This surprises me...I see Bush as appealing to the lowest common denominator...could you elaborate please?
Bush touched on many important issues and I found that I liked most what he said...
Issue..........................His stance on the issue
A. Terrorism-America is protected by defeating th opressor and aiding the oppressed
B. The Economy-Tax relief legislation had made the economy grow stronger. Legislation should be permanent, cut the deficit in half, proposed a budget plan to do this by '05.
C. Education-"No child left behind" Making progress towards excellence for every child. Testing on reading levels...
D. Technology-Focus on ways to depend less on foreign energy sources.
E. Immigration-Preserve legal citizenship, uphold laws of the borders.
F. Health Care-Prescription drug benefit, "Modern medicine for senior citizens, universal." Limit frivelous medical lawsuits. "Government run health system is the wrong prescription." Preserve a private system.
G. Unseen Pillars of Civilization-Community based strategy, reduce drug use, drug testing, etc...
Overall I think those were his main issues and basically his stance on them, I just happen to agree with a lot of what was said. If you dig deeper, you find that there are a lot of wicked problems in the society today. Problems that dont have exact roots or known causes and have many conflicting but potential outcomes and ways to deal with them. The way I see it, is that Bush seems to me to have the most realistic, down to earth, and sensible solutions to problems that perplex even experts (from all parties and affiliations) in terms of coming up with a "solution" if that is even possible this day in age. This man is willing to talk about real issues and he does it in realistic (not over-simplistic) way, that has me interested...and I havent been interested in becoming active and using my power and role as a citizen that I have in this government, ever...until now.
P.S.---One other thing, people always place too much burden and blame, also credit on the shoulders of the President...Me included...Anyway, Bush has my vote as of now.
You believed everything he said. He doesn't even believe half of it.
Saddam was oppressing the US? That's a new one.
AAARGH! How can people be so gullible?
chu_bakka, you can be a real ass. You can disagree with people all you want, and believe me you do so quite often and disrespectfully. But your overbearing and condescending diatribes are becoming tiresome. Perhaps you could come up with a new method of communication other than beating down those who have personal views that differ from yours.
You can disagree with people without being such an asshole.
It's unbelievable. Bush and the "war on terror" had nothing to do with Col. Gadhafi's promise to abandon Libya's WMD. The work was done by Britain, which for *years* had been pursuing diplomatic negotiations with Libya. Blair should take credit for the Libya deal....(while he's still PM, that is!).
Oppressing the people of Iraq maybe, or dont you BELIEVE that?
see, now a perfectly nice thread has gone defensive. not blaming you, of course. anyhow, thank you for answering my question thoughtfully and thoroughly. i'd reply with my views, but i'm still typing < 20wpm with Dvorak
But, I follow the trendy liberal mumbo-jumbo; i like dean: now THERE is backbone!
chu_bakka, you can be a real ass. You can disagree with people all you want, and believe me you do so quite often and disrespectfully. But your overbearing and condescending diatribes are becoming tiresome. Perhaps you could come up with a new method of communication other than beating down those who have personal views that differ from yours.
You can disagree with people without being such an asshole.
Pot, kettle. Kettle, pot. \
I was disappointed by the SOTU. I honestly thought they were gonna come up with much more spin than they did...hence I found it stale.
B. The Economy-Tax relief legislation had made the economy grow stronger. Legislation should be permanent, cut the deficit in half, proposed a budget plan to do this by '05.
There are a lot of things one can believe about all sorts of things but for Bush to claim that the budget deficit is any sort of priority flies in the face of every spending bill he has signed. Where was this plan during the first 75% of his term. The proof is in three years' worth of budgets. The fact that the budget holes are so large that even his conservative base has begun to openly criticize him shows how out of hand he (along with Congress) has let the situation get. This would seem less like political grandstanding had he not been signing budgets with red ink for years now.
Quote:
C. Education-"No child left behind" Making progress towards excellence for every child. Testing on reading levels...
The reforms needed to make real progress on such education issues are massive and no politico of prominence is proposing anything that would begin to make substantative progress. A nice un(der)funded program with an over the top title belies the far more complex reality. Testing is at best an imperfect measuring tool for progress and does little in the way of actually increasing anyone's skillsets. This would seem less like political grandstanding if he were actually proposing something substantive rather than engaging in rhetorical showmanship about The Children.
