Bush! To be honoust!
 

Who can tell me what they really think about Bush.

W. is one of those frat boys who lives on daddy's name. I think he's just one of those guys who is simple minded and does what he's told, without question. Someone who's tried to branch away from daddy but never could. And one of those guys who'd rather be out hunting or fishing and out partying with the guys than face any responsiblity.

I don't think he's evil although those around him are. I think W. thinks he's doing the best job he can and that daddy and Uncle Dick and the guys would never do anything to hurt him or the country.

In all honesty, I think W.'s a very likeable guy, and deep down is a caring person. BUT, I think he is just a puppet, doing what he is told and has no idea what is truly going on.

I'll Pass.

I think...

Bush understands the complexities of the war on terror.

He's a terrible public speaker when he has to stick to a script but is very good when he speaks from the heart and doesn't try to get across the "talking points" his advisors push on him.

He has tremendous vision as far as the impacts his current actions will have in the future.

He has not done a good job communicating the overall plan to combat terrorism but I believe the plan is sound.

honest: 1.Marked by or displaying integrity; upright: an honest lawyer.
2. Not deceptive or fraudulent; genuine: honest weight.
3. Equitable; fair: honest wages for an honest day's work.

honoust: ?

I agree with bill on this one though... has flamefest written all over it so I'm passing.

O yee of little faith. lol Just teasing ya Bill.

Faith has nothing to do with this. The track record of Politics threads that start like this is documented.

GWB is another Skull & Bones-Masonic figure elected (well not actually) to lead our country. The only problem w/ him & all before him is that the presidential motives never really benefit those who struggle in this American system. Just the rich and those politically ($$$$$) connected.
I dont really think he knows what he is doing.

I think the lack of foresight in his foriegn policy is without precedent.

Being a "nice guy" and a good 'ol boy does not make up for kicking this country back into the diplomatic stone age. Neither does a 28 dollar tax break.

I was just curious about how Americans tought about him. Here in Europe GWB hasn't got a great image. Even worse! With Bill Clinton the bridge between the US and the rest of the world became closer. And now it hasn't been further away than ever.

I tend to agree with this.

Such subjective comparisons are not helpful in any sort of logical debate.

What does that have to do with the politics board, Seretogis?

:) :) :)

I like Bush. Unlike most politicians he does what he thinks is best for the country. I like that he isn't a pollster, and I like the fact that he has some stones. As far as the 'He has sent America back to the diplomatic stone age", I call bullshit. Bush and his policies just revealed Europe and the rest of the haters for who they are.

"haters"?

:rolleyes:

I think Bush is a life-long underachiever who frankly is not very intelligent, does not want to know what is going on (he's said this many times, and is proud of the fact that he doesn't expose himself to the news), and who has surrounded himself with some very dangerous people. These people realize that he's not very bright and are using that, and the fact that Bush won't read a newspaper, to completely control what Bush learns. Everything Bush knows comes from his advisors (he's admitted - no - bragged about that as well). As such, they can tell him anything they need to in order to do what it is they want to do.

I also think that last night's press conference was very revealing:

1) he never actually answers the question that he's asked.

2) despite three seperate journalists telling him that one of the biggest criticisms about him is that he never admits when he's wrong, he couldn't come up with ONE SINGLE MISTAKE he's ever made. He has the image of himself as an infallible leader.

3) He admitted that there was nothing Saddam could have done to avoid war. He said that even if he'd known, as he does now, that there were no WMD's, he would have attacked Iraq anyway. This proves that we have a warmonger - or at least a foolish and ignorant puppet who's strings are being pulled by warmongers - on our hands.

4) He is completely incapable of thinking on his feet. Every answer he gave was stumbling, vague, and in the end did not answer the question. He even stumbled and struggled for words to talk about the issue (freedom of iraqis) that he claims to be so passionate about.

In short, this is a man who is not a good president - in fact he is the Peter Principle poster child. The only way he rose to the position he has now is through the influence of his family. He'd never have made it on his own merit.

I thought it was more eloquent then asshats or something else.

Just to answer #3 he never said he would've attacked Iraq, his words were along lines that he would've worked through the UN to address the situation.

And as said in the past, just because you are a bad speaker doesn't mean that you are a bad president.

shakran, Mojo_PeiPei calls you on this. Can you back it up...with credible sources? Fair's fair.



Mojo_PeiPei, can you likewise backup your assertion?

