The Bush Presidency is ever more controversial, can that even be refelected here?
 

There was a time when a thread like this was criticized, but not even for the same reasons that it will be, currently:

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=113460

We keep receiving ever more dismal reports, and it's hard to fathom, IMO, how that is even possible, concerning the record of the Bush presidency:

If it was a plane crash that was featured for discussion, and there was evidence of inattention and incompetence, on the part of those who owned or managed the airline that lost the plane, the discussion about the crash could follow a straightforward course.

Here, we're discussing what a clear majority in the country seem to agree is a political disaster. How do we present the evidence that it is a disaster, and, it seems to follow, offer opinions of who is responsible and why, if the platform for discussion is more intensely limited, inversely to news of the ever increasing scope of the disaster?

host, isn't this the third time you've started this very same thread in the last couple days?

Host, I'll absolutely give you credit for making an effort to do this, and I'll try to help you out. We're looking for this forum to be discussion-oriented, not a platform for announcements or someone's proselytizing. I've quoted your original post. From the text you wrote, I have NO IDEA what it is you want people to discuss. If you focus more on that part of it, then this thread is in the right place. If not, it belongs in your journal or on your blog.

is the idea here to point to a kind of cognitive dissonance? from many viewpoints, the present is a collection of unfolding disasters--but there are also viewpoints that do not see the same information in the same terms at all. from the former viewpoint--if you accept it as absolute (which is a problem if you really want a debate), the most reasonable explanation for the latter is cognitive dissonance--and inability to collect and organize the pertinent data in a rational way. from the latter viewpoint, i expect that things look very different, that there may be very different ways of--say--establishing relevance between variables, giving weight to them, differences in narrative (obviously) motivated by a different set of intellectual and affective committments.

in other words, this is a classical ideological problem.

when i started playing at tfp in politics, roachboy was a kind of observer in a way, trying to work out the extent to which the committments and/or positions of individuals, particularly from the right, were just extensions of an overarching conservative ideology. while i found that to be variably the case, the one nut i never cracked was how to move from seeing these politics through this lens analytically and being able to generate a debate about it. in a sense, i was asking for a meta-debate. folk (left and right) who hold tightly to an ideological frame that they take over from the outside world, that they inhabit as given, tend not to be able to simultaneously think through a frame and talk about the frame.

the other thing i figured out is that it's nonetheless possible to get something like a meta-debate, but it's all about the framing of questions.

you can't lead with something overly inflammatory if you actually want a debate about this. you just can't. it won't work, it never works--you know this, i know this, most of our more conservative comrades know this as well. an inflammatory opening is not really "why do you think x?"--it's "why are you so fucking stupid?"

so if my experience is any guide, you can do what i think you're trying to do, but you have to be careful about exactly how you frame the question you ask and you need to adopt a position of observer actually interested in how folk think, even as (given the nature of the board, how small and self-enclosed the community in politics is at this point) the latitude that, say, you or i might have to actually manage to get that sort of discussion is pretty limited, simply because we--like most everyone else here--have histories here.

i'm not saying don't try this--but maybe figure a different relation to what you're asking--not a different angle on the same basic thing.

of course, this post probably makes all such movement impossible.
but there we are.

My point is simply that it does not make sense that, as the news of the record of the Bush presidency becomes even more abysmal, the reaction by the people continuing to support Bush.....creating a third Bush term, via the candidacy of John McCain, aka John McBush, is obviously a non-repentant response.

I sincerely wonder, "what are the people who are doing this, thinking"? I want to read one of two things in posts on this thread.... a defense of the Bush record and thus, a justification for supporting a follow through presidency of John McCain, or responses similar to the ones posted after the Duelfer report on WMD...

Things, like..."wow, I was sure the WMD were there, I guess I'll have to rethink my position, in light of this report's findings...", or.... "I suspect that the WMD were secretly transported to, and are still hidden in Syria"....

But....what we're seeing posted is...nothing...no attempt to explain how continued support for Bush works, no attempt to explain support for what John McCain claims he will do as president...yet some polls show him leading the race.

It does not follow that there will be more civil discourse here or anywhere else, not with more than 4000 dead US troops, a $4 trillion debt "run up", and a precipitous decline in the US economy and currency valuation, when the "Vacation President's" "time off" stats are juxtaposed with what I've just described.

Why the sudden effort here to create a contrary, an artificial atmosphere? Where is there an example of that, in any other instance on this forum?

