...r...errrr....colleages yeah colleages! suddenly came to mind.

Tricky, sure there are harsh words for those who fail to follow the herd. There always are. But there were no knives. There were no rifles to stand in front of as they smoked their last stogie. Were you or I a elected representative we'd do the right thing as we saw it for our constituency....all a result of critical thought. Perhaps our political careers would end...but we'd still be able to look ourselves in the mirror at the end of the day. There was no mob Tricky. No overt threats of harm. In the end GWB followed his conscience no matter how wrong-headed you or I may think him....but what did Congress do but abdicate their responsibilities en-masse? For what? A continuing career in politics? would you send thousands of soldiers to kill, fight, possibly to die just out of fear for your continued employment??

I wouldn't...I bet you wouldn't either.

-z

billydkid

26th March 2007, 10:22 AM

I deeply resent the implication that anyone who claims that they were against the war from the start is dishonest.I'm not clear, did you really misunderstand my post or are you being humorous. If you know anything about my views, you know that I am among those who "claim" to have been against the war from the start. Are you not referring to me, but to someone else. I guess I'm just confused. I was calling RF's post dishonest, which I later retracted because thought it was uncool and do not in fact think he is a dishonest. I too resent the notion that those of us who always opposed the war are somehow disingenuous in our claim.

billydkid

26th March 2007, 10:25 AM

Ahh....rational, dispassionate, cogent, sane....who left the forum window open?? A breath of fresh air is drafting in and mucking up our smoke and mirror filled fun house of debate!

Pixy you rock man. Viva the Lieberman! Last hope of the modern democratic party.

-zThat's so ridiculously transparent - he agrees with you so he's a breath of fresh air. Bush is a brilliant President who did great things for this country. There, am I a breath of fresh air?

billydkid

26th March 2007, 10:29 AM

Any conservative Clinton-hater could say the same things and make them stick just as well. (actually works even better with him) It's called confirmation bias. So the only difference between you doing it and $ylvia Browne's fans doing it is....well....geez...there really isn't any difference at all is there?!

Perhaps, you and others have a point, Bush was "readable" the writing was on the wall etc...etc... In light of this subtly obvious flaw in Bush's character perhaps you could explain why, when the NIE for Iraq was presented to Congress in advance of the vote to approve military force, why did only 6 Senators....6 out of 100....read past the 5 page summary presented by the White House?

If as you folks are suggesting, Bush was such a transparent incompetent and corrupt warmongering moron, how is it that only 6% of our elected representatives in the Senate actually bothered to fact check him before voting to send troops into Iraq???

The truth of the matter...if you are willing to hear it...is that Saddam's purported threat was not controversial in the least. He was simply dangerously unfinished business and having the concept of "pre-emption or else" illustrated to us in a dramatic way by AQ on 9/11/01 we were a solid majority pretty interested in making sure that Saddam was neutered. The NIE was greeted by Congress as if the Bush White House had put out a document stating that the sky was blue. That is why no one bothered to check. Well we don't live in a world with Saddam anymore. He was a brutal dictator, now he's dead and gone.

Bush has made plenty of mistakes and there are plenty of other people who I would rather vote into that office. But against terrorist threats he has been steady and relentless. After watching ordinary people, like you and I, jumping from flaming buildings because of the murderous actions of religious zealots who want to create a worldwide paradise of sharia...well maybe that's all I need from my President.

History may, or may not judge GWB harshly. that he is judged harshly now is immaterial...this is not history...this is now. If we end up electing an administration that weathervanes with the polls and turns over international terrorism to law enforcement agencies inviting more and more deadly acts of terrorism....such an administration would do more to vindicate the historical legacy of GWB than anything old Georgie could ever do for himself at this point.

After all, for Churchill to be placed in a position to become the great leader he was he had to rise above the disaster that appeasement had left on his plate.

Break out the black umbrellas folks! Peace in our time is just an election away!

-zThe accusation of dishonesty which I retracted from Randfan, well, I think found the perfect home for it. The notion that Saddam posed any kind of serious threat was indeed very controversial. I don't if every congress person and their mother voted for the war and thought Saddam was a danger - many people did not.

rikzilla

26th March 2007, 10:43 AM

The accusation of dishonesty which I retracted from Randfan, well, I think found the perfect home for it. The notion that Saddam posed any kind of serious threat was indeed very controversial. I don't if every congress person and their mother voted for the war and thought Saddam was a danger - many people did not.

Must I post the hackneyed old list of leftist politicians expressing their fear of Saddam's various and sundry threats??

Really???

Were you actually born yesterday? Or is it only that you sound like you were?

-z

BTW: Since my post was qualified with "if you are willing to hear it..." I guess your response means you're not.

wolfgirl

26th March 2007, 10:46 AM

I deeply resent the implication that anyone who claims that they were against the war from the start is dishonest.Me, too. When the drums were beating, I started wearing a peace sign necklace - a relatively large one - every day, including to work. I have never wavered from that stance. Now everyone else is all "Oh, yeah, this war was a really bad idea," and I'm like, "Duh!"

My husband goes even further. He works with a bunch of right-wing conservatives. They've argued back and forth (mostly good-naturedly) about the war and about Bush in general for a long time. Now he says that most of them are coming around and saying things like they wish they hadn't voted for Bush and the war is a big mistake, etc. My husband wants to know why none of them has apologized to him for being so wrong and not listening earlier, when it could have made a difference.

ConspiRaider

26th March 2007, 10:48 AM

In the end GWB followed his conscience no matter how wrong-headed you or I may think him....but what did Congress do but abdicate their responsibilities en-masse? For what? A continuing career in politics? would you send thousands of soldiers to kill, fight, possibly to die just out of fear for your continued employment??

I wouldn't...I bet you wouldn't either.

-z
Difficult to believe someone actually including "GWB" and "conscience" in the same sentence. I guess if you last long enough - you see everything.

Conscience: Bush knew that yellowcake was not sold to Iraq. Yet he indicated it was, in his State Of The Union speech in January, 2003.

Conscience: Bush knew there were no WMDs in Iraq. Yet he had his Secretary of State, Colin Powell, present a case for WMDs to the United Nations. All based on the "word" of a single lying scoundrel codenamed "Curveball". Whom the intelligence community knew was a lying scoundrel.

Conscience: Bush knew that Saddam Hussein had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. He publicly stated that. Yet, in subsequent speeches and interviews, he very slyly tied 9/11 and Saddam together so effectively, that eventually a majority of polled Americans believed Saddam was involved in 9/11.

Conscience: Bush, in a speech, assures Americans that the Constitution is honored fully before wiretaps are put in place. Then he authorizes illegal wiretaps.

