Again, define "next to nothing". I don't think that's clear at all. Bush's selling points are his positions...which people then agree with or disagree with. Of course, his personality is a factor as well. I'm not saying he's ideal in any way. No candidate is. I can easily point out two flaws in, say, John Kerry for every one you point out in Bush. Every candidate has faults and a different style. Do you not think that Kerry's rather indecisive record is a problem? Doesn't the pendulum swing both ways?
Oh, and when did you start believing in "right" and "wrong"? Just an honest question.
Yes, but we have a recent memory of Bush's record ( first hand ). And it ain't pretty.
well pfflam, as usual you've taken your very own elitist approach to the matter. How ironic.
The notion that only urbanites can see the world in the proper terms is absurd.
I agree with part one. Many Americans do distrust and dislike intellectuals. As for thinking, I for one would prefer a balance of the two.
That is one of the reasons I like Bush. Agreed. However, I'm not sure that being decisive equates to "not thinking". Would you also apply this criticism to other "decisive" individuals? Or, is it just Bush? Is being decisive a bad thing?
I've seen that interview from the year 2000. Bush didn't know the answers, fine. Should he have? Probably. However, that interview was one of the most blatant examples of "gotcha politics" I've ever seen. I wonder how a candidate like Bill Clinton would have fared before his first term under the same circumstances.
Secondly, your quote is not entirely accurate (and actually, it's incomplete as well) Bush used the "foreign minister of Mexico" line, to which the reporter responded as you posted. And true, the reporter made the comment about not running for President. What followed, though, was that Bush used the Mexico example to point out that the reporter's ability to do his job was not reduced because he lacked that point of knowledge. So too, Bush argued, that his being unable to name the leaders of Taiwan, India, Pakistan and the foreign minister of Mexico did not compromise his abilities, especially since he had yet to be elected.
Should Bush have known the answers? Definitely! Not probably. It's concerning his job.
Two Tax cuts, the 2002 midterms, NCLBA, Medicare, Iraq. Shall I go on? Whether you support these things or not is not the issue. Bush has basically done what he said he would do and gotten his way when he's wanted it.
I just love it when Republicans get all frothy at the mouth over their successes...
Most votes were not as close as you claim. There were many Dems who supported him. The medicare bill was the closest...or so I remember.
I claimed that it was easy for Bush to pass almost anything he wanted to pass, not that the votes were close, and asked why were those victories tough given Republican majorities in both Houses of Congress.
Quote:
As for the midterms, the Dems didn't just "barely" lose. They, in reality, got slaughtered. The reason is a simple matter of history. By all historically based predictions, the GOP should have lost more seats in both the Senate and the house.
Past performance is not an indicator of future performance.
A man who doesn't know the name of the President of Pakistan has no business heading any company of any size, let alone the most powerful nation on the planet.
Well, I concede that that's probably impossible to prove.
But look. Bush was elected within months of President Musharraf taking power. Musharraf was in the news for weeks. George Bush wasn't up on the news enough to even know the name of the General who had just ousted an elected president in one of the planet's flashpoints.
In point of fact, Bush wasn't even certain if the bloke had been elected or not.
Or maybe Bush is nowhere near as stupid as the other half thinks? It doesn't matter how many times Bush has beaten his opponents, they still underestimate him. Amazing.
NO THEY DON'T!!!!
They misunderestimate him. Which would mean simply..estimating him?
Have you ever changed your mind on an issue? Have you ever done the research, established your postition, then later more information was made available to you, and you changed your mind? SDW calls that indecisiveness. I call it intelligence.
It takes a lot to change your stance on something, even more so to admit if you were wrong. anyone who says otherwise is deluding themselves
An off-the-cuff statement about a "crusade" against terror either shows stupidity (not knowing why that word is not the diplomatically best choice) or stupidity (knowing and not caring the usage would be deleterious to US interests).
C'mon SDW. He's a doofus.
So a poor choice of words=stupid? Come on. You weren't saying that when Howard Dean went ape-shit 3 weeks ago.
giant:
Quote:
If someone can't name the heads of pakistan and india, they are absolutely, positively and undeniably unfit to run the world's only superpower. That means he had no clue whatsoever about what was happening in global politics and, most importantly, south asian politics at the time and had not paid any attention for a lengthy period. It's not even the kind of thing that there should be a discussion about.
It's even scarier when you realize, through O'Neill and DiIulio, that the admin didn't even really focus on domestic issues for the first couple of years.