A short comment, before my reply:

We're not after a contrary, artificial atmosphere. We're after what we've always wanted. TFP is a discussion board, and Tilted Politics should serve that purpose. Discussion is as much or more about the replies that follow than it is about the OP. Threads that are not created to generate discussion don't belong here. That's what blogs and journals are for. You've got a journal here. I was under the impression that you had some sort of situation at KOS that provided a blog outlet. If you want a blog outlet from us, let's talk about it. Maybe something is possible. But the forums are for discussion. This isn't about how much information there is, it isn't about tone, it isn't about how extreme an opinion is. It's about all of the above and how it fits into the context of a discussion forum.

I'm sorry that's so long. Here's my response to your thread.

I voted for Bush in 2000. What can I say -- it seemed like a good idea at the time. Between Bush and the Al Gore that I saw in 1999 and 2000, Bush was the lesser of two evils. In a flush economy, I believed that there were two possibilities that were consistent with the purpose of government. Pay the debt down (thus satisfying existing obligations) or reduce the tax burden because the current obligations were being met. Bush is the only guy who talked that way.

Obviously a lot has changed. To an extent, Bush turned to never have been what I thought he was. Whether or not he's the guy I wanted fiscally, his implementation of compassionate conservatism never ended up being a tool of unity.

As trite as it is, I have to acknowledge that 9/11 changed all of us. It changed me and it changed Bush. That's the crux of the difference between then and now. The war in Afghanistan seemed a reasonable and justifiable response to 9/11 as we understood it at the time. The invasion of Iraq was less so, but based on the story that was presented to us, it was within the bounds of things that I disagree with but can understand.

However, the aftermath of Iraq -- the quagmire-like situation, the mismanagement of restoration and rebuilding, the lack of planning regarding insurgents and actual governing has changed that entire equation, to say nothing of the fact that it seems that we went to war on false premises, intentionally. The focus on fear here at home, the erosion of civil liberties and the ethical compromises we see made in our names don't sit well with me.

That's why I'm no longer a Bush supporter. It's why I didn't vote for him in 2004. I'm still not decided on what I'm going to do in 2008, but McCain doesn't seem likely to break from Bush's policies enough for me.

I don't think there are as many out-and-out Bush supporters on this forum as you might believe. There are plenty who aren't democrats, some who are willing to give McCain a chance, and some fence-sitters. However, I'm not sure that there is some population out there that can respond to your thread discussion why the did, now, and plan to continue to support Bush/McCain. I doubt there are more than 5 active posters in politics who could make such a post.

And why would they bother to try?

While I'm a staunch independent, and I believe Ustwo is possibly libertarian-ish?? (sorry if I got that wrong), we and a few others still hanging around here are possibly as close to being conservative on TFP Politics as they get. There are a few Republican "Bush Supporters" as you say ... but most don't care to participate in these kinds of threads. If you are looking for a response from the Bushies on TFP, they are probably few and far between. Regarding your wanting a response defending a third Bush term via McCain, I don't think a true Republican would accept that premise. I can understand such a viewpoint from a democrat or others unhappy with Bush, equally so by those not liking Bill Clinton asserting Gore would be a Clinton third term (like with Hillary now). I think that's a normal or typical kind of assertion by those who are devoted to their ideology.

Things like WMD's and the like have been thrashed about on these forums for a long time. I'm not a "Bush supporter" as you say, but much of your accusations for numerous topics against him or those you see in-league with Bush (even things that aren't about Bush directly) are so wildly biased, it's hard for some of us to see credibility or take your threads seriously. I know that can wear both ways sometimes for myself and others , but it's because we aren't communicating effectively, in a hurry, angry, excited ... what ever. These kinds of threads soon become duels, personal digs, or mostly being more about litigating a position rather than debate or discussion ... who's got the best source, who's got the most time. Steal a line, turn a phrase, score a point.

Shhhh, I've got them convinced I am the neo-con robot devil :angry:

Being a libertarian domestically and perfectly happy with the 'neo-con' foreign policy means my issues with Bush would be pissing in the wind considering the number of full blown socialists we have posting, even if they don't accept the name.

I made one mistake in 2000, I thought compassionate conservatism was just a campaign lie, I was wrong.

It would have been interesting if 9/11 never happened, Bush was doing his best to cross the isle even if every time they stabbed him in the back for it, even letting that alcoholic blowhard manslaughter fugitive Teddy Kennedy author the education bill. Would have been interesting what 3 more years of that might have achieved.

Yep...me too. Who'd a thunk it?

