I am sure most of you have heard the uproar regarding Rush Limbaugh's comment "I know what his plans are... I don't want them to succeed. I hope he fails" Some will defend Rush's statement as being taken out of context and it may have been, however, with this little nugget, I can't help be reminded of the same ol' hypocritical ilk that comes out of both parties. It's like playing a schizophrenic version of the game "Operation", Butterfingers!
When Bush said "You are either with us, or against us in the fight against terrorism " most of the fear monger types like Sean Hannity used Bush's communistic gaffe to say that anyone who questions America's fight against terrorism is a traitor and hates America.
Is Rush Limbaugh a traitor? Is everyone else a traitor who doesn't support the economic stimuli package that the President is pushing to try and save our country from a (possible)depression?
Will Sean Hannity ever give up the Rev Wright/Bill Ayers crisis or follow the path steadily catching up with Charles Grodin as he continues to still pound his chest regarding the guilt of O.J. Simpson? I digress.
Will both parties ever challenge within their own and practice what they preach? Show the importance of partisanship using a self reflecting, intellectual stance? Are we destined only to rely on the ignorance, bullying, hypocritical, anti-intellectual, supposed insightful political commentators? Those commentators who have blessed us with the equivalent of "baby talk, baby talk, it's a wonder you can walk"?
I do not support the stimuli package, and I didn't support the invasion of Iraq. Does this make me a traitor? Half a traitor? Butterfingers!
Mr. Burns
Charles Grodin is still alive?
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
Charles Grodin is still alive?
I wondered that while watching his show. His performance in "Midnight Run" was pretty darn good.
Mr. Burns
Hold the door now. 1) Right-wing nut-ball commentators are speaking to a specific group; Right-wing Nut-balls. 2) They're entire strategy relies on three basic principles; A) It's easy to keep people pissed off. B) People are basically stupid, they believe the illogical. C) People have very short memories, they remember that they are pissed, but without repeating the ramblings of the commentator, they wouldn't know why.
You can talk about scumbags like G Gordon Liddy saying to shoot FBI agents. Or any of the quasi-racist comments of Limbaugh. It doesn't matter, their audience is literally insane, and they can't remember what drove them there. A fixation requirement, for anger and fear, keeps them there. The people they talk to are literally, like addicts, a captive audience.
You know, people like G Gordon Liddy and Ollie North in particular, those people were likely trash the day they were born. It does not matter to their audience. As long as the scumbag is saying what you want, you follow. That's how it works.
If Hitler himself were on radio today, he'd probably have decent ratings.
quote:
Originally posted by Neptune
If Hitler himself were on radio today, he'd probably have decent ratings.
Godwinned!
Carry on.
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
Godwinned!
Carry on.
I'm not saying Limbaugh is Hitler, I'm not even saying Hitler would be very competitive with Limbaugh. There is a such thing as too insane, those people end up as local radio nuts. I guess what I mean to say is, if this were a head to head radio pepsi-challenge, my money would be on Hitler to beat out Bates.
quote:
Originally posted by Neptune
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
Godwinned!
Carry on.
I'm not saying Limbaugh is Hitler, I'm not even saying Hitler would be very competitive with Limbaugh. There is a such thing as too insane, those people end up as local radio nuts. I guess what I mean to say is, if this were a head to head radio pepsi-challenge, my money would be on Hitler to beat out Bates.
Double dog Godwinned!
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
Double dog Godwinned!
If Hitler were a son-of-a-Bush, he'd have been elected twice. Don't have to mention the part about invading random countries, and crashing the economy.
I believe that Limbaugh believes that Obama is a socialist who hopes to convert the U.S. to socialism. I believe there is at least reasonable evidence to suspect this. And if it true, I concur w/Limbaugh that I hope he fails.
That said, I also believe that what is happening is a part of a much larger plan. That GW Bush was also a part of.