Conscience: In a post-9/11 world, Bush is promoting security and tough controls and skirting around the Constitution to oppose the terrorists. All the while, allowing a gay male prostitute to enter the White House with false press credentials. With overnight stays in the White House.

Conscience: Bush allows the concept of torture to be accepted as a tactic in the War on Terror.

Oh, we could go on and on and on and on...

wolfgirl

26th March 2007, 10:57 AM

But what strikes me is the level of irrationality invariably seen here in opposition to Bush. Yes, I disagree with the man on a lot of issues, but I don't go around complaining about his smirk or his shifty eyes or his belief in God or his fumbling of words as opposed to what he actually says and does. (What he actually says and does, too, not what other parties claim he has said or done.)

You are (most of you), rational and intelligent people, but that is rarely shown in the Politics forum, which to me is terribly depressing.Well, I'll admit that I react emotionally to his smirk and his stupid laugh, etc. But those aren't the basis for the negative feelings towards him but rather the effect.

In our defense, most of us have posted plausible and rational reasons why we dislike Bush, having to do with his policies, beliefs and behaviors. Once we developed the dislike, though, it's just hard to look at him without seeing those ugly sorts of things that make us cringe. And they're easy and fun to make fun of - just ask Jon Stewart!

(The same, by the way, goes for Dick Cheney, but that's a whole other thread...)

RandFan

26th March 2007, 10:57 AM

Conscience: Bush knew that yellowcake was not sold to Iraq. Yet he indicated it was, in his State Of The Union speech in January, 2003.

Conscience: Bush knew there were no WMDs in Iraq. Yet he had his Secretary of State, Colin Powell, present a case for WMDs to the United Nations. All based on the "word" of a single lying scoundrel codenamed "Curveball". Whom the intelligence community knew was a lying scoundrel.I hadn't really wanted to continue in this thread but I feel compelled. There are a number of problems with some of your other points but I will just focus on these two. I reject these. There is no basis for such a declaration. Further I don't know what the conceit of conscience is or why you think you get to hold that. But that's fine. It's a rhetorical device and this being politics I suppose that is warranted. We don't push to hard on critical thinking here.

There was significant evidence to come to a conclusion that there was no yellowcake. There was significant evidence to come to a conclusion that there was no WMD. It is not a reasonable statement to then say that Bush knew that there was no yellowcake and that Bush new that there was no WMD.

Intelligence is not really like it is in the movies. There are no absolutes. It is all about likelihood. Do I think Bush should have come to the conclusion that there was no yellowcake or WMD? Yes, but hindsight is 20/20 and Bush, like many of the scientists that Randi rails against, was picking and choosing his evidence. It's bad. It was wrong but your conclusion is not warranted.

bigred

26th March 2007, 11:00 AM

Obviously it depends who the other candidate is. As much as I'm sick of GW and ready to see him go, I sure as hell wouldn't instead vote for Hillary or Pat Robertson or Jesse Jackson or Katie Couric (etc).

RandFan

26th March 2007, 11:05 AM

Well, I'll admit that I react emotionally to his smirk and his stupid laugh, etc. But those aren't the basis for the negative feelings towards him but rather the effect.

In our defense, most of us have posted plausible and rational reasons why we dislike Bush, having to do with his policies, beliefs and behaviors. Once we developed the dislike, though, it's just hard to look at him without seeing those ugly sorts of things that make us cringe. And they're easy and fun to make fun of - just ask Jon Stewart!

(The same, by the way, goes for Dick Cheney, but that's a whole other thread...)What bothers me is that often the intense feelings of anger and hatred to lead to irrational thinking and behavior. I'm truly amazed at the depth I see of the feelings and knee jerk reactions. I grew up with conservatives and I honestly believed that there was a difference for educated liberals. That they didn't think with their emotions.

Hey, we are all entitled to our emotions and we damn sure as hell should make fun of politicians but let's keep our perspective and not run with the crowd and accept every assertion about a leader that we don't like.

Make fun of, excoriate when necessary but at the end of the day, think critically.

rikzilla

26th March 2007, 11:17 AM

Me, too. When the drums were beating, I started wearing a peace sign necklace - a relatively large one - every day, including to work. I have never wavered from that stance. Now everyone else is all "Oh, yeah, this war was a really bad idea," and I'm like, "Duh!"

Like, uh, do you really talk like that? 'Coz I'm like, ya know, I thought Valley girls kinda thought political forums were so 90's ya know?? Gag me! :eek:

My husband goes even further. He works with a bunch of right-wing conservatives. They've argued back and forth (mostly good-naturedly) about the war and about Bush in general for a long time. Now he says that most of them are coming around and saying things like they wish they hadn't voted for Bush and the war is a big mistake, etc. My husband wants to know why none of them has apologized to him for being so wrong and not listening earlier, when it could have made a difference.

Maybe it's because they think your husband is a pompous, delusional moon-bat with an infallibility complex?? Hey, it would explain much no?

-z

billydkid

26th March 2007, 11:17 AM

Must I post the hackneyed old list of leftist politicians expressing their fear of Saddam's various and sundry threats??

Really???

Were you actually born yesterday? Or is it only that you sound like you were?

-z

BTW: Since my post was qualified with "if you are willing to hear it..." I guess your response means you're not.Do you honestly not remember Colin Powell going before the UN and all of us waiting for the conclusive evidence that never came? Are you seriously telling me that honestly believe there was no serious debate about whether or not Saddam posed any real threat? Do you honestly not remember Scott Ritter (whatever you may particularly think about him, which is hardly relevant.) on the news and on the radio and speaking to whatever group would hear him, saying there was no legitimate reason to invade. If you don't remember that debate then there is nothing further to talk about. I remember it clearly and I remember clearly there were many people saying it was a mistake to go into Iraq and the reasons given for the the invasion were false.

bigred

26th March 2007, 11:21 AM

What bothers me is that often the intense feelings of anger and hatred to lead to irrational thinking and behavior. I'm truly amazed at the depth I see of the feelings and knee jerk reactions. I grew up with conservatives and I honestly believed that there was a difference for educated liberals. That they didn't think with their emotions.

Hey, we are all entitled to our emotions and we damn sure as hell should make fun of politicians but let's keep our perspective and not run with the crowd and accept every assertion about a leader that we don't like.

Make fun of, excoriate when necessary but at the end of the day, think critically.Nice try, but you realize you're probably spitting into the wind, right?

bigred

26th March 2007, 11:29 AM

Do you honestly not remember Colin Powell going before the UN and all of us waiting for the conclusive evidence that never came? Are you seriously telling me that honestly believe there was no serious debate about whether or not Saddam posed any real threat?