Quote:
D. Technology-Focus on ways to depend less on foreign energy sources.
Indeed. Hence his stance on CAFE. Er, nevermind. This would seem less like political grandstanding if he showed any interest in consumption issues rather than supply issues.
Quote:
E. Immigration-Preserve legal citizenship, uphold laws of the borders.
What does that mean? Uphold the laws? Preserve legal citizenship? Is anyone proposing differently? Thank god we aren't going with Ted Kennedy's plan to vaporize ever legal citizen who has W as their middle initial.
Quote:
F. Health Care-Prescription drug benefit, "Modern medicine for senior citizens, universal." Limit frivelous medical lawsuits. "Government run health system is the wrong prescription." Preserve a private system.
Govt run health care is the wrong prescription but he just supported the creation of the largest govt program in decades? Insert your own political grandstanding comment here. Tie this one into your budget deficit concern. But, but but, seniors really really really like to vote.
Quote:
G. Unseen Pillars of Civilization-Community based strategy, reduce drug use, drug testing, etc...
Same old song and dance on drugs. Time to pick a different strategy. No one will propose anything risky but potentially.
Bush is a fascinating case. He is undoubtedly an idealogue which is part of the reason why many people find him so sincere. In many instances he is sincere. But the funny thing is, there are all sorts of his exceptions to his idealogy whenever politics dictates otherwise. In the end he is perhaps the most politically driven president of our era, moreso than Clinton even. I suppose that is only natural in fact though when one considers that his entire interest in politics was sparked not out of any idealogical or social conviction but rather out of his determination to redeem his father's political defeat at the hands of Clinton.
To coin a phrase, let's point and laugh. How can people be so gullible?
Quote:
Originally declaimed by George W Bush:
"Let us be candid about the consequences of leaving (former Iraqi leader) Saddam Hussein in power. Had we failed to act, the dictator's weapons of mass destruction programmes would continue to this day."
.
Weapons of Mass Destruction programmes.
Weapons of Mass Destruction programmes.
BUT HE DIDN'T HAVE ANY ACTUAL WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, DID HE?
Clinton had problems with the definition of 'is' but the current President of the United States of America is every bit as likely to equivocate, blur the truth and act the lawyer with the express intention of obscuring the facts from the poor bastards who voted for him.
Poor America. God help us all, this ain't a good man. He's not. I don't care if we're talking politicians or boiler repairmen.
It's unbelievable. Bush and the "war on terror" had nothing to do with Col. Gadhafi's promise to abandon Libya's WMD. The work was done by Britain, which for *years* had been pursuing diplomatic negotiations with Libya. Blair should take credit for the Libya deal....(while he's still PM, that is!).
well, it was also because libya wanted all UN sanctions removed once and for all. that's why they apologized (FINALLY) for lockerbie and saw fit to make reparations. 'course, knowing that the US is now led by someone who will not hesitate to whip your ass probably didn't slow down their acquiescence any.
Well Bush has my vote. I didn't agree with everything he said, but he has something everyone else seems to lack. He believes in something. He doesn't seem intent on pure politick and ambition, he believes that he has a vision for a better America. Bush seems to have the kind of belief that can carry a man thru the desert without food and water for days. As long as people can keep that belief in check for him, I think he will be good for leading the nation. If that belief turns on itself and fuels the kind of blind belief that we see in terrorists, we better watch-out.
Believing and functionally doing something are very different. Wouldnt it be better to have someone who can actually do something? Bush cant act on these programs without raising funds for them. Evidently that is out of the question. Bush is pure politic. He provides no source of funding for his "great society" version 2.1.
Bush's speech was a festering pile. He outright lied about his programs like "No Child Left Behind," which are not being funded properly and he's not fighting for them, so millions of children are being left behind. Even worse than before the program was started.
He outlined all these new spending things he wants to do, but then turns around and wants to make his absurd tax cuts permanent ?_but who the hell is going to pay for all this?!?
This man has no sense of fiscal discipline. He spends like a drunken sailor on an island of $10 whores. He is mortgaging fun and profit for today on the backs of those children he pretends to give a damn about. He wants to cut the deficit in half, while pumping up new spending programs, while slashing discretionary spending growth down to 4%? That math makes no sense.