Say what you will, IMO Bush was far from a conservative. And from the very beginning of his 1st term, set the wheels in motion for the demise of the conservative Republican party by defying his base and refusing to act based on conservative principle. And conservative dis-satisfaction lead to the loss of majority in the houses.
And we can't forget the steady artificial increase of fuel/energy costs which was the tipping point in bursting the housing bubble. Which was the beginning of the economic shutdown. When people were spending 50%+ of their incomes on gas and utilities. Not to mention the resulting higher prices on EVERYTHING. They could no longer make their mortgage payments.
Then the GOP ran the single most despised Republican for President with only 20% support of the base. Who then committed political suicide by making a big show of going to Washington to vote FOR the bail outs. That he knew not only conservatives, but nearly 80% of ALL Americans opposed.
Call me a tin foil hat wearer, but I believe that the people of the United States are being purposely bankrupted in order to bring about a new world currency and One World Govt.
Bush ran the 1st leg, and has passed the baton to Obama.
I believe that the United States is still grappling with the effects of the Cold War. We still have a Cold War hangover. We are still philosophically polarized.
Probably the most famous or infamous anti-Communist movements in the US, were anti-Civil Rights movements. Though these movements were a somewhat veiled attempt to protect the political fruits of racial fears, they were also reflective of a national philosophical polarization. People had to decide, "was it communism, or was it the obligation of a fair and just society?" That was the national dialogue, and to a degree, it still is.
Of course, the first voters that "weren't even born" during the Cold War; they just started voting. The clock is ticking away on our old ways.
Hitler was also a staunch anti-communist. Splash!!!! A perfect Quadruple Godwin. Tens all around, except for the German judge.
quote:
Originally posted by Fatstrat
I believe that Limbaugh believes that Obama is a socialist who hopes to convert the U.S. to socialism. I believe there is at least reasonable evidence to suspect this. And if it true, I concur w/Limbaugh that I hope he fails.
That said, I also believe that what is happening is a part of a much larger plan. That GW Bush was also a part of.
Say what you will, IMO Bush was far from a conservative. And from the very beginning of his 1st term, set the wheels in motion for the demise of the conservative Republican party by defying his base and refusing to act based on conservative principle. And conservative dis-satisfaction lead to the loss of majority in the houses.
And we can't forget the steady artificial increase of fuel/energy costs which was the tipping point in bursting the housing bubble. Which was the beginning of the economic shutdown. When people were spending 50%+ of their incomes on gas and utilities. Not to mention the resulting higher prices on EVERYTHING. They could no longer make their mortgage payments.
Then the GOP ran the single most despised Republican for President with only 20% support of the base. Who then committed political suicide by making a big show of going to Washington to vote FOR the bail outs. That he knew not only conservatives, but nearly 80% of ALL Americans opposed.
Call me a tin foil hat wearer, but I believe that the people of the United States are being purposely bankrupted in order to bring about a new world currency and One World Govt.
Bush ran the 1st leg, and has passed the baton to Obama.
OK, you're a tinfoil hat wearer.
Hey, you suggested it.
Your post also has self-parody written all over it. "Socialism." "One World Govt." "New world currency." You're not a spoof, are you? Or jamesrage's sedated brother?
That "most despised Republican for president" is a laugh, too. For one thing, McCain won the nomination fairly easily. Second, McCain had approval numbers in the 70s before the election campaign -- far better than the rest of his GOP rivals. With approval numbers that high, "despised" isn't the word I would be using.
If not, you still haven't figured out why Republicans lost. Conservatism (or lack thereof) has got nothing to do with it. Lack of competency has everything to do with it. The GOP just isn't very competent right now. And Lord knows Bush sure wasn't.
I agree w/you on some points. The GOP at present is a joke. They don't even have the support of the majority of their base.
As for McCain. McCain won the nomination on the strength of support from the Liberal mass media who promoted him knowing he would have a hard time carrying conservatives. And who of course then turned on him. And moderate voters in the 1st two blue state primary's.
McCain never had the support of true conservitives who remembered all too well the McCain/Fiengold and McCain/Kennedy bills.