I remember it clearly and I remember clearly there were many people saying it was a mistake to go into Iraq and the reasons given for the the invasion were false.
....yet Congress overwhelmingly supported it. And the Patriot Act. I'm pretty sure more than a few were Democrats.

PS: at the time, nobody "knew" whether there were WMDs and/or how valid the reasons were, so pls spare us the brilliance-in-hindsight bit.

My biggest "beef" with Bush was how he publicly and repeatedly.....for MONTHS AND MONTHS AND MONTHS.....emphasized to the world "we're going over there to check for WMDs!" Gee think you gave Saddam enough time to hid/get rid of them you putz? After that, I would have been shocked if they HAD found anything. I'm amazed this isn't touched on more often.

ConspiRaider

26th March 2007, 11:35 AM

I hadn't really wanted to continue in this thread but I feel compelled. There are a number of problems with some of your other points but I will just focus on these two. I reject these. There is no basis for such a declaration. Further I don't know what the conceit of conscience is or why you think you get to hold that. But that's fine. It's a rhetorical device and this being politics I suppose that is warranted. We don't push to hard on critical thinking here.

There was significant evidence to come to a conclusion that there was no yellowcake. There was significant evidence to come to a conclusion that there was no WMD. It is not a reasonable statement to then say that Bush knew that there was no yellowcake and that Bush new that there was no WMD.

Intelligence is not really like it is in the movies. There are no absolutes. It is all about likelihood. Do I think Bush should have come to the conclusion that there was no yellowcake or WMD? Yes, but hindsight is 20/20 and Bush, like many of the scientists that Randi rails against, was picking and choosing his evidence. It's bad. It was wrong but your conclusion is not warranted.
Semantics. While I, and many others who follow politics closely can categorically state that Bush knew: Let me rephrase, ever so slightly:

At the very least, Bush absolutely knew the possibility of yellowcake being sold to Iraq, and the possibility of WMDs existing in Iraq - were both remote. Tremendous room for doubt. Enormous gaps in conclusive evidence. Embarrassing, actually.

YOU DON'T GO TO WAR ON EVIDENCE WITH THAT LEVEL OF FLIMSINESS!

But he did. Let's take a look at his 16 words, for example, in the 2003 State of the Union Address:

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

First - he wimps out by putting the onus on "the British government". George - this is AMERICA! Don't tell me what the Brits have learned - what have the Americans learned? We have the BIGGEST intelligence service on the planet Earth. What have WE learned? Don't pass the buck - grow your own gonads instead!

"Recently sought". What the hell is that? How recent? Vague, isn't it? Wouldn't actual hardcore proof indicate a date, or a close proximity to an actual date?

"Uranium". Well we know what he's going for here: SADDAM'S GONNA TURN THAT URANIUM INTO BOMBS AND NUKE AMERICA!!!

"From Africa". Hey Stupid-Boy: Do you think you could be just a bit more specific? Africa is a HUGE continent!!! WHERE in Africa? Be specific!

Compare this to what JFK did in his televised speech concerning the Cuban Missile Crisis (link below). He locked everything down. Made a helluva case, able to weather the toughest scrutiny. And then when action was taken - minimal as possible. A blockade, with boarding and inspections. NOT an invasion.
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/jfkcubanmissilecrisis.html

But Stupid-Boy had no qualms about floating the "nukular" threat out there in January 2003 with nothing hardcore, or credible, to back it up.

Unconscionable.

rikzilla

26th March 2007, 11:39 AM

Do you honestly not remember Colin Powell going before the UN and all of us waiting for the conclusive evidence that never came? Are you seriously telling me that honestly believe there was no serious debate about whether or not Saddam posed any real threat? Do you honestly not remember Scott Ritter (whatever you may particularly think about him, which is hardly relevant.) on the news and on the radio and speaking to whatever group would hear him, saying there was no legitimate reason to invade. If you don't remember that debate then there is nothing further to talk about. I remember it clearly and I remember clearly there were many people saying it was a mistake to go into Iraq and the reasons given for the the invasion were false.

there is truth in your post....but only about half of it....and you know what they say about half-truths right?

*cough (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2442682)*

RandFan

26th March 2007, 11:43 AM

Semantics. No.

While I, and many others who follow politics closely can categorically state that Bush knew:An appeal to authority when it is your own and unknown individuals is a really creative fallacy but I like it as far as rhetoric goes. Like I said, this is the politics forum and what use is critical thinking?

At the very least, Bush absolutely knew the possibility of yellowcake being sold to Iraq, and the possibility of WMDs existing in Iraq - were both remote. Tremendous room for doubt. Enormous gaps in conclusive evidence. Embarrassing, actually.Well, since you and your fellow experts do follow politics closely how can I argue with that?

I doubt anything I say will change your mind so I will bow out. Nothing like the buzz kill of rational thought during a political rally.

bigred

26th March 2007, 11:44 AM

"Uranium". Well we know what he's going for here: SADDAM'S GONNA TURN THAT URANIUM INTO BOMBS AND NUKE AMERICA!!!Yeah he sure went out on a limb there.

Maybe Saddam had this big PR push planned where he was going to build a lot of reactors to upgrade the standard of living for everyone in his country - regardless of beliefs.

:rolleyes:

rikzilla

26th March 2007, 11:45 AM

................
pardon moi.....that simply didn't work.
...............

http://www.acronet.net/~skepticjeff/Emotipad/BandWagon.gif

Tricky

26th March 2007, 12:01 PM

PS: at the time, nobody "knew" whether there were WMDs and/or how valid the reasons were, so pls spare us the brilliance-in-hindsight bit.
Nobody "knew" but the UN had inspectors over there and they said they hadn't found anything yet. Yeah, Saddam was stonewalling them, but they were making gradual progress.

My biggest "beef" with Bush was how he publicly and repeatedly.....for MONTHS AND MONTHS AND MONTHS.....emphasized to the world "we're going over there to check for WMDs!" Gee think you gave Saddam enough time to hid/get rid of them you putz? After that, I would have been shocked if they HAD found anything. I'm amazed this isn't touched on more often.
Again, Saddam had known for ages we were looking for WMDs. He had UN weapons inspectors in the country just right up until the time of the invasion. But if he had hid them then either A) There were so few that they could all be easily hidden in a very short time or B) He hid them a very long time ago and made them so inaccessible that they would have been pretty difficult to mount an assault with.

All evidence seems to be that he dismantled them a long time ago because not only did we not find any working WMDs, we didn't find anybody who had any credible information about the location of working WMDs. What did he do, keep them a secret from everybody? Did he kill all the scientists and military guys, or use a memory eraser like in Men in Black?