The boy's tenacious, you have to give him that.

Of course, if I was the bastard he always thought I was, I would have canned his ass years back when I had the ability.

Ah, my heart is too soft...

Wow, even the liberal blogs are starting to realize this. Well paint me red....

bush-bashing?

still, somehow, even after all the damage rightwing politics have done and still are doing, conservative-speak can make me laugh.

Is it bush-bashing to point out its illegal for any president to authorize spying on US citizens without a warrant or using torture on persons held in US custody?

Or to point out its immoral for any president to mislead the American people and knowingly and willfully take the country to war based on false premises?

Or to point out its unethical for any president to use more signing statements than nearly every other president combined in order to change the intent of laws enacted by Congress....or to classify more government documents secret than every other president combined in order to keep the country in the dark on some of the more questionable activities of his administration?

Or to point out that it is fiscally irresponsible for any president to double the national debt of his predecessor?

You think our entire system is an unmitigated failure, really you have no place to talk at all in this debate.

Now thats funny!

A conservative who values our system so much, yet flaunts one of the basic tenants at the foundation of that system by suggesting that those with unpopular opinions should have no voice in a debate.

Or....the giant "fuck you" "sent" to the families of dead and maimed US troops, and to the troops serving multiple extended tours in Iraq, by the president with the distinction of spending more than 900 days of his presidency, at his ranch, Camp David, or in Kennebunkport?

It's a "fuck you", because he had to know that it "was a problem", even before he came to be a failed president:

Bush demonstrated that he just doesn't give a shit about what anyone thinks, including the people who have given up everything:

Impeach, prosecute, go get the bastard. Sound familiar? If there's such overwhelming evidence of laws broken, then the justice system should have no problem wrapping this one up ... have at 'em. Perhaps the ACLU has a strongly worded report that can be cited until then, or more hand wringing and voicing of feelings should continue to replace the evidence available to everyone. Until then, you'll just have to live through Bush's last few months in office.

Host,

Here's what you just don't get: Even I would probably give you more credibility and stop busting your chops so much if you didn't do crap like quoting a fucking AUGUST 2001!!! article on Bush going to Texas to support your position.

Do you want kudos? Fine, I probably agree somewhat more with you regarding Bush than I did 2 years ago. I think his will be considered among the worst presidencies, but I don't think he eats dead soldier's babies for breakfast like you apparently do.

Does that sound harsh? Too bad, because when you do things like this, and like post the SAME DAMN POST OVER AND OVER AGAIN, all of your hard work, all of your research, comes over as a left wing loony and people STOP LISTENING TO YOU.

Final note, I don't really care that you ignore my jabs of late. Caring would require precious energy that, frankly, is better spent on things worth caring about like my family and career. BUT, do you have the intestinal fortitude to really look at yourself and answer this, my probably last serious response to you?

This is an odd response. What is more credible than referring to Bush's first few months in office by using an article published a first few months after Bush took office? The reason why host's posts don't get very far (besides the bias) is that people don't take on his issues, they sidestep them or ridicule them. You yourself would have more credibility if you'd just engage the issue. If you don't have the energy for this, then fine.

Personally, I haven't yet engaged in any of host's recent threads about this because few are responding in a way that would draw me in. I'm only coming in now because this response of yours is a good example of what derails my interest.

I do have an interest in a thread that discusses the overarching impact of the Bush presidency, but I don't want to wander too far into a quagmire of a thread that no one wants adequately engage.

Sorry, host.

i agree entirely with baraka guru and i have thought much the same way for most of the time that i've been here at tfp.

most of what you get in response to these posts is a version of what roland barthes called "deaf nd dumb criticism" which he summed up as "i don't get it therefore you are an idiot"--the version that is common here is "i am lazy therefore your posts suck."

sometimes i don't know why i bother with this place, and that sort of nonsense is a big reason for it.

Wow, good point. Maybe that's why I haven't engaged very much in Tilted Politics.

I thought it was just my disdain for people mislabelling my elusive political standpoints.

Impeachment is a political process, the ACLU has nothing to do with it, as events clearly prove. Since it is a political process, the thing that has held it back has been the outsized influence, of....you guessed it....supporters of Bush.

They still dominate congress....a strong enough force to intimidate conservatice democrats and able to block any attempted initiative in the senate, as well as interfere with the committee process, in the house, and they own the corporate media....


Yeah...I can see it.....that fuckwad "host" is the real problem....he never stops posting about this shit....his Bush bashing.