I suppose that's one opinion. Again though...I wonder how someone like Clinton would have fared under the exact same circumstances...a surprise attack with an obviously hostile interviewer. Why was Gore not grilled like that? Hmmm....
jimmac:
Quote:
Yes, but we have a recent memory of Bush's record ( first hand ). And it ain't pretty.
What record is that jimmac? Bringing the economy out of recession? Going after Al-Queda on it's own turf? Toppling a mass murderer who defied 17 UN resolutions and used chemical weapons on his own people? Drastically increasing education funding? Adding a prescription drug benefit to medicare? Cutting taxes? Hmmmm.....
THT:
Quote:
Past performance is not an indicator of future performance.
Ummm...yes it is. If not, then why study history at all?
tonton:
Quote:
Have you ever changed your mind on an issue? Have you ever done the research, established your postition, then later more information was made available to you, and you changed your mind? SDW calls that indecisiveness. I call it intelligence.
Bush has never changed his mind? You've never been sure of your "big" decisions?
Quote:
I'm sorry for that off-the-cuff personal attack. I just couldn't help myself. But I'm simply flabbergasted at people using the ability to win an election or to pass questionable policies with a Senate full of supporters as evidence of "intelligence". Pete Rose won a lot of baseball games.
The man can't be stupid to have won the victories he has. In the least, he's smart enough to surround himself with people of high intelligence and skill. You simply don't get where Bush has by being dumb...no matter who Daddy was and is. Daddy might get you into Yale and Harvard business school....he doesn't get you out.
Wrong Robot:
Quote:
It takes a lot to change your stance on something, even more so to admit if you were wrong. anyone who says otherwise is deluding themselves
I'm not disagreeing with that general notion. Though, you're apparently convinced Bush IS wrong on many issues...whereas I am not.
I'd like to follow up by saying that while you guys love to pile on me for my support for Bush, there are REASONS why I support him. I don't blindly support anyone. I happen to agree with where he stands on most issues, including Iraq and the WOT. I am not pleased with federal spending levels he has allowed, and I'd like to see a tougher immigration stance as well. The man knows how to make a decision, which is at least as important in a President as raw intellect.
Now let me ask: Why do you support Kerry over Bush? What are your criticisms of Kerry? Voting for someone simply because you think he can beat the man you disagree with is ludicrous. What will he do differently? What policies will he implement? HOW exactly will he win the WOT? He hasn't said.
Disagree with his stances- fine- no one's arguing that. But the idea that Kerry hasn't said anything that he will do differently or what kinds of policies he will implement is just totally off-base and willfully ignorant of his campaign. Please inform yourself at a basic level here. We're begging you.
So are you saying that the primary job of a President is to win elections and pass initiatives? I say it is to lead his country into Peace and prosperity, and by doing so, set an example for the rest of the world. At this Bush has clearly failed.
Peace does not equal the mere absence of conflict. At least not in the long term. As for prosperity, the economy was tanking when Bush took office. Now it's in recovery. There is no disputing that.
Disagree with his stances- fine- no one's arguing that. But the idea that Kerry hasn't said anything that he will do differently or what kinds of policies he will implement is just totally off-base and willfully ignorant of his campaign. Please inform yourself at a basic level here. We're begging you.
Some excerpts:
Jobs:
Quote:
The first thing John Kerry will do is fight his heart out to bring back the three million jobs that have been lost under George W. Bush. He will fight to restore the jobs lost under Bush in the first 500 days of his administration. Kerry has proposed creating jobs through a new manufacturing jobs credit, by investing in new energy industries, restoring technology, and stopping layoffs in education.
Oh, OK.
Quote:
John Kerry has the courage to take on the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. However, he believes that we should keep the middle class tax cuts that Democrats fought for in 2001 and 2003.
HAHAHAHAHA
Here's my favorite quote:
"The most basic responsibility of government is to provide for the common defense."
riiiight.
Kerry is running an anti-Bush campaign. That's all. It's only going to get him so far.
Comments
Originally posted by SDW2001
Again, define "next to nothing". I don't think that's clear at all. Bush's selling points are his positions...which people then agree with or disagree with. Of course, his personality is a factor as well. I'm not saying he's ideal in any way. No candidate is. I can easily point out two flaws in, say, John Kerry for every one you point out in Bush. Every candidate has faults and a different style. Do you not think that Kerry's rather indecisive record is a problem? Doesn't the pendulum swing both ways?
Oh, and when did you start believing in "right" and "wrong"? Just an honest question.