He's doomed, that's what I think of him. Without making any other value judgment, that's what I think after last night's press conference.

I am involved in an nonprofit organization that hired a new executive a couple of years; this organization consists largely of volunteers, many of whom also support the organization with donations. The new exec consulted no one in the wider organization on decisions; made up her mind on her own, proceeded unilaterally, and never reconsidered. I asked her if she ever had doubts or uncertainty, and she said no.

Well, after she pretty much ran the organization into the ground, we booted her out of there, not without a lot of bitterness. And she hates our guts, because in her mind she was doing the right thing. Because if anything went wrong, it was somebody else's fault, not hers. The rest of us eventually saw reality when the money stopped coming in and key people started quitting, but she never did.

Anyway, I saw Bush making the same moves last night. He thinks he's showing strength by doing so, but he's really showing weakness. He could not admit to a mistake, could not name something he could have done better, saw no reason to say he was sorry about anything. Now that's a man wrapped up in fear, not strength -- a strong man can admit mistakes and grow by them. And however you feel about Bush and Iraq, you must admit that mistake were made. People are only human -- kind of redundant statement, but it needs to be said.

Bush couldn't say he was sorry about September 11. You might ask, what does he need to be sorry about? Well, that it happened. That the government wasn't on top of it. That the whole apparatus of government wasn't somehow better. Doesn't matter what happened under whose watch, he was the guy in charge when it happened. And if he _had_ apologized -- nobody in power has done so -- it would have been a massive catharsis that would have helped a lot of people feel better, _and_ it would have increased his popularity, at least short-term. He thinks that taking responsibility and making the apology shows weakness, but it actually would demonstrate strength -- maybe not to the Beltway pundits who are in a world of their own, but to the great majority of Americans who still think that strength and the willingness to be humble in combination are an American core value.

But he didn't apologize, and didn't admit error in any way. Assuming that he actually believes that, combine that attitude with a volatile situation and you've got a train wreck coming -- in Iraq, maybe even in the economy. The only question is when.

THats what Bush said on that issue
full transcript here http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentSe...=1079420334037

Seems to me that he admits he makes mistakes. Obviously any answer to what "the biggest" mistake he's made since 9/11 would be scrutinized to no end. Rather than give an off the cuff answer which would undoubtedly have been torn apart he decided not to answer it on the spot. Sounds like he may be a bit smarter than many give him credit for.

I think, and this is just my opinion, that Bush is at heart a good man. He is just not a leader. He is trying to impress his father and really doesn't have a grasp on the job and all it entails [thus the need for Cheney to sit in on hte commission hearings]. SOme of this comes from skating by on his father's reputation and money and some of this comes from just not being quick-thinking enough under pressure [more or less he admitted it yesterday]. One listen to the press conference last night I believe sums the case up for anyone who is looking for a change.

There are similar sentiments in Canada concerning Bush also. The Bush adminisration didn't like it at all that Canada initially passed on military involvement in Iraq. (Passed on by the numbers the U.S wanted, Canada has troops in Iraq, Afganistan and Kosovo). The issue of sending troops to Iraq was debated in parliament and found that the so-called proof was shaky at best: hence no major involvement.

Then Paul Cellucci, the U.S ambassador to Canada gave several scathing speeches pretty much accusing Canada of turning it's back on America. Insulting to say the least. We are polite people. We like to be asked rather than being told what to do. We are proud people, not puppets.

As far as Bush goes. I don't think he has a clue as to how his foreign policy decisions are changing the world for the worse, not better. But that isn't totally his fault, a lot has to do with the agendas of those who are advising him.

I really don't want to criticize Bush and classify him as some sort of an idiot, but I have to wonder at times if he fully realizes exactly the depth and circumstance as to his actions, or inactions concerning what he perceives as making the world a better place by his standards.

Personally as President, I think he is out of his league on a world stage.

"Even knowing what I know today about the stockpiles of weapons, I still would've called upon the world to deal with Saddam Hussein"

Unless you plan to change what he means by "deal with Saddam," then he would have gone for the attack whether he knew about WMD's or not.

Here's another bit to back that up. Anyone remember back just before we attacked Iraq? Bush told Saddam "you must disarm, or we will disarm you." Saddam bullshitted around for awhile and finally destroyed a bunch of weapons. As he was destroying them, Bush released another statement, saying that Saddam must disarm AND leave the country, or we'd attack. Bush changed the rules mid-game to guarantee that Saddam wouldn't meet the conditions.