When my grandchildren ask me someday, why did people stand idly by, while Bush fiddled, and the troops and the Iraqi people, and the US bill of rights and the US treasury, and US international treaty commitments, and the rule of law burned....what should I tell them?

:expressionless:

I really and truly hate threads that turn into discussions about individual members - at least ones that didn't start off that way. It would be a shame to have to lock this one because the discussion turned into something unproductive. So please, stay on target.

Otto.....as Host noted, the issues I raised about what many in country consider Bush's illegal, immoral, unethical and irresponsible actions, have little to do with the issue of impeachment and nothing to do with the ACLU....in fact three of the four are not impeachable offenses.

IMO, they are simply examples of immoral, unethical and irresponsible actions that make Bush's presidency controversial.

The problem is, that by attempting to divert the discussion to impeachment and the ACLU, I still have no idea where you stand on those examples of Bush's actions and the issue of the OP......do you support those actions? do you think its fair or unreasonable for some to think they contribute to Bush's presidency as being controversial?

As others observed, it appears to be a typical response mechanism to avoid discussing controversial issues about Bush....but at least you didnt raise the "but, but Clinton did x or other presidents did y" flag...another popular defense and deflection response we see all too often.

***
An afterthought on impeachment, since you raised the issue.

I strongly believe the approval of warrantless wiretaps and torture are impeachable offenses.

Many here (and in the public) are outraged at the Dems for not initiating an impeachment inquiry...and others her (and in the public) on the other side use as that as a means of dodging the issue at hand.

But I have not called for impeachment as loudly as others, because I thought the results would be predictable.

Here is why...even if the Dems started an impeachment inquiry in the House immediately upon assuming control of the House last Jan, we would likely be at a standstill even now, more than a year later.

That is evident from how the Bush administration has responded to simple oversight hearings....withholding (or destroying) documents, refusing to allow persons to testify under oath, ignoring subpoenas, etc., and most of all, the unwillingness of the AG to uphold the law, rather than act as the president's attorney.

Most likely, it would have ended up in the courts (requiring Bush to provide documents to Congress) where Bush would have further stalled it with various court filings...then ultimately bumping it up to the USSC on appeal if he lost at the lower court level.. until he was out of office (which is the likely outcome of the current "contempt of congress" charges filed in the federal court by the Dems in the House against several Bush officials early this year).

And, if by chance, articles of impeachment actually came to a vote in the Senate, the likelihood of 15 Republican Senators voting "guilty" would be slim to none, IMO.

I happen to agree with Pelosi...impeachment would have been unproductive and the only result would have been to further divide an already fractious nation.

I strongly support continued oversight hearings on numerous questionable Bush policies and actions, even as Bush supporters continue to characterize such hearing as "fishing expeditions."

If the facts get out, the public benefits and can make their own judgments. My hope is that the public is more objective than some of the Bush supporters here.

So Ustwo shouldn't be able to speak HIS opinion? ;)

Of course he should.

Thats why I thought it was funny....a conservative wanting one set of rules for himself and a different set for those with opposing views. :)

Since you mentioned your step son is a Republican, tell them to ask their father :thumbsup:

Lebell - Nice to see you around again ;)

*nod to Ustwo*

Gentlemen, I can say this w/o rancor or w/o personally attacking anyone here, but say it I will, bullshit.

I have engaged host numerous times, I have even taken the horrendous amount of time to track down all the posts in one of his missives and derailed most of them as "he said" "she said".

Baraka, you said it yourself:

"Personally, I haven't yet engaged in any of host's recent threads about this because few are responding in a way that would draw me in. I'm only coming in now because this response of yours is a good example of what derails my interest."

Indeed, who would be drawn into these threads? Who has the time to try and run down all of Host's stories, read the background and therefore understand the bias of the authors, etc etc?

I did it three or four times and frankly, I found that it wasn't worth it. Engage? I would love to engage, but Host is only interested in bashing you over the head with shear volume (quality questionable), and that my friend, isn't engagement. So isn't it ironic that what you don't appear to like (i.e. my post) has been the only thing that has made you respond?

Now to Roachboy: Lazy? I wasted how many years trying to moderate him, be fair, and respond, and I am guessing that you are grouping me with LAZY? You know what? If caring more for real people than chasing down every bit of floatsum that drifts into Host's transom on a website is lazy to you, I wear the title proudly.