And if not for Palin, he would've gotten slaughtered in the election as most conservatives would have likely just stayed home rather than vote the party line on such a traitor to conservativism.
The vast majority of conservative votes McCain got were actually votes for Palin in hopes she would succeed, or better yet replace him during his term.
I find it incredable that you can't see the obvious as far as the economy. Our elected leaders have and are doing everything exactly opposite to good common sense.
They refused to close the borders and stop illegal immigration. All while millions of illegals sucked our nations social services dry.
They allowed profiteers to artificially inflate fuel prices which in turn caused severe hardships on Americans leading to loss of homes and eventual business failures.
Instead of allowing bad business practices to fail, they rewarded thenm w/unconsititutional bail-outs of taxpayer money that they didn't even have. Which was then spent on executive bonuses and expensive corporate vacations for the very people who made the bad business decisions.
And these practices continue into the Obama administration.
If an enemy had set out to purposly destroy the United States economy, they couldn't have done it better.
quote:
Originally posted by Fatstrat
McCain never had the support of true conservitives who remembered all too well the McCain/Fiengold and McCain/Kennedy bills.
Perhaps. But the election season made it abundantly clear that there aren't enough "true conservatives" to win *any* election. The appeal to the electorate has to be a lot broader than that.
The only Republican candidates that so-called "true conservatives" seemed to embrace were Fred Thompson and Duncan Hunter. And you saw how far they got.
(For my money, I thought the most formidable GOP candidate, save for McCain, was Huckabee. But many Republican voters were turned off by his evangelicalism and his tax hikes in Arkansas -- nevermind that Reagan instituted tax hikes while he was in office.)
It ain't enough to be a "true conservative" candidate. To win elections, you have to appeal to moderates. That's a fact of life.
Remember, conservatives, it's not all about you.
I believe you have an extremely valid point. True conservatism is dying in America. Largely due to the extremely Liberal educations provided in our public schools. We have now reached the point young Americans schooled in Socialist goverment nannyism are reaching voting age. And the conservtive principles of patriotism. And perhaps most importantly independent self sufficience are giving way to a " I am and therefore I deserve. And I expect the Govt. to provide" mentality. Regardless of how much effort the individual puts into his own success and prosperity.
" And the times they are a changing".
quote:
Originally posted by Fatstrat
True conservatism is dying in America. Largely due to the extremely Liberal educations provided in our public schools.
No, conservatism isn't dying because of schools (nevermind that home-schooling has been exploding in the past decade -- to no effect on the polls in 2008, apparently).
Conservatism is dying because people perceive, from the previous eight years, that it's not an effective form of government.
You yourself admitted that Bush was a failure; you don't think that doesn't have an effect on the popularity of conservatism in general?
And frankly, Bill Clinton, a Democrat, was the most fiscally responsible president of my lifetime. The last three Republican presidents saw the federal deficit explode on their watch.
It seems Republicans talk a lot about fiscal responsibility on the federal level, but are abysmally bad at executing it.
Maybe conservatism is all theory, no practice.
I believe you have an extremely valid point. True conservatism is dying in America. Largely due to the extremely Liberal educations provided in our public schools. We have now reached the point young Americans schooled in Socialist goverment nannyism are reaching voting age. And the conservtive principles of patriotism. And perhaps most importantly independent self sufficience are giving way to a " I am and therefore I deserve. And I expect the Govt. to provide" mentality. Regardless of how much effort the individual puts into his own success and prosperity.
" And the times they are a changing".
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
quote:
Originally posted by Fatstrat
True conservatism is dying in America. Largely due to the extremely Liberal educations provided in our public schools.
No, conservatism isn't dying because of schools (nevermind that home-schooling has been exploding in the past decade -- to no effect on the polls in 2008, apparently).
Conservatism is dying because people perceive, from the previous eight years, that it's not an effective form of government.
You yourself admitted that Bush was a failure; you don't think that doesn't have an effect on the popularity of conservatism in general?