Whatever happened to the GOP, the party of limited government?
And don't even get me started on the jerk's jumping on the We Hate Gays bandwagon...
I just think he is one of the least bitter politicians left in the country today, you cant say that isnt true, just to see the faces of Ted Kennedy and Hillary tonight confirmed one thing to me: Some high ranking Democrats have zero respect for the office (Clinton proved it).
Yes, because Republicans were so warm and receptive during Clinton's speeches, and really respected his office and were never contemptuous towards him. Remember who it was who put in place this atmosphere of acrimonious partisanship in the late 1990s. It wasn't Ted Kennedy. It was Tom DeLay and his clan.
Quote:
I honestly listened to what the man had to say, I thought about why Bush thinks and believes in the things he does, and then compared them to why I think and believe what I think. If I go deep beneath the obvious and simple surface of the issues, I find I agree more often than not with his positions. [/B]
So you agree that fiscal disciple in stupid? That deficits are good? That gay people are evil? That children should be used as political props, even when the person in question refuses to properly fund his own "no child left behind" programs?
Yes, because Republicans were so warm and receptive during Clinton's speeches, and really respected his office and were never contemptuous towards him. Remember who it was who put in place this atmosphere of acrimonious partisanship in the late 1990s. It wasn't Ted Kennedy. It was Tom DeLay and his clan.
What the heck makes you think this atmosphere started in the 90s???
As long as I can remember, politics have been an arena of hate and spite. The *17*90s, maybe.
Comments
What are you smoking?
People used to think that it was a good idea to make blacks sit at the back of the bus too. They believed in it really strongly too.
3 years in and we are NOT better off... no matter how much he believes we are.
Originally posted by progmac
This surprises me...I see Bush as appealing to the lowest common denominator...could you elaborate please?
Bush touched on many important issues and I found that I liked most what he said...
Issue..........................His stance on the issue
A. Terrorism-America is protected by defeating th opressor and aiding the oppressed
B. The Economy-Tax relief legislation had made the economy grow stronger. Legislation should be permanent, cut the deficit in half, proposed a budget plan to do this by '05.
C. Education-"No child left behind" Making progress towards excellence for every child. Testing on reading levels...
D. Technology-Focus on ways to depend less on foreign energy sources.
E. Immigration-Preserve legal citizenship, uphold laws of the borders.
F. Health Care-Prescription drug benefit, "Modern medicine for senior citizens, universal." Limit frivelous medical lawsuits. "Government run health system is the wrong prescription." Preserve a private system.
G. Unseen Pillars of Civilization-Community based strategy, reduce drug use, drug testing, etc...
Overall I think those were his main issues and basically his stance on them, I just happen to agree with a lot of what was said. If you dig deeper, you find that there are a lot of wicked problems in the society today. Problems that dont have exact roots or known causes and have many conflicting but potential outcomes and ways to deal with them. The way I see it, is that Bush seems to me to have the most realistic, down to earth, and sensible solutions to problems that perplex even experts (from all parties and affiliations) in terms of coming up with a "solution" if that is even possible this day in age. This man is willing to talk about real issues and he does it in realistic (not over-simplistic) way, that has me interested...and I havent been interested in becoming active and using my power and role as a citizen that I have in this government, ever...until now.
P.S.---One other thing, people always place too much burden and blame, also credit on the shoulders of the President...Me included...Anyway, Bush has my vote as of now.
You believed everything he said. He doesn't even believe half of it.
Saddam was oppressing the US? That's a new one.
AAARGH! How can people be so gullible?
Originally posted by chu_bakka
Can we point and laugh at you now?
You believed everything he said. He doesn't even believe half of it.
Saddam was oppressing the US? That's a new one.
AAARGH! How can people be so gullible?
chu_bakka, you can be a real ass. You can disagree with people all you want, and believe me you do so quite often and disrespectfully. But your overbearing and condescending diatribes are becoming tiresome. Perhaps you could come up with a new method of communication other than beating down those who have personal views that differ from yours.
You can disagree with people without being such an asshole.
[i]
Libya?! He took credit for libya. wtf.