Now to the final note, The Jazz: Dude, I truly feel for you. No doubt to the left on the board this is surely a personal attack, but I remember very well being in your shoes and hearing how people avoided this board specifically because of posts like this. To me, these posts aren't engaging. These don't help solve problems. If Host thinks that telling his grandchildren that what he did against the injustices of the world was to post ad naseum for YEARS on a web-site was "fighting the good fight", then he is a sadder person than I already think.

Personal attack? Look again. I'm trying to shake him one last time to ACTUALLY post in ways that make people of opposite opinions WANT to respond with other than vitriol. He isn't part of the solution, he is part of the problem.

So there you have it.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Wow!!!!!!!

To think this year is an election year and this country will be even more divided.

Host, you asked.... tell your grandkids how in Bush's last months you worked hard to divide the country even more.

Hey Zeus Freaking Crisps and Gash Dunnit people, WTF?????

Like Bush or hate Bush or post, he's got less than a fucking year. He's what we call a lame duck. Do you think he's going to destroy this nation before the election? I did once, but not anymore.

Let history judge him. He will have served 8 years in the hardest most stress filled job, in one of the most tumultuous times ever seen in this nation. We have NOT 1 TRUE idea what evidence was truly brought to light about Iraq, even the Messiah Obama, the screeching Wicked Witch of Arkansas.... errrrrrr NY.....errrrr Fla.... no NY, Hilary and the cowardly Lionesque Scarecrow that is McCain, hem and haw and provide no true answers on what they would do with Iraq. And if you believe their campaign lies....errrr promises you are an idiot, because until they take that oath and get informed they DON'T EVEN HAVE THE FULL PICTURE YET.

I am not for this war, I have stated since day 1 we invaded the wrong IRA_ country. Saddam was harmless, the weapons moved to Syria and who knows where else. Who knows what our country has done to these weapons? I mean honest to God.... Billions disappeared over there? Perhaps we bought some Ricin for God's sake, who the fuck besides Bush and those inside know?

And if Billions truly did just "vanish" imagine what would happen if we came out and said, "Hey mean evil terroristic type people who made our billions disappear..... we found weapons and they are on this base and you can't have them." Honestly, WTF do you think those nice Osama Bin types would do?

I'm just tired of the bullshit...... talking about impeaching him, crimes and all this BS for what 5-6 years and not doing a GODDAMNED thing except divide the country more and more and take the focus off getting real solutions to true issues like the economy, housing, education, health care and so on makes you not a single bit better than those you choose to spend all this time hating on.

So fuck Bush, start doing and working on something more constructive that will UNITE this country and please for the love of God and all that is holy....

STOP FUCKING DIVIDING THIS COUNTRY EVEN MORE GOD DAMMIT..... EITHER COME UP WITH WORKABLE SOLUTIONS OR GET THE FUCK OUT OF THE WAY SO THAT THOSE WHO CAN WILL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(and yes, that was written with extreme anger and hostility..... if you don't like it, it probably applies to you.)

Even edited it so those who bitch about my sizing and coloring can bitch more about that and totally blow off what was said........

Damn, very well stated and I couldn't agree more!

And yet, with all this RANTING, I still dont understand why some here are unwilling to discuss the more controversial aspects of the Bush presidency.

Let history judge? Not me, I dont want to wait that long. If it is not discussed in public forums, Congressional oversight hearings, campaign debates, talk shows, blogs...what is to prevent it from happening again while we wait for history to decide.

I dont want the next president, regardless of who it may be, following the same path of misleading the American people into another war, unilaterally making decisions that spit in the face of the Constitution's concept of checks and balances, operating in near total secrecy and spends us into a level of debt from which we may never recover.

Do you, pan...or Ustwo....or otto...or lebell...or scout?

So you dont want to discuss it.......fine.

I believe that holding our government accountable for its actions, regardless of who sits in the White House, is a citizen's responsibility.

My final question to the ranters and deflectors and deniers.....If you dont see anything wrong with what Bush has done, will you feel the same way if such actions are repeated by the next President who perhaps you didnt vote for?

:rolleyes:

Indignant posturing is trite no matter who spouts it... and there are a few people spouting it here.