This probably explains why the "we gave him too much time to hide them" scenario isn't touched on very often.

bigred

26th March 2007, 12:13 PM

Nobody "knew" but the UN had inspectors over there and they said they hadn't found anything yet. Yeah, Saddam was stonewalling them, but they were making gradual progress. More like "glacial."

if he had hid them then either A) There were so few that they could all be easily hidden in a very short time or B) He hid them a very long time ago and made them so inaccessible that they would have been pretty difficult to mount an assault with. ....and/or C) they were dismantled, as you say. Or a combination of these. When IMO is harder to say....

All evidence seems to be that he dismantled them a long time ago because not only did we not find any working WMDs, we didn't find anybody who had any credible information about the location of working WMDs. What did he do, keep them a secret from everybody? Well, I wouldn't think there would be many people with credible info in the first place, and given his brutal nature (etc) it isn't hard to understand why we found no such people.

billydkid

26th March 2007, 12:20 PM

....yet Congress overwhelmingly supported it. And the Patriot Act. I'm pretty sure more than a few were Democrats.

PS: at the time, nobody "knew" whether there were WMDs and/or how valid the reasons were, so pls spare us the brilliance-in-hindsight bit.

My biggest "beef" with Bush was how he publicly and repeatedly.....for MONTHS AND MONTHS AND MONTHS.....emphasized to the world "we're going over there to check for WMDs!" Gee think you gave Saddam enough time to hid/get rid of them you putz? After that, I would have been shocked if they HAD found anything. I'm amazed this isn't touched on more often.No, you spare me. Has nothing to do with brilliant hindsight. The reason giving for going into Iraq was that we had definitive evidence of WMB - after hearing Powell it was clear that we had no such definitive evidence, so the reasons given were false. And whether you want to believe it or not people were saying so at the time.

Tricky

26th March 2007, 12:21 PM

More like "glacial."
Still, they were making progress. Bushco was screaming that they weren't fast enough because... well, why weren't they fast enough? As I recall, the strong suggestion was that Iraq could attack any minute.

Well, I wouldn't think there would be many people with credible info in the first place, and given his brutal nature (etc) it isn't hard to understand why we found no such people.
It is nearly impossible to understand. He couldn't have killed all of his scientists, because we would have heard stories about it from their families by now. After Saddam was gone and the threat of being punished was removed, you would think that the WMD scientists would be pouring out of the woodwork to tell us the truth (and gain rewards for doing so). I'm sorry but I can't believe he found a way to make everybody involved in or aware of this massive, world-threatening program either disappear or shut up completely. That sounds suspiciously like the sort of thing a conspiracy theorist would posit.

hgc

26th March 2007, 12:22 PM

Well, I wouldn't think there would be many people with credible info in the first place, and given his brutal nature (etc) it isn't hard to understand why we found no such people.

Still looking for alternate explanations to reality, eh? Instead of not finding people who knew about the WMDs because there were no WMDs, as is obvious to most people now, you want to imagine other reasons.

Roswell-Perseis

26th March 2007, 12:42 PM

Randfan-

Just how many times does Bush have to fail before I can say he will fail instead of succeed?

FDR had tons of failures with the New Deal, and Kennedy had the Bay of Pigs. But they also have success. The Federal Reserve or portions of the Civil Rights movement. Those are big successes.

You won't argue that for Bush II, but tell me I must be skeptical. You tell me I do not look at all sides of the argument. You don't want to make the argument, just judge those partaking in it?

LawnOven

26th March 2007, 01:04 PM

What exactly do you think that proves? Unlike Rosewell I'm not adverse to crossing party lines. Hell, I'm campaigning for Obama.

It prooves that you are in no position to provide judgement in regards to someone elses skepticism. Or psychologically profile people based on a couple of sentences.

bigred

26th March 2007, 01:37 PM

No, you spare me. Has nothing to do with brilliant hindsight. The reason giving for going into Iraq was that we had definitive evidence of WMB ....was ONE of the reasons. FYI our reasons as stated by Bush were "to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people."

Whether "2 outta 3 aint bad" is highly subjective, again just FYI.

(I could take a cheap shot about "WMBs" but I've made my share of typos...)

after hearing Powell it was clear that we had no such definitive evidence, so the reasons given were false..Excuse you? The reasons given were still very much the reasons given. You can debate if they were justified or not - again, in hindsight - but they weren't "false."

And whether you want to believe it or not people were saying so at the time.1 - Can you be a little more vague

2 - So what? People were saying the Colts would win the SB last month. Plenty of others were saying it would be CHI. It's easy for the Colt backers now to say "see, told you so." :rolleyes:

wolfgirl

26th March 2007, 02:04 PM

Like, uh, do you really talk like that? 'Coz I'm like, ya know, I thought Valley girls kinda thought political forums were so 90's ya know?? Gag me! :eek:Sadly, I do talk like that sometimes. Even my kids used to make fun of me when they were teenagers for saying "like" too much. "Is it 'like' that, Mom, or is it actually that?" I try to keep it out of my speech when talking professionally, but I fall into it too much in casual conversation. And it was thinking casually that I "spoke" here. Totally.

bigred

26th March 2007, 02:05 PM

Still, they were making progress. Bushco was screaming that they weren't fast enough because... well, why weren't they fast enough? As I recall, the strong suggestion was that Iraq could attack any minute.

It is nearly impossible to understand. He couldn't have killed all of his scientists, because we would have heard stories about it from their families by now. After Saddam was gone and the threat of being punished was removed, you would think that the WMD scientists would be pouring out of the woodwork to tell us the truth (and gain rewards for doing so). I'm sorry but I can't believe he found a way to make everybody involved in or aware of this massive, world-threatening program either disappear or shut up completely. That sounds suspiciously like the sort of thing a conspiracy theorist would posit.
I think this is sidetracking too much into a "why did we go to war" thread....I know it's relevant generally, but still I think would be better served in a seperate thread worded as such. Feel free to start one and I'll join in. :) In fact I'd think there are probably a number of them already out there-?

bigred

26th March 2007, 02:10 PM

Still looking for alternate explanations to reality, eh? Instead of not finding people who knew about the WMDs because there were no WMDs, as is obvious to most people now, you want to imagine other reasons.
Oh, now I see....you're either trolling or are one of those that love the "your side sucks" "no YOUR side sucks!" political ping-pong matches. Sorry to disappoint, but even if I was GW's biggest fan or the most conservative person you'll ever meet - and I'm not in both cases - I find those to be a total waste of time. Ultimately I have no strong or definitive feeling that Saddam definitely did or didn't have WMDs.

billydkid

26th March 2007, 02:51 PM

....was ONE of the reasons. FYI our reasons as stated by Bush were "to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people."

Whether "2 outta 3 aint bad" is highly subjective, again just FYI.