It's unbelievable. Bush and the "war on terror" had nothing to do with Col. Gadhafi's promise to abandon Libya's WMD. The work was done by Britain, which for *years* had been pursuing diplomatic negotiations with Libya. Blair should take credit for the Libya deal....(while he's still PM, that is!).
Originally posted by chu_bakka
Can we point and laugh at you now?
You believed everything he said. He doesn't even believe half of it.
Saddam was oppressing the US? That's a new one.
AAARGH! How can people be so gullible?
Oppressing the people of Iraq maybe, or dont you BELIEVE that?
Originally posted by chu_bakka
Can we point and laugh at you now?
AAARGH! How can people be so gullible?
Please refrain from this kind of statement.
With love
Fellows
Originally posted by Messiahtosh
Oppressing the people of Iraq maybe, or dont you BELIEVE that?
see, now a perfectly nice thread has gone defensive. not blaming you, of course. anyhow, thank you for answering my question thoughtfully and thoroughly. i'd reply with my views, but i'm still typing < 20wpm with Dvorak
But, I follow the trendy liberal mumbo-jumbo; i like dean: now THERE is backbone!
Did you see Ted Kennedy shaking his head when George started talking about Iraq?
In the next few months a lot of things are going to get dragged out into the light of day.
This is only the begining.
Originally posted by rageous
chu_bakka, you can be a real ass. You can disagree with people all you want, and believe me you do so quite often and disrespectfully. But your overbearing and condescending diatribes are becoming tiresome. Perhaps you could come up with a new method of communication other than beating down those who have personal views that differ from yours.
You can disagree with people without being such an asshole.
Pot, kettle. Kettle, pot.
I was disappointed by the SOTU. I honestly thought they were gonna come up with much more spin than they did...hence I found it stale.
By the way DUHbya....where's Osama again?
B. The Economy-Tax relief legislation had made the economy grow stronger. Legislation should be permanent, cut the deficit in half, proposed a budget plan to do this by '05.
There are a lot of things one can believe about all sorts of things but for Bush to claim that the budget deficit is any sort of priority flies in the face of every spending bill he has signed. Where was this plan during the first 75% of his term. The proof is in three years' worth of budgets. The fact that the budget holes are so large that even his conservative base has begun to openly criticize him shows how out of hand he (along with Congress) has let the situation get. This would seem less like political grandstanding had he not been signing budgets with red ink for years now.
C. Education-"No child left behind" Making progress towards excellence for every child. Testing on reading levels...
The reforms needed to make real progress on such education issues are massive and no politico of prominence is proposing anything that would begin to make substantative progress. A nice un(der)funded program with an over the top title belies the far more complex reality. Testing is at best an imperfect measuring tool for progress and does little in the way of actually increasing anyone's skillsets. This would seem less like political grandstanding if he were actually proposing something substantive rather than engaging in rhetorical showmanship about The Children.
D. Technology-Focus on ways to depend less on foreign energy sources.
Indeed. Hence his stance on CAFE. Er, nevermind. This would seem less like political grandstanding if he showed any interest in consumption issues rather than supply issues.
E. Immigration-Preserve legal citizenship, uphold laws of the borders.
What does that mean? Uphold the laws? Preserve legal citizenship? Is anyone proposing differently? Thank god we aren't going with Ted Kennedy's plan to vaporize ever legal citizen who has W as their middle initial.
F. Health Care-Prescription drug benefit, "Modern medicine for senior citizens, universal." Limit frivelous medical lawsuits. "Government run health system is the wrong prescription." Preserve a private system.
Govt run health care is the wrong prescription but he just supported the creation of the largest govt program in decades? Insert your own political grandstanding comment here. Tie this one into your budget deficit concern. But, but but, seniors really really really like to vote.
G. Unseen Pillars of Civilization-Community based strategy, reduce drug use, drug testing, etc...
Same old song and dance on drugs. Time to pick a different strategy. No one will propose anything risky but potentially.
Bush is a fascinating case. He is undoubtedly an idealogue which is part of the reason why many people find him so sincere. In many instances he is sincere. But the funny thing is, there are all sorts of his exceptions to his idealogy whenever politics dictates otherwise. In the end he is perhaps the most politically driven president of our era, moreso than Clinton even. I suppose that is only natural in fact though when one considers that his entire interest in politics was sparked not out of any idealogical or social conviction but rather out of his determination to redeem his father's political defeat at the hands of Clinton.