Mojo, your source is the same as mine, and we're interpreting it two different ways. I do not see where "call upon the world to deal with Saddam" means "work with the UN and get them stop Saddam."

I stand by my Statement. Bush has proven many times that he was going after Saddam whether he was justified or not. As we can clearly see today, and frankly as anyone who actually examined the data could have seen before the invasion, he wasn't justified.

The United States has, under President Bush's watch, become an invasion force. We have attacked a soveriegn nation that has NEVER attacked us. They didn't attack us in the first gulf war, and they didn't attack us this time.

We went to war on the flimsiest possible evidence, which has now been all but 100% proven to be a load of crap. Bush & Co. wanted a war, and they were gonna get one no matter what.

Contrary to popular belief, I think that Bush is a very well meaning, thoughtful man who trusts his instincts and believes in going with his "gut feeling" rather than spending large amounts of time "sweating the details". He makes the big decisions and allows others to put them in action. By all accounts he is very personable and has strong convictions. He believes that approaching government in the manner one approaches running a business will ulitmately benefit the nation. He has a strong religious faith and believes intently in Neo-conservative ideals. He is both a Yalie and a cowboy and this allows him to connect with a wide variety of people. He is arrogant (like most politicians) and believes he knows what is best for the nation and dislikes people questioning him or his decisions. This trait, even when he is right about something, tends to create resentment and thus he has become a highly divisive individual.(Something that he never thought he would be.)

He believes in promoting business at almost any cost and in doing so is willing to do great damage to the environment, to education, to a myriad of social programs in the belief that in the long run we will be able to repair this damage and in fact improve the condition of all these things. Short term pain for the masses, will give us all long term gains.

I personally believe he misguided. I do not think he is a Machievellian(sp?) figure, but I do believe that many who surround him are. His lack of intellectual curiosity concerns me greatly, and the like-mindedness of his closest advisors denies him a variety of opinions from which to learn. Dissenting voices are not encouraged (Paul O'Neil is gone an Powell is almost always the odd man out and will be gone if Bush wins a second term).

I think President Bush has made innumerable poor decisions on economic, environmental and social issues. I disagree with his handling of the War on Terror and the manner in which he approached the Iraq War. I personally believe that he has done severe damage to the image of the United States. He has unneccessarily offened long time allies and his poor communication skills are frankly an embarassment.

I believe that this country can and should find a more capable man to serve as our President.

Overall: well-meaning, misguided man who thinks more of his abilities than he has a right.

Sorry, but wrong. He has never, not once, not ever, admitted to making a mistake while in office. As for not answering it on the spot, if you noticed, he didn't answer ANYTHING on the spot. Most of the questions he answered were not the ones that were asked. The whole q/a session was a big game of "did you make a mistake?" "Saddam is a bad man."


Yes, it is his fault, for purposely not informing himself on what's happening, and relying on those advisors to tell him everything. This also makes a great situation for Cheney and Rumsfeld, because they can call the shots, start wars with anyone they want, and generally have a wonderful time playing Army with real human lives, but in the end, it will be the ignorant leader who gets the blame.

Bush SHOULD get the blame because it's his fault that he's ignorant and it's his fault that he listens to these warmongers, but there's something apalling about Cheney and Rumsfeld being able to do this without getting in any hot water over it.


Oh, and one thing I forgot to add in my initial sum up of Bush. He's immature as hell. He allowed "freedom toast" on Air Force One. It was a juvenile anti-french craze that swept the country when France decided that fighting Iraq was not justified. If the idiots at the local deli want to do that, that's fine, but the President of the United States should be at a higher level than infantile insults.

He admitted last night that he has made mistakes that's the point of the quote I attached.

I've always wondered this, but how does Bush getting his information solely from his advisers make him ignorant or stupid/misinformed? I mean call me crazy but I would think that the way intelligence is brought to him is about 10x better then anything anybody gets. How is him not listening to the media a problem? I don't get it? How would him getting news after the fact from public sources help? Where else is he supposed to get his information from? The New York Times? Newsweek? The people that get the information the government wants them to report? The people that get the news after shit has already gone down? Shakran you saying is completely retarded, sorry and no offense to you personally, I just have no idea how a reasonably informed person could say something so nieve and stupid.

I don't see Bush as unintelligent.

Rather, I view his bumblings (such as word mispronounciations and folksy sort of pronouncements) to be a carefully orchestrated manuever to garner maximum support from the population.