"Justice will not come to Athens (or Washington DC) until those who are not injured are as indignant as those who are injured.
-Thucydides

For indignation to serve a meaningful purpose, it simply needs to be effectively channeled or directed :)

un-fucking-believable.

seriously.

at the level of information--not politics, but simple information---the record of the bush administration is transparent. anyone who fucking looks around them knows what these people have done. organize it as you like--from the war in iraq and the waves of political consequences that have flowed from it, which include the devaluation of the dollar--the policies shaped by neoliberalism that led to wholesale deregulation of the banking industry, policies implemented during the reagan period and maintain since that have resulted in the LARGEST TRANSFER OF WEALTH IN RECORDED HISTORY leading to an unbelievable CONCENTRATION OF WEALTH. you could go on and on making lists of the problems that have resulted or been exercebated by the incompetence and ideologically-driven blindess of this administration.

you have a co-ordinated attempt---which the fiscal conservatives like the rest of us are fucking paying for--on the part of the bush administration to sell their incompetence back to us--read yesterday's new york times, the front page bloody article about the stable of pet generals that the pentagon had assembled to do spin control on the iraq war for the networks over the past 5 years.

you, comrades, have been sold a lump of shit. and you, comrades, have partaken of that shit, eaten it. maybe the political commercials that the administration had paid to have inserted into news broadcasts as if they were information also persuaded you that the shit you have eaten was something else--and perhaps, if you are sufficiently caught up in the reality shaped by these commercials and the politics for which they stand, self-interest and military contractors individisble, unity and justice for none blah blah blah, maybe for you that shit is not even shit. maybe you really believe it's something else. maybe you have to believe that it is something else.

it is a pathetic reality reflected in this pathetic non-debate

but this thread has some special features all its own.

let's stretch and grant the status of argument to the petty whining posts from the conservative set above, what we have is two main claims:

1. it is the CRITICS of the administration that generate division.
2. the problem really, in the world, is host in tfp.

to my mind, there is no debate to be had about either of these.
to my mind, both are meaningless. they amount to nothing: they say nothing, they do nothing.
they are not worth refuting because they are not worth taking seriously.


this is nonsense.
i'm tired of it.
i'll catch you later.

Boom--there we have it. Nonsense, indeed.

* * * * *

pan, wouldn't you prefer Bush be a history rather than a precedent?

I'm with Pan, I would much rather we all be united in support of a disaster than divided and trying to figure out what went wrong.

Wait, errr, no.

I couldn't resist rising to the bait, so The_Jazz had to edit my post.

You miss pans point entirely. At THIS point, continuing to attack Bush will accomplish nothing of value, hes done (unless you are one of those idiots who think hes waiting to take over the country) opinions are not going to change much among those paying attention, so if you were really worried about the country you would focus on moving ahead with what needs to be done instead of trying to attack a lame duck administration.

Being I do care about the country though, I do hope so many on the left continue to focus on Bush, it keeps them from focusing their loony ideas :thumbsup:

No.....I think the point of the OP is that if the public accepts and refuses to discuss potential wrongdoings of a sitting president, future presidents may do the same.

Will you be as cavalier about the questionable acts of an Obama or Clinton Administration as you appear to be about the Bush administration?

For the first MANY years of the Bush administration, any criticism was met by "Well Clinton's a criminal! It's not fair he got away with not being convicted! We should try him for his crimes!"

Double-standard much?

If you pay more attention to who is running now and less time trying to oust Bush (hat leaves us with Cheney... then Condi... great replacements there), a president over stepping their bounds like Bush did won't happen.

Bush did what WE ALLOWED him to do. We can cry, yell, scream, demand impeachment (which there is truly not enough time left) and divide farther.

Or we can look for a new president that will truly LEAD US into a better future.

I choose to look for the leader and stop focusing on what we have. He's gone soon....

I also wonder how much of this blind hatred for the GOP and Bush was held over from Clinton. I loved Bill, he was tied and couldn't truly accomplish what he needed because the GOP badgered his every move.

I'm tired I have had 16 years of bullshit dealing with the president and it is OVER. Now we find a true leader.

I will definitely not like the person who wins, but that person will be my president. I would prefer Hilary, but if McCain or Obama win so be it. I will respect that person for the office they hold and I will hope they have a plan to get this country back on track.

But you want to keep dividing and stirring shit and thinking it makes you look far far more patriotic ........ I disagree. I believe it makes you look every bit as bad as Bush and all that you scream about you would have been blind and silent to had it been done not by Bush but by a president of your choosing.

No NO and NO

You don't get it either, man.

The bitching, the posting is fine. But I have a friend who has the same damn problem. He's passionate about the issues, but he has trouble keeping friends.

He hates Bush, supports Obama, but is on his second divorce and his kid's friends don't come around because he is so angry and unpleasant to be around.

That's what I see here; passion about what Bush has done to this country but no compassion even for the people around here. No solutions. No positives.