Yes, but we have a recent memory of Bush's record ( first hand ). And it ain't pretty.
Originally posted by SDW2001
well pfflam, as usual you've taken your very own elitist approach to the matter. How ironic.
The notion that only urbanites can see the world in the proper terms is absurd.
I agree with part one. Many Americans do distrust and dislike intellectuals. As for thinking, I for one would prefer a balance of the two.
That is one of the reasons I like Bush. Agreed. However, I'm not sure that being decisive equates to "not thinking". Would you also apply this criticism to other "decisive" individuals? Or, is it just Bush? Is being decisive a bad thing?
That's a bit off topic....and quite broad.
So in essence you like Bush because he's stupid?
Originally posted by SDW2001
I've seen that interview from the year 2000. Bush didn't know the answers, fine. Should he have? Probably. However, that interview was one of the most blatant examples of "gotcha politics" I've ever seen. I wonder how a candidate like Bill Clinton would have fared before his first term under the same circumstances.
Secondly, your quote is not entirely accurate (and actually, it's incomplete as well) Bush used the "foreign minister of Mexico" line, to which the reporter responded as you posted. And true, the reporter made the comment about not running for President. What followed, though, was that Bush used the Mexico example to point out that the reporter's ability to do his job was not reduced because he lacked that point of knowledge. So too, Bush argued, that his being unable to name the leaders of Taiwan, India, Pakistan and the foreign minister of Mexico did not compromise his abilities, especially since he had yet to be elected.
Should Bush have known the answers? Definitely! Not probably. It's concerning his job.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Two Tax cuts, the 2002 midterms, NCLBA, Medicare, Iraq. Shall I go on? Whether you support these things or not is not the issue. Bush has basically done what he said he would do and gotten his way when he's wanted it.
I just love it when Republicans get all frothy at the mouth over their successes...
Originally posted by SDW2001
Most votes were not as close as you claim. There were many Dems who supported him. The medicare bill was the closest...or so I remember.
I claimed that it was easy for Bush to pass almost anything he wanted to pass, not that the votes were close, and asked why were those victories tough given Republican majorities in both Houses of Congress.
As for the midterms, the Dems didn't just "barely" lose. They, in reality, got slaughtered. The reason is a simple matter of history. By all historically based predictions, the GOP should have lost more seats in both the Senate and the house.
Past performance is not an indicator of future performance.
Originally posted by SDW2001
As for the midterms, the Dems didn't just "barely" lose. They, in reality, got slaughtered.
Why not just paint "BUSH" across your chest, get some pom-poms and a little skirt?
Well, I concede that that's probably impossible to prove.
But look. Bush was elected within months of President Musharraf taking power. Musharraf was in the news for weeks. George Bush wasn't up on the news enough to even know the name of the General who had just ousted an elected president in one of the planet's flashpoints.
In point of fact, Bush wasn't even certain if the bloke had been elected or not.
"He's just been elected, not elected."
George Bush both:
a) ran for President
b) did not read the news.
I think that this is... bad.
Or maybe Bush is nowhere near as stupid as the other half thinks? It doesn't matter how many times Bush has beaten his opponents, they still underestimate him. Amazing.
NO THEY DON'T!!!!
They misunderestimate him. Which would mean simply..estimating him?
Enough said.
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
a) ran for President
b) did not read the news.
I think that this is... bad.
Doesn't read the news, that's from the horse's mouth too, he either "skims headlines" or has his advisors give him the "gist of it"
There you go again. Stupidity is relative. To me Bush is dumb. You might see things differently.
ah yes, very mature tonton. glad to see those 2000+ posts were a growing experience for you.
Originally posted by Aquatic
NO THEY DON'T!!!!
They misunderestimate him. Which would mean simply..estimating him?
Enough said.
Actually, that would mean that his opponents underestimate him in the wrong ways, which I think is correct.
Originally posted by tonton
Have you ever changed your mind on an issue? Have you ever done the research, established your postition, then later more information was made available to you, and you changed your mind? SDW calls that indecisiveness. I call it intelligence.
It takes a lot to change your stance on something, even more so to admit if you were wrong. anyone who says otherwise is deluding themselves
Originally posted by giant
Why not just paint "BUSH" across your chest, get some pom-poms and a little skirt?
Why don't you **** off.
ubbish.
An off-the-cuff statement about a "crusade" against terror either shows stupidity (not knowing why that word is not the diplomatically best choice) or stupidity (knowing and not caring the usage would be deleterious to US interests).