(I could take a cheap shot about "WMBs" but I've made my share of typos...)

Excuse you? The reasons given were still very much the reasons given. You can debate if they were justified or not - again, in hindsight - but they weren't "false."

1 - Can you be a little more vague

2 - So what? People were saying the Colts would win the SB last month. Plenty of others were saying it would be CHI. It's easy for the Colt backers now to say "see, told you so." :rolleyes:I don't want to drag this out because it is going nowhere, but you suggested that I said (tedious, isn't it) that people knew there were no WMD. I didn't say or suggest that. What I tried to say was that many people were saying and knew there was no good evidence that there were and there was no real evidence at all that Saddam was any kind of a threat to us. Specifically, I remember my reaction and reading other people's reaction to Powell's presentation to the UN. Even I half suspected he had something compelling to present. He did not. and it left many people thinking "What??? That's the justification for believing Saddam was a threat to us and for going to war?"

I am not speaking about you specifically, but when people rewrite history by saying everyone believed at the time that Saddam had weapons and was a threat and then compound that convenient untruth by suggesting that anyone who claims otherwise is rewriting history and trying to make themselves look smart in hindsight - I find that offensive. There were many people saying that the case for going to war was not made. The fact that these people were drowned out by the din of those caught up in the march to war doesn't alter that fact. And worse, it was implied by many that those who said the case for war was not made somehow lacked patriotism and supported terrorism. It is convenient for some to forget these things. And it is especially rich for these same people to accuse those who opposed the war from the beginning of having only hindsight and of rewriting history. The word shameless comes to mind. And it has nothing to do with I told you so.

It's not about being right. It's about being disrespected. People who opposed the war and disbelieved our excuses for going into Iraq are wrong however you cut it because they couldn't have known, right? Some people insist on being right, even when they are wrong. The fact is, some of us were right about the war, about WMD, about the threat Saddam posed and about GW himself and, for some bizarre reason, it is absolutely intolerable for others to come to grips with that and they will grasp at any rationalization, however absurd, to avoid doing so.

wolfgirl

26th March 2007, 03:02 PM

I don't want to drag this out because it is going nowhere, but you suggested that I said (tedious, isn't it) that people knew there were no WMD. I didn't say or suggest that. What I tried to say was that many people were saying and knew there was no good evidence that there were and there was no real evidence at all that Saddam was any kind of a threat to us. Specifically, I remember my reaction and reading other people's reaction to Powell's presentation to the UN. Even I half suspected he had something compelling to present. He did not. and it left many people thinking "What??? That's the justification for believing Saddam was a threat to us and for going to war?"

I am not speaking about you specifically, but when people rewrite history by saying everyone believed at the time that Saddam had weapons and was a threat and then compound that convenient untruth by suggesting that anyone who claims otherwise is rewriting history and trying to make themselves look smart in hindsight - I find that offensive. There were many people saying that the case for going to war was not made. The fact that these people were drowned out by the din of those caught up in the march to war doesn't alter that fact. And worse, it was implied by many that those who said the case for war was not made somehow lacked patriotism and supported terrorism. It is convenient for some to forget these things. And it is especially rich for these same people to accuse those who opposed the war from the beginning of having only hindsight and of rewriting history. The word shameless comes to mind. And it has nothing to do with I told you so.

It's not about being right. It's about being disrespected. People who opposed the war and disbelieved our excuses for going into Iraq are wrong however you cut it because they couldn't have known, right? Some people insist on being right, even when they are wrong. The fact is, some of us were right about the war, about WMD, about the threat Saddam posed and about GW himself and, for some bizarre reason, it is absolutely intolerable for others to come to grips with that and they will grasp at any rationalization, however absurd, to avoid doing so.Yeah, what he said!

Tricky

26th March 2007, 04:06 PM

I think this is sidetracking too much into a "why did we go to war" thread....I know it's relevant generally, but still I think would be better served in a seperate thread worded as such. Feel free to start one and I'll join in. :) In fact I'd think there are probably a number of them already out there-?
Ya think? How about this old warhorse (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=6790&highlight=found). It dates back to near the beginning of the invasion.

Tricky

26th March 2007, 04:27 PM

Ya think? How about this old warhorse (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=6790&highlight=found). It dates back to near the beginning of the invasion.
And here's one (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=172&highlight=Iraq)that actually goes back to before the invasion.

President Bush

26th March 2007, 06:15 PM

Um... Mr. President? You are dropping out of character. You're speaking of yourself in the third party. People can see the hand protruding from your underside. Please don't do this. People here count on you to provide political satire. It would almost be as if Stephen Colbert came out and said he was a liberal.
Just between you and me (http://www.lacollege.edu/centennial/images/ghwbush_highres.jpg)... sshhh.

SezMe

26th March 2007, 06:44 PM

And perhaps he wasn't doing anything about the problem because he hoped to widen his Hispanic voter base or because he hoped to placate businessmen that didn't want it stopped or both.

I'm going with the "or both" option - especially the latter half. Bush has been a boon to large corporations which have benefitted from the cheap labor. Crossing that constituent group would really go against his fundamental connection to large corporations.

Indeed, this is a sticky point for any conservative politician. Big business (especially big agriculture) doesn't really want their flow of cheap labor cut off, but a lot of flag-waving, underemployed and/or xenophobic Americans do.

Whoa, wait a minute there Tricky. There are Americans who cannot be described by any of those labels and yet who feel that the porous, southern American border is a disaster. I am one. Are there red-neck anti-illegals? You bet. But to paint with such a broad brush is to do a disservice to those of us who think, based on real data, that the huge influx of illegals from both Mexico and elsewhere is harming America.

hgc

26th March 2007, 06:50 PM

Ultimately I have no strong or definitive feeling that Saddam definitely did or didn't have WMDs.

That information is readily available. What interest do you have in remaining in the dark?

SezMe

26th March 2007, 07:09 PM

Bush has made plenty of mistakes and there are plenty of other people who I would rather vote into that office. But against terrorist threats he has been steady and relentless.

I guess it is a case of "chose your favorite adjective". I'd pick bullheaded and inflexible. I'd especially use out-to-lunch. He has apparently taken advice from a very, very limited number of people and those who try to throw in a dash or realism get the boot. Remember early on a number of generals were saying we'd need a lot more troops. Shinseki (sp?) especially comes to mind. They were ignored or, worse, got the boot. Or Rummy who threatened to fire anyone doing long-range post-war planning.

It continues to this day. Cheney not two months ago cited "amazing progress" in Iraq (this was before the surge). Someone who surronds himself with yes-men is not a leader.