And frankly, Bill Clinton, a Democrat, was the most fiscally responsible president of my lifetime. The last three Republican presidents saw the federal deficit explode on their watch.
It seems Republicans talk a lot about fiscal responsibility on the federal level, but are abysmally bad at executing it.
Maybe conservatism is all theory, no practice.
I think that the majority of students being home schooled are still largely sub voting age. A decade is only 10 years.
To the contrary about Bush. I think he left office w/that smug smirk because he was incredibly successfull in his goals. The problem was that he was working for someone other than the American people.
quote:
Originally posted by Fatstrat
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
quote:
Originally posted by Fatstrat
True conservatism is dying in America. Largely due to the extremely Liberal educations provided in our public schools.
No, conservatism isn't dying because of schools (nevermind that home-schooling has been exploding in the past decade -- to no effect on the polls in 2008, apparently).
Conservatism is dying because people perceive, from the previous eight years, that it's not an effective form of government.
You yourself admitted that Bush was a failure; you don't think that doesn't have an effect on the popularity of conservatism in general?
And frankly, Bill Clinton, a Democrat, was the most fiscally responsible president of my lifetime. The last three Republican presidents saw the federal deficit explode on their watch.
It seems Republicans talk a lot about fiscal responsibility on the federal level, but are abysmally bad at executing it.
Maybe conservatism is all theory, no practice.
I think that the majority of students being home schooled are still largely sub voting age. A decade is only 10 years.
To the contrary about Bush. I think he left office w/that smug smirk because he was incredibly successfull in his goals. The problem was that he was working for someone other than the American people.
What goals do you think he thinks he succeeded? I'm genuinely curious to know. I'm not sure of anything he did particularly well, except getting a much better handle on AIDS control in Africa.
That Hannity and Limbaugh still have much credibility is beyond me. They supported the WOT with full vigor and Bush's moral/Christian agenda and totally ignored or gave him a free pass on his poor fiscal policy.
A strong argument can be made for or against the WOT. Personally, I sleep better at night knowing the last attack on U.S. soil was 7 1/2 years ago, yet we've created more and more layers of costly bureaucracies in the process of dealing with this and unprecidented national disasters the last eight years.
Some of this was un-avoidable and we'd likely be talking about what a piss-poor President Bush had been if we'd done nothing in response to 9/11 and attacks had continued on U.S. soil.
He couldn't win at all with Katrina in public opinion regardless if he'd been in NOL wihtin 15 minutes of the storm passing, personally handing out food and debit cards.
As long as us voters keep repeating the same behavior of voting for people who are more interested in governing for their highest donors, and not those who actually vote for them, we can expect an ever-expanding expensive government.
You can teach a person about communism and the "evils of communism", but without a significant nemesis, people end up skeptical. Instead of people saying, "they are evil, and anything remotely resembling it must be evil", people start to think "those guys were evil, and this is why...".
People begin to judge reality based on individual merit, rather than automatically categorize an issue based on some polarized political philosophy. The Cold War mentality did as much damage to us, as it did them.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
quote:
Originally posted by Fatstrat
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
quote:
Originally posted by Fatstrat
True conservatism is dying in America. Largely due to the extremely Liberal educations provided in our public schools.
No, conservatism isn't dying because of schools (nevermind that home-schooling has been exploding in the past decade -- to no effect on the polls in 2008, apparently).
Conservatism is dying because people perceive, from the previous eight years, that it's not an effective form of government.
You yourself admitted that Bush was a failure; you don't think that doesn't have an effect on the popularity of conservatism in general?
And frankly, Bill Clinton, a Democrat, was the most fiscally responsible president of my lifetime. The last three Republican presidents saw the federal deficit explode on their watch.
It seems Republicans talk a lot about fiscal responsibility on the federal level, but are abysmally bad at executing it.
Maybe conservatism is all theory, no practice.
I think that the majority of students being home schooled are still largely sub voting age. A decade is only 10 years.