Am I guilty? Sure. I spent a lot of time here, but at least I figured out that I was slipping into becoming just a complainer and not a doer. I figured out that I was in danger of becoming just like the people I didn't like.

If you can't handle the bitching, whining and non-constructive engagement, try this thread:

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...50#post2436550

pan....believe it or not, I can do both.....and I think it is in the best interest of the country to do so....to pay attention to who is running now and to OUT Bush's questionable actions in oversight hearings to get at the truth behind those actions (not OUST Bush) so it becomes clear that such actions by a president, if found to be illegal or unethical, will not be acceptable in the future by Congress or the American people.

BTW, if Bush and Cheney were to be ousted....Nancy Pelosi is next in line...not Condi :)

Discussing Bush's (alleged or proven) wrondoings and supporting more oversight hearings in the coming year ("dividing and stirring shit" as you call it) in order to have the facts come out to the American people so that they are more informed in order to judge for themselves if such actions are acceptable for a president is more important to me than how I look in your eyes.

I said the same thing twice....with the hope that helps clarify it...if not perhaps I should SHOUT IN COLOR to make my point.

Seriously? Roach I just lost a lot of the respect I held for you with that statement.

You honestly think this is the largest transfer of wealth in History? If you were half as educated as your vocabulary lends, you would know this is complete bs.

The entire wealth of the Aztec/Incan Empires transfer to Europe? Nah, our Middle Class are taking it way harder than them. The Fall of Rome? Nah, the morbidly obese poor in our country make them seem like pansies. The Fall of the falling of the Byzantine/Sassanid Empires? Ain't got nothin' on the strife of our welfare policies.

I could go on...

You see? It's outlandish claims like these which result in people ignoring threads. We still have threads which attempt to show Bush stole the '01 election... which flies in the face of everything which has come out. We still have posts, started by our favorite thread starter, which scream and yell that 9/11 was a Bush plot. With that kind of rancid hatred, there is no where to go with discussions. It would be like trying to convince with words to Mao that his policies should be changed to avoid the death of millions... or trying ton convince Jerry Falwell that homosexuality isn't a hellworthy sin. They just don't care and don't want to hear it.

No problem, hold your moderators to the same standards though, you know who I'm talking about.

And your attitude is why moderate Dems are going to leave the party in droves. I was a very proud Dem at one time, and much like Lebell stated above, I posted hate and anger and realized I wasn't doing a damned thing to better the country that way.

Your hatred and anger you decided not to read my post or took out only what you want.

You say "I am only trying to warn so this doesn't happen with a president again." But yet, you keep making it personal. If this had been a Dem president , I am 99% sure that you would be supporting and defending his every move with all this passion.

I'm tired of it.... either find solutions or get the fuck out of the way so that those of us that do and want to work UNITED can.

I would love to see moderates from both parties tell both parties extremists to go fuck themselves and form a strong socially liberal, fiscally conservative 3rd party.

It won't happen, but it would shut the extremists who run this country the Hell up.

BTW Pelosi taking over scares me a hell of a lot more than Bush or Cheney.

Agreed. No one gets special treatment. Including staff.

Here's some text in small font sooth the large-fontaphobic.
Hence the "smiley" ...
Along with the deep concerns you guys constantly raise with the administration, do you believe the likes of Nancy Pelosi are in not "in" on much of what you and host complain? Who pulls their strings? Who lines their political pockets? They are as "owned" as any politician can be. The leaders of the "peoples mandate" have been rather quiet if not lack-luster since elected, don't some of you feel used? I would be more pissed about those betrayals because they have the power to do something about the claims you're making against Bush & Co. You can argue how power "really" plays out in congress, but they are still not powerless. The evidence that you want to expose or bring to everyone's attention is old news to the powerful on all sides by the time you report it. I'd be seriously questioning their unwillingness to act if things are the way you say they are. To rail on with such a transparent politically-biased unidimensional focus is tedious.

sample predictable opposing group response:
"**** you otto. Don't you know the majority of us TFP'ers (enter something authoritative here)? You obviously have lived under a rock and haven't read (enter obscure liberal author's article, book), or lived in the (oppressed persons classification of the day) shoes. You obviously ignore the facts (paste volume's of questionably sourced articles and quotes tied in with little original opinion here). You're the one that's tedious ... it's that kind of neo-con conservative (enter some bogus pseudo-intellectual dismissive analysis here). Maybe I'll school you in politics someday (add :) to mask the put down) ... blah blah blah".