For those of you abroad who wonder just what the hell is going on here, I'll present my analysis.

Most of the US population is still contained within small, rural cities--between 25,000 and 50,000 people.

There is a prevalent idea among the working class to be skeptical of the educated class--so we see a divide between those living in urban, professional regions and rural, working class regions.

An overwhelming proportion of US citizens identify with Christian values (~90% last time I looked at the figures). A vocal minority of that group are politically active and well-organized. While the majority don't want to impose their values on the rest of the population, the minority does, and, since the values are very similar, the majority of the people don't try to stop religious trends instigated by the minority.

When Bush speaks in a folksy manner, makes mistakes many people envision any other regular folk could make, and places the cherry on top of being a reborn Christian who is just trying to walk his religious sojourn in life, that creates a powerful affinity between him and a huge majority of the population--along with an incredibly powerful, well-organized, and politically active minority.

Behind the scenes, however, he doesn't share working class interests, although it appears like he is one of "us." He shares the interests of the corporate class, and regardless of whether he is "controlled" by them, he does things that benefit the corporate class because he is part of it. He shares the same values and acts accordingly.

When educated liberals point out that his actions are not in the long-term interests of the country (meaning that they are not in the interests of the majority of the population--the working class), it is perceived by them as another attack on the common folk by the ivory tower people.

Educated conservatives enter the foray and make two simultaneous arguments: one directed at other educated professionals justifying the logic of their actions and one directed at the working class arguing that liberals are destroying the values of the country (both moral and religious), anti-american, and engaging in class warfare. Banking on the skepticism of the working class toward professionals, they are able to claim that educated liberals really aren't in touch with them nor do they want to be. Their position gives the working class a feeling of political efficacy, since someone needs to be guarding the henhouse. Based on this, educated conservatives get a pass on their economic vision, which in reality, runs counter to the needs of the working class.

That's how I see it.

Rick James: Cocaine's a hell of a drug

Actually, no he did not. He said he's confident he's made mistakes. That's not a definite statement saying "I made mistakes." That's a statement that he believes he has probably made mistakes.

Because without multiple sources you cannot verify the truth in what you learn. In short, he's surrounded himself with yes-men and he believes everything they say.

Nope. Used to be that way, but then 24 hour news services with world-wide resources and realtime satellite uplinks came around. Now, the world, including our own government, turns into CNN to see what's happening.



Because if his advisors are lying to him, reading the facts in an independent source might give him the heads up. You know, for every president before this one, there was a dedicated staff that read through the major newspapers in the US and clipped important articles for the president to read, because sometimes advisors lie, sometimes they get it wrong, and often times journalists have the whole story. Bush, of course, is not interested in that.

I'm not sure what you're suggesting here. Are you saying all media sources are compromised, and are puppets of the government? This IS the United States we're talking about, right?

Well let's see, if he bothered to tune into CNN or MSNBC he could get the news as close to (and in many cases closer to) real time as he can get it from his own agencies. What you're saying is, frankly, apallingly ignorant. You're suggesting that surrounding yourself with people who all think the same way and then believing without question everything they tell you is a great way to run a country. You're suggesting that confirmation sources are NEVER necessary. You're even suggesting that anyone who thinks they are is "retarded," which, by the way, is a needlessly insulting term that automatically weakens your already groundless argument.

Am I missing something or are you trying to flame out a thread?

I think you're missing something. I was trying to be cute and build off of what smooth said, incinuating that Bush's speaking problems come from his cocaine usage. Sorry.

i butchered your post to only the portions i wanted to respond to because of it's length. my apologies...

in response to the quotes i've cited... i'm disappointed that you seem to making a direct linkage from rural peoples to "bumblings." true, we in the south and plains states do have a distinctive dialect... but it takes no more liberty with proper english than do the dialects found in New York and Boston.

i felt your argument was well-formed and well-articulated... though i think that to a devoted republican the division of society into classes (or social constructs?) such as educated and working is a foreign notion.

i suppose your proposition is plausible and even logical considering the premises on which is it based. i don't agree... but that goes w/out saying these days

;)

Between Smooth and Shakran, we have some well thought out critique.

With Pan6467's observation of flaming, we have another data point.

Is there anyone on the 'other' side who wants to counter? My belief is that we won't see it. It seems so often that someone will make a series of good points, and someone counters by sticking his fingers in his ears and saying 'i can't hear you'.