To the contrary about Bush. I think he left office w/that smug smirk because he was incredibly successfull in his goals. The problem was that he was working for someone other than the American people.
What goals do you think he thinks he succeeded? I'm genuinely curious to know. I'm not sure of anything he did particularly well, except getting a much better handle on AIDS control in Africa.
Destroying the economy in order to bring us closer to One World Govt.
quote:
Originally posted by Fatstrat
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
quote:
Originally posted by Fatstrat
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
quote:
Originally posted by Fatstrat
True conservatism is dying in America. Largely due to the extremely Liberal educations provided in our public schools.
No, conservatism isn't dying because of schools (nevermind that home-schooling has been exploding in the past decade -- to no effect on the polls in 2008, apparently).
Conservatism is dying because people perceive, from the previous eight years, that it's not an effective form of government.
You yourself admitted that Bush was a failure; you don't think that doesn't have an effect on the popularity of conservatism in general?
And frankly, Bill Clinton, a Democrat, was the most fiscally responsible president of my lifetime. The last three Republican presidents saw the federal deficit explode on their watch.
It seems Republicans talk a lot about fiscal responsibility on the federal level, but are abysmally bad at executing it.
Maybe conservatism is all theory, no practice.
I think that the majority of students being home schooled are still largely sub voting age. A decade is only 10 years.
To the contrary about Bush. I think he left office w/that smug smirk because he was incredibly successfull in his goals. The problem was that he was working for someone other than the American people.
What goals do you think he thinks he succeeded? I'm genuinely curious to know. I'm not sure of anything he did particularly well, except getting a much better handle on AIDS control in Africa.
Destroying the economy in order to bring us closer to One World Govt.
Aaaaand the circle is complete.
quote:
Originally posted by Fatstrat
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
What goals do you think he thinks he succeeded? I'm genuinely curious to know. I'm not sure of anything he did particularly well, except getting a much better handle on AIDS control in Africa.
Destroying the economy in order to bring us closer to One World Govt.
[/quote]
Oooooooookay.
Folks, that big swooshing sound you hear is Fatstrat's credibility flying out the window.
The only thing missing are the black helicopters, the Illuminati and the Trilateral Commission.
If you believe that stuff, I've got some beachfront property in Oakhurst to sell you.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
That Hannity and Limbaugh still have much credibility is beyond me. They supported the WOT with full vigor and Bush's moral/Christian agenda and totally ignored or gave him a free pass on his poor fiscal policy.
A strong argument can be made for or against the WOT. Personally, I sleep better at night knowing the last attack on U.S. soil was 7 1/2 years ago, yet we've created more and more layers of costly bureaucracies in the process of dealing with this and unprecidented national disasters the last eight years.
Some of this was un-avoidable and we'd likely be talking about what a piss-poor President Bush had been if we'd done nothing in response to 9/11 and attacks had continued on U.S. soil.
He couldn't win at all with Katrina in public opinion regardless if he'd been in NOL wihtin 15 minutes of the storm passing, personally handing out food and debit cards.
As long as us voters keep repeating the same behavior of voting for people who are more interested in governing for their highest donors, and not those who actually vote for them, we can expect an ever-expanding expensive government.
You can rest a little easier. Apparently, Obama will keep "renditioning" terrorists despite how many consider it inhumane and "torture."
http://www.latimes.com/news/la-na-rendition1-2009feb01,0,7548176,full.story
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
quote:
Originally posted by Fatstrat
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
What goals do you think he thinks he succeeded? I'm genuinely curious to know. I'm not sure of anything he did particularly well, except getting a much better handle on AIDS control in Africa.
Destroying the economy in order to bring us closer to One World Govt.
Oooooooookay.
Folks, that big swooshing sound you hear is Fatstrat's credibility flying out the window.
The only thing missing are the black helicopters, the Illuminati and the Trilateral Commission.
If you believe that stuff, I've got some beachfront property in Oakhurst to sell you.