If we end up electing an administration that .... turns over international terrorism to law enforcement agencies inviting more and more deadly acts of terrorism....such an administration would do more to vindicate the historical legacy of GWB than anything old Georgie could ever do for himself at this point.

I've got to strongly disagree with you on this point, z.

Remember we were attacked in 1993 ... at the World Trade Center. That attack was also planned by terrorists and killed Americans. Did we invade another country and call the attack a "war". No, we treated it like a crime and put the machinery of justice to work. And Youssef (sp?) and others ended up rotting in jail. Which is more convictions than this Administration has had in 5+ years.

No, in my opinion, this was EXACTLY what we should have done after 911. The CIA, for example, should have been the lead agency in the pursuit of justice after 911. A whole slew of other agencies should have been involved. And, yes, the military as well, especially special ops forces.

And the President should have spent all his time coordinating the internal effort and rallying suppport from abroad - especially the latter. It wouldn't have been glamorous or produced spectacular results, but if done well would have gone after the REAL agents of terrorism.

The "war on terrorism" is like the "war on drugs" in that it is endless, there is no clearly defined enemy and there is no end point where some idiot declares, "Mission Accomplished". "War" is simply the wrong metaphor for what needs to be done and using it leads to so many wrong decisions...decisions that cannot be reversed by someone who is "steady and relentless" in pursuit of the wrong strategy.

SezMe

26th March 2007, 07:13 PM

But Ron Paul spoke out anyway, didn't he? Funny, he's still around. Why is that, do you think? He dared to brave the slings and arrows of outrageous political rhetoric, as did some others in the House.
One (or a few) examples does not negate Tricky's point. Surely you remember that those who spoke out against the war were called unpatriotic, and much worse. From the House and Senate floors.

ConspiRaider

26th March 2007, 07:38 PM

One (or a few) examples does not negate Tricky's point. Surely you remember that those who spoke out against the war were called unpatriotic, and much worse. From the House and Senate floors.
I was called a "blasphemer". From a good friend, who, inexplicably, is right-wing and supports Bush to this day.

In late November, 2002, the final piece fell in place as far as I was concerned. I knew Stupid-Boy was going to invade Iraq no matter what the UN said or what Saddam Hussein did.

Called my buddy. "You heard it from me first: Bush is going to invade Iraq no matter what."

He screamed into the phone: "THAT IS BLASPHEMY!!!"

That's when I truly realized how religious-like, how cult-like, the allegiance to Bush was in this country. And that was more alarming to me than the knowledge that Bush would invade this foreign country.

Tricky

26th March 2007, 08:14 PM

Whoa, wait a minute there Tricky. There are Americans who cannot be described by any of those labels and yet who feel that the porous, southern American border is a disaster. I am one. Are there red-neck anti-illegals? You bet. But to paint with such a broad brush is to do a disservice to those of us who think, based on real data, that the huge influx of illegals from both Mexico and elsewhere is harming America.
I accept chastisement. I was stereotyping, and I was wrong to do that. I respect that the illegal situation is perceived as a very big problem. Maybe it is, though I consider it a fairly local problem and indeed a trade-off with other issues. Still, I'm sorry for portraying any anti-immigrant people as dumb hicks. I was only referring to the part that are Bush's voting base.

Oh bugger.
:duck:

Tricky

26th March 2007, 08:25 PM

One (or a few) examples does not negate Tricky's point. Surely you remember that those who spoke out against the war were called unpatriotic, and much worse. From the House and Senate floors.
Also remember that although he did not use the same exact words as he did in November of 2001 (http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/11/06/gen.attack.on.terror/) when Bush said, "You are either with us or against us", that message remained quite clear throughout the lead-up to the Iraq invasion. Certainly it was quite clear to our allies, many of whom had strong negative reactions to this message. And who can forget the "war against French fries and surrender monkeys".

Oh yes, that was a simpler time.

Tony

26th March 2007, 08:34 PM

But against terrorist threats he has been steady and relentless.

:big:

The worst terrorist attack in world history happened on bush's watch and you claim he has been "relentless" against terrorist threats? bwahahahahahahahahahaha. What's it like living it right-wing spin fantasy land?

President Bush

26th March 2007, 09:11 PM

I'm sorry for portraying any anti-immigrant people as dumb hicks.
Carrying naive metaphysical assumptions about a particular group of people can undercut serious questions you may wish to pose. Though we usually just want to simplify what is going on in order to more easily talk about it, logical error and emotional distortion resulting from the careless words we use, instead, often complicates that.

May I suggest, next time, you say:

These anti-immigrant hicks behave as racist homophobes when observed by some, while to others appear but brain-dead Po'bucks so inbred as to be their own uncle.

SezMe

26th March 2007, 09:45 PM

May I suggest, next time, you say: whatever you want to say in straightforward English.

Daylight

26th March 2007, 11:52 PM

Least we forget from http://www.alternet.org/story/16274/

LIE #1: "The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program ... Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons." -- President Bush, Oct. 7, 2002, in Cincinnati.

LIE #2: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." -- President Bush, Jan.28, 2003, in the State of the Union address.

LIE #3: "We believe [Saddam] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." -- Vice President Cheney on March 16, 2003 on "Meet the Press."

LIE #4: "[The CIA possesses] solid reporting of senior-level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda going back a decade." -- CIA Director George Tenet in a written statement released Oct. 7, 2002 and echoed in that evening's speech by President Bush.

LIE #5: "We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases ... Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints." -- President Bush, Oct. 7.

LIE #6: "We have also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We are concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs [unmanned aerial vehicles] for missions targeting the United States." -- President Bush, Oct. 7.

LIE #7: "We have seen intelligence over many months that they have chemical and biological weapons, and that they have dispersed them and that they're weaponized and that, in one case at least, the command and control arrangements have been established." -- President Bush, Feb. 8, 2003, in a national radio address.

LIE #8: "Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets." -- Secretary of State Colin Powell, Feb. 5 2003, in remarks to the UN Security Council.

LIE #9: "We know where [Iraq's WMD] are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat." -- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, March 30, 2003, in statements to the press.

LIE #10: "Yes, we found a biological laboratory in Iraq which the UN prohibited." -- President Bush in remarks in Poland, published internationally June 1, 2003.

RandFan

26th March 2007, 11:55 PM

May I suggest, next time, you say: whatever you want to say in straightforward English.Si.

cgallaga

27th March 2007, 03:43 AM

Up to this point I wasn't sure if you just LOOKED like John Candy...but with that I am beginning to think you ARE John Candy.

Tricky

27th March 2007, 04:16 AM

May I suggest, next time, you say: whatever you want to say in straightforward English.
Where's the fun in that?