This shouldn't even be happening. I loved Bill, the GOP did all they could to keep him from doing his job..... but where were the Dems? Seems back then quite a few major ones stayed silent and didn't really do much to stop the GOP, until the end.

I just don't get it.... after 16+ years of dividing this country so badly that nothing gets done and we are truly feasting upon ourselves, all some people can worry about is "what did Bush get away with?" You cannot rebuild this country by blaming and hating and staying divisive. Give it up....in the end you will only look to be a fool for keeping that hatred and bullshit alive for so long.

Ummm hello, realty calling you. If you choose the next president and pat of his agenda/platform is to restore the office and rebuild the country as a whole not divisively then yu don't have to worry what the next president will do.

If you don't trust the candidate in your heart and soul.... then don'te vote for that candidate.


Quoted because I like what it says and know it's true..... esp. the opposing responses.

pan....in fact, by nearly every measure, the Democratic party is growing, due in large part to the influx of moderate Independents and young people as a result of Bush's actions over the last seven years.

One only need to look at recently elected moderate Dem Senators like Jim Webb in Virginia, Claire McKaskill in Missouri, John Tester in Montana and Ken Salazar in Colorado from traditional Repub (red) states....as well as most of the 30+ Dems elected to the House in '06...all of whom have helped move the Dem party more to the center....much to the chagrin of some on the far left (but not me, I think its a good thing for the party :) )

In fact, moderate Repubs are the ones leaving their party. More than half of the 30 Repubs in the House who will not seek reelection this year are the moderates who have been marginalized in the party (others are leaving because of age or scandals), and the RNC is putting up social conservatives to run in their place...creating a greater possibility of Dems winning many of these seats this year.

But that is irrelevant to the discussion.

And despite your observations, I dont post out of hate and anger....I post to get the facts out when I see a president who IMO has not lived up to his oath of office. And I do so in order to stimulate discussion and try to gain an understanding of why some are not as concerned.

You're tired of reading that I think its important to hold a president accountable for his actions until the very last day in office..then ignore it.

Who are you to tell me to get the fuck out of way?

I'm tired of hearing you proclaim yourself a UNITER.


I actually think, aside from not forcing a plan to start withdrawing from Iraq, the Dem majority had a reasonable good first year as the majority, with numerous bills enacted that restored accountability in response to many of the abuses of the last seven years.

Are you ready to offer more claims to back up your "The Surge is Working" thread yet?

And yet you guys... pan. Ustwo, otto, seaver, etc still do not want to discuss those controversial actions...its all "old news" despite that fact that it continues today (EPA ignoring USSC ruling on implementing the Clean Air, DoD selectively releasing classified intel to their favorite talking heads who support the continued occupation of Iraq in order to generate favorable news coverage over a failed policy and strategy, violation of the law regarding how states implement SCHIP, etc) and instead, offer lame rationalizations why it serves no purpose to discuss these issues.

So...I give up!

Which bills are you referring? Bills for fact-finding junkets and redecorating? Those should be numerous.
You say that now ...

FISA reform, FOIA reform, contracting reform, lobbying/ethics reform, US attorney hiring reform, VA reform, FEMA reform......all address the issue of accountability as a result of Bush administration excesses or ineptness.

Renewal of SCHIP, implementation of 9/11 Commission recommendations, new education and economic competitiveness initiatives w/emphasis on science/math/technology, expansion of student loan programs, investments in renewable energy and energy conservation....all of which the public wanted but were stalled by the previous Repub majority.

enough?

I cant find the "redecorating" bill to which you refer

But I do understand how some would characterize Repub trips to Iraq as "fact-finding missions to support the troops" and Dem trips to Iraq as "interfering junkets for partisan political purposes."

Bush and Cheney both need to be impeached as soon as possible. It won't fix everything but at least sends a message to their puppeteers.



I found this quote that Reagan wrote about George "W" in his diaries, recently edited by author Doug Brinkley and published by Harper Collins.


"A moment I've been dreading. George brought his n'er-do-well son around this morning and asked me to find the kid a job. Not the political one who lives in Florida ; the one who hangs around here all the time looking shiftless. This so-called kid is already almost 40 and has never had a real job. Maybe I'll call Kinsley over at The New Republic and see if they'll hire him as a contributing editor or something. That looks like easy work."


From the REAGAN DIARIES------entry dated May 17, 1986.
__________________

LOL! That is hilarious. "The Great Communicator" was a real ballbuster behind the scenes.