[/quote]
You mean you haven't noticed the increased helicopter traffic?[:O]
Seriously,did you read my previous post explaining how I came to this conclusion?
I don't follow w/the popular opinion that Bush (and his cabinet) is dumb. One just doesn't get to that position by being dumb. Nor is he timid.
Yet Bush constantly defied his base, the known will of the people, and even common sense by not only allowing, but instituting many of the key factors in our economic decline. The man was obviously marching to the beat of a drummer other than the American people.
Time will tell how much credibility I deserve on this. And I sincerely hope you are right and I am wrong.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
You can rest a little easier. Apparently, Obama will keep "renditioning" terrorists despite how many consider it inhumane and "torture."
http://www.latimes.com/news/la-na-rendition1-2009feb01,0,7548176,full.story
Interestingly enough, "rendition" is not the same as "extraordinary rendition." (//%22http://www.harpers.org/archive/2009/02/hbc-90004326%22)
Plain old vanilla rendition "regularly involved snatching and removing targets for purposes of bringing them to justice by delivering them to a criminal justice system. It did not involve the operation of long-term detention facilities and it did not involve torture." Which, as we all should know by now,
extraordinary rendition did.
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
You can rest a little easier. Apparently, Obama will keep "renditioning" terrorists despite how many consider it inhumane and "torture."
http://www.latimes.com/news/la-na-rendition1-2009feb01,0,7548176,full.story
Interestingly enough, "rendition" is not the same as "extraordinary rendition." (//%22http://www.harpers.org/archive/2009/02/hbc-90004326%22)
Plain old vanilla rendition "regularly involved snatching and removing targets for purposes of bringing them to justice by delivering them to a criminal justice system. It did not involve the operation of long-term detention facilities and it did not involve torture." Which, as we all should know by now, extraordinary rendition did.
I cannot imagine that the Gitmo detainees suffered a torture worse than standing in the windows of the burning World Trade Centers,contemplating the merits of jumping to ones death, or being burned to death.
Anytime you think waterboarding is excessive,just do a net search to find pics/films of the people who chose to jump. Then decide if what was done to stop that from happening again was excessive.
quote:
Originally posted by Fatstrat
I cannot imagine that the Gitmo detainees suffered a torture worse than standing in the windows of the burning World Trade Centers,contemplating the merits of jumping to ones death, or being burned to death.
Anytime you think waterboarding is excessive,just do a net search to find pics/films of the people who chose to jump. Then decide if what was done to stop that from happening again was excessive.
Because as Americans, pure as the driven snow, a shining city on a hill; we could care less about justice. It's all about revenge.
quote:
Originally posted by Fatstrat
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
quote:
Originally posted by Fatstrat
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
What goals do you think he thinks he succeeded? I'm genuinely curious to know. I'm not sure of anything he did particularly well, except getting a much better handle on AIDS control in Africa.
Destroying the economy in order to bring us closer to One World Govt.
Oooooooookay.
Folks, that big swooshing sound you hear is Fatstrat's credibility flying out the window.
The only thing missing are the black helicopters, the Illuminati and the Trilateral Commission.
If you believe that stuff, I've got some beachfront property in Oakhurst to sell you.
You mean you haven't noticed the increased helicopter traffic?[:O]
Seriously,did you read my previous post explaining how I came to this conclusion?
[/quote]
Yes, I did. The big problem with your hypothesis is you have zero evidence that President Bush was trying to wreck the economy in order to install a one-world government.
This is the same sort of nutball reasoning that gave us the 9/11 Truth movement, Holocaust deniers, "Obama was born in Africa" stuff, and "Obama's memoirs were ghost-written" foolishness. The conspiracy theorists ignore truckloads of evidence to the contrary and focus on microdots of dubious circumstantial evidence to support their weak case.
I have a great tendency to be skeptical of conspiracy theories that lack proof. Perhaps you should, too.
You mean other than the evidence already given?
"Destroying the economy in order to bring us closer to One World Govt."