Darth Rotor

27th March 2007, 05:44 AM

One (or a few) examples does not negate Tricky's point. Surely you remember that those who spoke out against the war were called unpatriotic, and much worse. From the House and Senate floors.

I do recall Duncan Hunter taking that tack, and being disgusted by it. I watched the farce play out on CSpan one evening, and was swearing at the TV by the time I turned it off.

DR

Ryan O'Dine

27th March 2007, 06:48 AM

The "war on terrorism" is like the "war on drugs" in that it is endless, there is no clearly defined enemy and there is no end point where some idiot declares, "Mission Accomplished". "War" is simply the wrong metaphor for what needs to be done and using it leads to so many wrong decisions...decisions that cannot be reversed by someone who is "steady and relentless" in pursuit of the wrong strategy.

This is exactly how I see it. And I bet you my aunt’s left patootie the war on terror is going to end up like the war on drugs -- a fizzled almost-nothing that rears its misshapen head whenever something notable happens. At which point we’ll hear, as we never tire of hearing: “Why, oh why isn’t this war on drugs/terror working?”

Hands will be wrung, money will be tossed about, and a Czar will wag his sage head until the next racist rant or sudden death of a Hollywood wacko crowds it out of the headlines.

Meanwhile, terror will slink along as always -- for all intents and purposes unburdened by the “war” being waged against it.

Mark my words... *wags fist*

rikzilla

27th March 2007, 07:54 AM

Sadly, I do talk like that sometimes. Even my kids used to make fun of me when they were teenagers for saying "like" too much. "Is it 'like' that, Mom, or is it actually that?" I try to keep it out of my speech when talking professionally, but I fall into it too much in casual conversation. And it was thinking casually that I "spoke" here. Totally.

Sorry for my earlier rudeness...I was in a bit of a mood. Too much "Tony" for one day methinks. Please forgive.

-z

rikzilla

27th March 2007, 08:32 AM

I guess it is a case of "chose your favorite adjective". I'd pick bullheaded and inflexible. I'd especially use out-to-lunch. He has apparently taken advice from a very, very limited number of people and those who try to throw in a dash or realism get the boot. Remember early on a number of generals were saying we'd need a lot more troops. Shinseki (sp?) especially comes to mind. They were ignored or, worse, got the boot. Or Rummy who threatened to fire anyone doing long-range post-war planning.

It continues to this day. Cheney not two months ago cited "amazing progress" in Iraq (this was before the surge). Someone who surronds himself with yes-men is not a leader.

You make valid points

I've got to strongly disagree with you on this point, z.

Remember we were attacked in 1993 ... at the World Trade Center. That attack was also planned by terrorists and killed Americans. Did we invade another country and call the attack a "war". No, we treated it like a crime and put the machinery of justice to work. And Youssef (sp?) and others ended up rotting in jail. Which is more convictions than this Administration has had in 5+ years.

No, in my opinion, this was EXACTLY what we should have done after 911. The CIA, for example, should have been the lead agency in the pursuit of justice after 911. A whole slew of other agencies should have been involved. And, yes, the military as well, especially special ops forces.

And the President should have spent all his time coordinating the internal effort and rallying suppport from abroad - especially the latter. It wouldn't have been glamorous or produced spectacular results, but if done well would have gone after the REAL agents of terrorism.

The "war on terrorism" is like the "war on drugs" in that it is endless, there is no clearly defined enemy and there is no end point where some idiot declares, "Mission Accomplished". "War" is simply the wrong metaphor for what needs to be done and using it leads to so many wrong decisions...decisions that cannot be reversed by someone who is "steady and relentless" in pursuit of the wrong strategy.

But this is just plain wrong on many levels. First the "War on Drugs" is rhetoric along the lines of the "War on Poverty". The WOT is actual boots-on-the-ground warfare.

As for law enforcement being effective against the likes of AQ and UBL? You have made no case for this. Had it not been for an operational accident and some sharp Phillipino cops Ramzi Yousef would still be out there. It was luck, not the FBI or CIA that nabbed Yousef. Another point; Yousef was not the mastermind. KSM was and was aided by upper ranks of AQ (UBL). Since the real perps were never effectively hunted they were free to plan more attacks as well as more ambitious attacks. Clinton's presidency was plagued by these regular attacks and made worse by his ineffective tactics (See Somali asprin factory) and wavering leadership. (see Mogadishu)

The problem escalated until a different President with different ideas was in office and faced a pre-planned attack of unprecedented scale and loss of life. 9/11 was not Bush's fault. 9/11 was planned for years by an organization free to train and plan such a massive attack.

You cannot make suicidal terrorists fear lawyers and jail....sorry it just doesn't work. They do fear our soldiers and their ability to thwart their long term goals...but they do not fear death. They are a death cult. Calling the police simply isn't enough. Clinton's ineffective efforts in that direction prove it.

-z

Tony

27th March 2007, 10:06 AM

The WOT is actual boots-on-the-ground warfare.

So is the War on Drugs.

As for law enforcement being effective against the likes of AQ and UBL? You have made no case for this.

Ramzi Yousef is behind bars for the rest of his life. Case closed.

Had it not been for an operational accident and some sharp Phillipino cops Ramzi Yousef would still be out there. It was luck, not the FBI or CIA that nabbed Yousef.

You could make the same claim about any successful law enforcement or military operation. "It was luck, (the Germans were expecting an invasion of the Pais De Calais, not Normandy) not the skill and bravery of the American or British forces, that made D-Day a success".

Clinton's presidency was plagued by these regular attacks and made worse by his ineffective tactics (See Somali asprin factory) and wavering leadership. (see Mogadishu)

Bush's presidency has been plauged by even more attacks, included the worst terrorist attack in world history. And he has yet to secure a single conviction in a court of law.

9/11 was not Bush's fault.

Yes it was. He ignored the terrorist threat pre-9/11.

9/11 was planned for years by an organization free to train and plan such a massive attack.

That doesn't mean it wasn't his fault. And why didn't he do anything pre-9/11 to hinder this organization's freedom?

You cannot make suicidal terrorists fear lawyers and jail....sorry it just doesn't work. They do fear our soldiers and their ability to thwart their long term goals...but they do not fear death.

You have no evidence for either of these claims.

They are a death cult.

Since you have such an intiminate knowledge of the terrorist mind, why would they, a death cult, fear soldiers, who will bring them what they want; death, but not jail, which will rob them the chance of getting what they want and consign them to life in prison?

Calling the police simply isn't enough.

It worked during the 90's.

Clinton's ineffective efforts in that direction prove it.