C'mon SDW. He's a doofus.
So a poor choice of words=stupid? Come on. You weren't saying that when Howard Dean went ape-shit 3 weeks ago.
giant:
If someone can't name the heads of pakistan and india, they are absolutely, positively and undeniably unfit to run the world's only superpower. That means he had no clue whatsoever about what was happening in global politics and, most importantly, south asian politics at the time and had not paid any attention for a lengthy period. It's not even the kind of thing that there should be a discussion about.
It's even scarier when you realize, through O'Neill and DiIulio, that the admin didn't even really focus on domestic issues for the first couple of years.
I suppose that's one opinion. Again though...I wonder how someone like Clinton would have fared under the exact same circumstances...a surprise attack with an obviously hostile interviewer. Why was Gore not grilled like that? Hmmm....
jimmac:
Yes, but we have a recent memory of Bush's record ( first hand ). And it ain't pretty.
What record is that jimmac? Bringing the economy out of recession? Going after Al-Queda on it's own turf? Toppling a mass murderer who defied 17 UN resolutions and used chemical weapons on his own people? Drastically increasing education funding? Adding a prescription drug benefit to medicare? Cutting taxes? Hmmmm.....
THT:
Past performance is not an indicator of future performance.
Ummm...yes it is. If not, then why study history at all?
tonton:
Have you ever changed your mind on an issue? Have you ever done the research, established your postition, then later more information was made available to you, and you changed your mind? SDW calls that indecisiveness. I call it intelligence.
Bush has never changed his mind? You've never been sure of your "big" decisions?
I'm sorry for that off-the-cuff personal attack. I just couldn't help myself. But I'm simply flabbergasted at people using the ability to win an election or to pass questionable policies with a Senate full of supporters as evidence of "intelligence". Pete Rose won a lot of baseball games.
The man can't be stupid to have won the victories he has. In the least, he's smart enough to surround himself with people of high intelligence and skill. You simply don't get where Bush has by being dumb...no matter who Daddy was and is. Daddy might get you into Yale and Harvard business school....he doesn't get you out.
Wrong Robot:
It takes a lot to change your stance on something, even more so to admit if you were wrong. anyone who says otherwise is deluding themselves
I'm not disagreeing with that general notion. Though, you're apparently convinced Bush IS wrong on many issues...whereas I am not.
Originally posted by tonton
And Bush doesn't have that strength. Kerry does.
Or maybe Kerry is just a waffling liberal? Hmmm.
Now let me ask: Why do you support Kerry over Bush? What are your criticisms of Kerry? Voting for someone simply because you think he can beat the man you disagree with is ludicrous. What will he do differently? What policies will he implement? HOW exactly will he win the WOT? He hasn't said.
Originally posted by SDW2001
What will he do differently? What policies will he implement? HOW exactly will he win the WOT? He hasn't said.
WWW.JOHNKERRY.COM.
Disagree with his stances- fine- no one's arguing that. But the idea that Kerry hasn't said anything that he will do differently or what kinds of policies he will implement is just totally off-base and willfully ignorant of his campaign. Please inform yourself at a basic level here. We're begging you.
Originally posted by tonton
So are you saying that the primary job of a President is to win elections and pass initiatives? I say it is to lead his country into Peace and prosperity, and by doing so, set an example for the rest of the world. At this Bush has clearly failed.
Peace does not equal the mere absence of conflict. At least not in the long term. As for prosperity, the economy was tanking when Bush took office. Now it's in recovery. There is no disputing that.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
WWW.JOHNKERRY.COM.
Disagree with his stances- fine- no one's arguing that. But the idea that Kerry hasn't said anything that he will do differently or what kinds of policies he will implement is just totally off-base and willfully ignorant of his campaign. Please inform yourself at a basic level here. We're begging you.
Some excerpts:
Jobs:
The first thing John Kerry will do is fight his heart out to bring back the three million jobs that have been lost under George W. Bush. He will fight to restore the jobs lost under Bush in the first 500 days of his administration. Kerry has proposed creating jobs through a new manufacturing jobs credit, by investing in new energy industries, restoring technology, and stopping layoffs in education.
Oh, OK.
John Kerry has the courage to take on the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. However, he believes that we should keep the middle class tax cuts that Democrats fought for in 2001 and 2003.
HAHAHAHAHA
Here's my favorite quote:
"The most basic responsibility of government is to provide for the common defense."
riiiight.
Kerry is running an anti-Bush campaign. That's all. It's only going to get him so far.