Right because he was in power the last 8 years.
Everybody knows that Bush tanked the economy in order to have us in such a horrific debt that we couldn't afford ANY social programs. Thus cleaning the United States of any social programs or schooling for the poor and middle class. You are obviously wearing your a nickel foil hat. Put the tin foil back on and change the channel back! Totally different voices!
I think he tanked the economy at the behest of oil company CEOs under executive order 911, aka "Damn the economy, that money is ours!" He hoped the illusion of stability would last until his administration ended.
Oopsy!!
Seriously though, anyone who thinks Bush was intelligent enough to be remotely diabolical, wasn't paying attention.
quote:
Originally posted by Neptune
Seriously though, anyone who thinks Bush was intelligent enough to be remotely diabolical, wasn't paying attention.
I don't think Bush is as dumb as people like to think. And he certainly surrounded himself with diabolical types.
Not that I think he deliberately tanked the economy. He just followed the party line of less regulation, less taxes, more war, and on and on.
quote:
Originally posted by nathanm
I don't think Bush is as dumb as people like to think. And he certainly surrounded himself with diabolical types.
For me the line between diabolical genius and moronic puppet wasn't crossed. The president has the power to do a lot of things that are not legal. That he crossed every one of them except one, makes him the moronic puppet type in my eyes.
That line being; he didn't suspend the gov't and declare himself dictator. Any diabolical genius would have gone all the way.
He's only a couple of weeks in, and is struggling to put together a decent leadership team. This always takes a while, and judgment should be reserved.
quote:
Originally posted by Neptune
quote:
Originally posted by nathanm
I don't think Bush is as dumb as people like to think. And he certainly surrounded himself with diabolical types.
For me the line between diabolical genius and moronic puppet wasn't crossed. The president has the power to do a lot of things that are not legal. That he crossed every one of them except one, makes him the moronic puppet type in my eyes.
That line being; he didn't suspend the gov't and declare himself dictator. Any diabolical genius would have gone all the way.
I always looked at Bush as something of a tragic figure. A conventional thinker plunged into highly unconventional times. So what happens? He can't handle the rigor the times demand so defaults to ideology. The tragedy is that, instead of his Dad's (moderate) folks, it was the neocons that got ahold of him first.
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
quote:
Originally posted by Neptune
quote:
Originally posted by nathanm
I don't think Bush is as dumb as people like to think. And he certainly surrounded himself with diabolical types.
For me the line between diabolical genius and moronic puppet wasn't crossed. The president has the power to do a lot of things that are not legal. That he crossed every one of them except one, makes him the moronic puppet type in my eyes.
That line being; he didn't suspend the gov't and declare himself dictator. Any diabolical genius would have gone all the way.
I always looked at Bush as something of a tragic figure. A conventional thinker plunged into highly unconventional times. So what happens? He can't handle the rigor the times demand so defaults to ideology. The tragedy is that, instead of his Dad's (moderate) folks, it was the neocons that got ahold of him first.
Cheney, Rumsfeld chose Bush to run because they knew they could mold him. They knew they could ride him in to office.
quote:
Originally posted by cmatt1
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
quote:
Originally posted by Neptune
quote:
Originally posted by nathanm
I don't think Bush is as dumb as people like to think. And he certainly surrounded himself with diabolical types.
For me the line between diabolical genius and moronic puppet wasn't crossed. The president has the power to do a lot of things that are not legal. That he crossed every one of them except one, makes him the moronic puppet type in my eyes.
That line being; he didn't suspend the gov't and declare himself dictator. Any diabolical genius would have gone all the way.
I always looked at Bush as something of a tragic figure. A conventional thinker plunged into highly unconventional times. So what happens? He can't handle the rigor the times demand so defaults to ideology. The tragedy is that, instead of his Dad's (moderate) folks, it was the neocons that got ahold of him first.
Cheney, Rumsfeld chose Bush to run because they knew they could mold him. They knew they could ride him in to office.