This is a tired canard that's been repeated on right-wing radio for years. Clinton's efforts were effective. The man responsible for the first WTC bombing is in jail, thousands of American soldiers weren't killed, we didn't waste billions of tax-dollars and we didn't throw away American political capital and influence. That's much more success and a much higher degree of effectiveness than Bush can claim.

rikzilla

27th March 2007, 11:02 AM

So 9/11 is Bush's fault? Do you even know how long 9/11 was in the planning stages?? Do you?? No, you don't. You are willfully ignorant of the facts and..."no man is so blind as he who will not see."

Here is some info for other interested persons who initially thought Tony had some kind of point or clue. This should disabuse you of that notion. I do not post this for Tony's benefit because "as thick as two short planks" does not begin to describe the denseness...the black-hole singularity of his inescapable bias. Somewhere there is a box stuffed with cat hair that has achieved a higher level of consciousness....but I digress.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed

The idea for the September 11 plot came from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who first presented the idea to Bin Laden in 1996.[69] At that point, Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda were in a period of transition, having just relocated back to Afghanistan from Sudan.[70] The 1998 African Embassy bombings marked a turning point, with Bin Laden intent on attacking the United States.[70] In late 1998 or early 1999, Bin Laden gave approval for Mohammed to go forward with organizing the plot.[70] A series of meetings occurred in spring of 1999, involving Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Osama bin Laden, and his deputy Mohammed Atef.[70] Bin Laden provided leadership for the plot, along with financial support.[70] Bin Laden was also involved in selecting people to participate in the plot, including choosing Mohamed Atta as the lead hijacker.[71] Mohammed provided operational support, such as selecting targets and helping arrange travel for the hijackers.[70] Bin Laden overruled Mohammed, rejecting some potential targets such as the U.S. Bank Tower in Los Angeles.[72]

In a 2002 interview with Al Jazeera journalist Yosri Fouda, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed admitted his involvement, along with Ramzi Binalshibh, in the "Holy Tuesday operation".[73] Mohammed was arrested on March 1, 2003 in Rawalpindi, Pakistan.[74] Mohammed ultimately ended up at Guantanamo Bay. During a hearing in March 2007, Mohammed confessed his responsibility for the attacks, "I was responsible for the 9/11 operation, from A to Z."[75]

Please note that in 1996, when AQ was in the initial planning stages for 9/11, George W. Bush was busy executing murderers and rapists in Texas. He was only POTUS for 7 months before 9/11 was carried out, and 9/11 was the culmination of 5 years of planning.

-z

Tricky

27th March 2007, 11:22 AM

Careful Rik. That vein is throbbing in your forehead again. Repeat your mantra.
Iwontlettonyyankmychain
Iwontlettonyyankmychain
Iwontlettonyyankmychain...

Tony

27th March 2007, 11:35 AM

So 9/11 is Bush's fault?

Yep. It happened while he was in charge of National Security. Let me ask you this, was the first WTC bombing Clinton's fault?

Do you even know how long 9/11 was in the planning stages?? Do you??

Yes, I do.

No, you don't.

That's what you'd like to believe. It helps you maintian your small and unchanging right-wing fanatasy world-view.

You are willfully ignorant of the facts and..."no man is so blind as he who will not see."

Ad Hom.

Here is some info for other interested persons who initially thought Tony had some kind of point or clue. This should disabuse you of that notion. I do not post this for Tony's benefit because "as thick as two short planks" does not begin to describe the denseness...the black-hole singularity of his inescapable bias. Somewhere there is a box stuffed with cat hair that has achieved a higher level of consciousness....but I digress.

LOL

Calm down. Your ad homs and wild irrationality betray your inability to approach this subject with a skeptical and non-biased mind frame.

Please note that in 1996, when AQ was in the initial planning stages for 9/11, George W. Bush was busy executing murderers and rapists in Texas. He was only POTUS for 7 months before 9/11 was carried out, and 9/11 was the culmination of 5 years of planning.

You've presented no new information. Your point is a non-sequitur. That 9/11 was being planned for years before Bush took office in no way absolves him of his responsibility to protect the country. You are the one who is bias. You're simply continuing the recent right-wing tradition of not holding conservative leaders accountable for their ineptitude.

rikzilla

27th March 2007, 11:56 AM

Careful Rik. That vein is throbbing in your forehead again. Repeat your mantra.
Iwontlettonyyankmychain
Iwontlettonyyankmychain
Iwontlettonyyankmychain...

It's okay man I've injected myself in the buttocks with copious amounts of HGH, drunk scads of SlimFast, eaten my TrimSpa meds, and smoked some decent crack with my lawyer-friend here...I'm feeling mellow now...melllllllloooooooowwww......

egad! There is an FSM!! :xmasfsm

-thump-

wolfgirl

27th March 2007, 03:06 PM

Sorry for my earlier rudeness...I was in a bit of a mood. Too much "Tony" for one day methinks. Please forgive.

-zNo apology necessary! I probably need chastising for the way I speak more often. But I find it kind of humorous that I, a middle-aged married woman with two grown sons, still talk like that. Old habits die hard.

I really am quite articulate when necessary. I think...

SezMe

27th March 2007, 05:18 PM

As for law enforcement being effective against the likes of AQ and UBL? You have made no case for this.

Gee, I thought citing Yousef was making a case. Now, you may (and do!) dispute the case but I don't think "no case" is correct.

Had it not been for an operational accident and some sharp Phillipino cops Ramzi Yousef would still be out there. It was luck, not the FBI or CIA that nabbed Yousef. Another point; Yousef was not the mastermind. KSM was and was aided by upper ranks of AQ (UBL). Since the real perps were never effectively hunted they were free to plan more attacks as well as more ambitious attacks. Clinton's presidency was plagued by these regular attacks and made worse by his ineffective tactics (See Somali asprin factory) and wavering leadership. (see Mogadishu).

Actually, you might well be making my point. There were, you acknowledge, some successes. Bear in mind that sometimes you make your own luck. But imagine if the efforts we both view as having had some success were funded at the level the Iraq mess has been. Wow, I'll bet there would have been one helluva lot more "luck".

You cannot make suicidal terrorists fear lawyers and jail....sorry it just doesn't work. They do fear our soldiers and their ability to thwart their long term goals...but they do not fear death. They are a death cult. Calling the police simply isn't enough. Clinton's ineffective efforts in that direction prove it.
If they don't fear death, why would they fear our soldiers? But more importantly, the fear factor is irrelevant. I don't give a poop what they fear - I want them out of action. I still think that a unidimensional military approach is not the most effective way to do that. We'll have to agree to disagree on that point.

Oh, BTW, Clinton's efforts don't prove anything except that he wasn't effective. And I well remember the terrible to non-existence of Republican support for him. All they could scream was "wag the dog" (ok, there is some hyperbole in that sentence but you know what I'm talking about.).