Originally declaimed by George W Bush:
"Let us be candid about the consequences of leaving (former Iraqi leader) Saddam Hussein in power. Had we failed to act, the dictator's weapons of mass destruction programmes would continue to this day."
.
Weapons of Mass Destruction programmes.
Weapons of Mass Destruction programmes.
BUT HE DIDN'T HAVE ANY ACTUAL WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, DID HE?
Clinton had problems with the definition of 'is' but the current President of the United States of America is every bit as likely to equivocate, blur the truth and act the lawyer with the express intention of obscuring the facts from the poor bastards who voted for him.
Poor America. God help us all, this ain't a good man. He's not. I don't care if we're talking politicians or boiler repairmen.
Originally posted by progmac
I see Bush as appealing to the lowest common denominator.
Originally posted by Crusader
Well Bush has my vote.
heh.
Originally posted by sammi jo
It's unbelievable. Bush and the "war on terror" had nothing to do with Col. Gadhafi's promise to abandon Libya's WMD. The work was done by Britain, which for *years* had been pursuing diplomatic negotiations with Libya. Blair should take credit for the Libya deal....(while he's still PM, that is!).
well, it was also because libya wanted all UN sanctions removed once and for all. that's why they apologized (FINALLY) for lockerbie and saw fit to make reparations. 'course, knowing that the US is now led by someone who will not hesitate to whip your ass probably didn't slow down their acquiescence any.
Originally posted by Crusader
Well Bush has my vote. I didn't agree with everything he said, but he has something everyone else seems to lack. He believes in something. He doesn't seem intent on pure politick and ambition, he believes that he has a vision for a better America. Bush seems to have the kind of belief that can carry a man thru the desert without food and water for days. As long as people can keep that belief in check for him, I think he will be good for leading the nation. If that belief turns on itself and fuels the kind of blind belief that we see in terrorists, we better watch-out.
Believing and functionally doing something are very different. Wouldnt it be better to have someone who can actually do something? Bush cant act on these programs without raising funds for them. Evidently that is out of the question. Bush is pure politic. He provides no source of funding for his "great society" version 2.1.
He outlined all these new spending things he wants to do, but then turns around and wants to make his absurd tax cuts permanent ?_but who the hell is going to pay for all this?!?
This man has no sense of fiscal discipline. He spends like a drunken sailor on an island of $10 whores. He is mortgaging fun and profit for today on the backs of those children he pretends to give a damn about. He wants to cut the deficit in half, while pumping up new spending programs, while slashing discretionary spending growth down to 4%? That math makes no sense.
Whatever happened to the GOP, the party of limited government?
And don't even get me started on the jerk's jumping on the We Hate Gays bandwagon...
Kirk
Originally posted by Messiahtosh
I just think he is one of the least bitter politicians left in the country today, you cant say that isnt true, just to see the faces of Ted Kennedy and Hillary tonight confirmed one thing to me: Some high ranking Democrats have zero respect for the office (Clinton proved it).
Yes, because Republicans were so warm and receptive during Clinton's speeches, and really respected his office and were never contemptuous towards him. Remember who it was who put in place this atmosphere of acrimonious partisanship in the late 1990s. It wasn't Ted Kennedy. It was Tom DeLay and his clan.
I honestly listened to what the man had to say, I thought about why Bush thinks and believes in the things he does, and then compared them to why I think and believe what I think. If I go deep beneath the obvious and simple surface of the issues, I find I agree more often than not with his positions. [/B]
So you agree that fiscal disciple in stupid? That deficits are good? That gay people are evil? That children should be used as political props, even when the person in question refuses to properly fund his own "no child left behind" programs?
Kirk
Originally posted by Kirkland
Yes, because Republicans were so warm and receptive during Clinton's speeches, and really respected his office and were never contemptuous towards him. Remember who it was who put in place this atmosphere of acrimonious partisanship in the late 1990s. It wasn't Ted Kennedy. It was Tom DeLay and his clan.
What the heck makes you think this atmosphere started in the 90s???
As long as I can remember, politics have been an arena of hate and spite. The *17*90s, maybe.