I don't know. I think things were very different in 2000, including Bush and his team. It was never a foregone conclusion that he would even take office, so I'm not sure I can see a grand conspiracy reaching back to the election.
One of the mistakes I think we liberals make in understanding the Bush years is forgetting to take into consideration how 9/11 and the ensuing years reshaped both the Administration and GOP ideology in general. Cheney wasn't always Darth Vader (even his friends -- like Scowcroft -- testified later that he'd become unrecognizable), and Rumsfeld had been tapped to be a reformer, not a wartime Sec Def.
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
One of the mistakes I think we liberals make in understanding the Bush years is forgetting to take into consideration how 9/11 and the ensuing years reshaped both the Administration and GOP ideology in general. Cheney wasn't always Darth Vader (even his friends -- like Scowcroft -- testified later that he'd become unrecognizable), and Rumsfeld had been tapped to be a reformer, not a wartime Sec Def.
I doubt that's a mistake. There's a few problems there;
1) pre-911 it's nearly impossible to say what Bush and company were thinking. Sure, outward appearance may have been all tax-cuts and games of golf, there's no telling what was going on inside. They had about 8 months to form some kind of normal other than what happened in the last 7 years. Given the amount of time this administration spent in Crawford Texas, it's hard to believe Bush was ever interested in being more than a place-holder and political mouthpiece.
2) Both Cheney and Rumsfeld have a pre-Bush track record. Cheney in particular was all about abusing executive power. Rumsfeld was a hawk with strong ties to Cheney and the architect; Wolfowitz. All were interested in securing Middle Eastern oil. All the military strategies they came to this job with, revolved around the Middle East. And they were good buddies. Their 30 year track record absolutely fits the last 7 years of the Bush administration. They learned from Nixon, of all people.
3) Philosophically, if 911 caused "the good" to become "the evil", how good were they? Paranoia is not an admirable trait in an executive. Neither is abdicating power and responsibility out of lack of knowledge. If 911 caused that kind of shift, what was the nature of the executive at the time? Disengaged from reality? Incapable of logic? The gov't ends up looking like a prepubescent teen, they have zits, hairs growing in strange places, weird feelings; and by god their gonna take it out on somebody. And when they're "right", you're gonna have to live with it because they aren't gonna change.
IMO, 911 has been taken into consideration. It does not sufficiently explain what happened during the Bush Administration.
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
One of the mistakes I think we liberals make in understanding the Bush years is forgetting to take into consideration how 9/11 and the ensuing years reshaped both the Administration and GOP ideology in general. Cheney wasn't always Darth Vader (even his friends -- like Scowcroft -- testified later that he'd become unrecognizable), and Rumsfeld had been tapped to be a reformer, not a wartime Sec Def.
That's just revisionist history. Cheney was scheming from the first day, what with his secret energy task force and all.
And Rumsfeld, a reformer? That guy goes all the way back to Nixon.
So far, I'm willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt with his DC insider cabinet appointments. You do need folks who are familiar with how to beat a bureaucracy into shape. If there's strong leadership from the top, it's possible they can be prevented from slipping into their old ways entirely.
Bush was a weak leader back in Texas, so it was obvious that situation was never going to turn out well.
And yes, I certainly can believe given his surrounding himself with Chicago-schoolers, that the enormous run-up in debt was a deliberate plan to choke off social programs specifically and government in general. We've done it time and time again around the world through the IMF and World Bank. I don't, however, think that anybody's plan was to destroy the economy as a whole.
There certainly was a plan on the part of bank execs to sell mortgages to anybody they could so they could make out like bandits when they securitized and sold the mortgages, though. That they didn't think any farther ahead than that is merely further evidence of the unhealthiness of our current stock price obsession and how it forces execs to think about the here and now rather than long term implications of their decisions.
This is not the Obama I knew:
http://thephoenix.com/BLOGS/phlog/archive/2009/02/05/barack-obama-is-tired-of-this.aspx
Is that really him?