Too frustrating for words.

edit: posted at same time as platypus. egg on my face :O) Although I would love to see an explaination for why someone disagrees... The 'two americas' phenomonon is well documented, Smooth's explaination seems to lay some groundwork for how Bush plays into that. Does anyone disagree with that?

in the end IMO its simple in these discussions - if you're not willing to consider the other side, your mind is made up and no matter what happens, you won't stray, because in your mind (as with just about everyone), you're right

Thank you for the response. I wasn't sure how to frame groupings of people I was referring to without overemphasing the dichotomy.

That is, I am comfortable with stating that class divisions exist, but reluctant to claim particular class divisions characterize party affiliation.

I wanted the thrust of my point to focus on the division between regular working people and the disdain I hear them say about ivory tower intellectuals. I tried to draw that out by using working class, rural individuals (not necessarily uneducated) contrasted against professional, urban individuals (usually working in academia or in closer contact to it both in proximity and ideologically). I wasn't specifically limited this to particular regions. My point was supposed to have been that most Americans live in rural areas and that in both regions (rural and urban) the vast majority of people are not part of academia nor the wealthiest slices of society. Their is a definate ideological debate between academics and corporate representatives--although some members from both groups shift into the other.

So here I am speaking about an ideological schism between bus drivers, cab drivers, steel workers and professors, graduate students, and people with jobs that place them in contact with such people. I wanted to point out that Republicans are traditionally associated with corporate interests and Democrats are traditionally associated with working class interests. It is not surprising that professionals would feel served by Republicans, but it is surprising that a steel or mill worker would feel their interests are being protected by the people who are aligned with the interests of their corporations' owners--Republicans.

The way I think it is being done is through ideological manipulation, which is surprising to some economists, political scientists, and sociologists because we predominantly expect people to vote according to their economic interests, everything else being equal. Everything else isn't equal because conservatives are posturing themselves as safeguaring American ideals--so people are willing to sacrifice certain economic expectations to protect what they regard is the higher good--protection of liberty, individualism, national safety, national sovereignty, and etc.

This is fallacious, in my mind. Neither liberals (nor Democrats) are attempting to subvert liberty or individualism or national safety--we believe in an alternate course to achieve those goals. Rather than presenting both sides of the debate, which should center around those two alternate paths so that people can decide which one they agree with and vote accordingly, the conservative side is undercutting the democratic process by injecting the sceptre of anti-americanism. Who in their right mind would vote in an anti-american president? By deliberately framing the entire liberal platform as anti-american rather than a valid, alternate course of action, which reasonable people can agree or disagree with, an entire branch of ideology is withering as liberal thought is being brutally forced from the podium.

The worst thing, in my opinion, a liberal can be branded is anti-american. Furthermore, it goes against their very ideological structure to be anti-intellectual (by intellecualism I mean willing to explore alternate belief structures and reject or accept them on their merits) and unwilling to explore new options. Conservative thought, however, is defined by maintaining the status quo. It is, by nature, resistant to change. This may or may not be a course I am willing to follow--but I don't claim that people who are willing to change social structure are more american than those who are not. Once that damaging critique is raised, many people are prone to shut their mouths for fear of reprisal and/or refuse to align themselves with others who espouse such sentiments.

Disagreement is fine and healthy to a liberal. But to brand someone as against his or her own nation is damaging to the political process. I claim this because the political process is supposed to be an amalgam of the citizenry. That is, since the political process is supposed to embody my beliefs as well as yours, I can't possibly be opposed to my nation--it's, at least in part, comprised of my ideas. Once one group locks a particular branch of thought out of the political process, or poisons the well sufficiently enough to choke off oppositional ideas, that presents a threat to one's political efficacy specifically and democracy in general.

I think I've written enough on that. But could you please explain why you believe class divisions are a foreign notion to Republicans?

Oh yeah, irate, I'm not equating "bumblings" with rural people or uneducated southerns or anything like that. What I meant by that statement is that average joe's (wherever they are from, north or south) are more likely to feel affinity with someone who makes mistakes while speaking. It makes them seem more real, or down to earth. Academics and professionals (it's actually well-documented that upper-class people do this to each other, in general) are more likely to judge one's intelligence level on one's verbal or writing articulation. Some of us criticize Bush because we think it's a sham (I can almost bet he wasn't saying ain't and nucular at the dinner table, prep school, or Ivy League) to connect to the common people (who haven't been to speech class or manners prep). I should point out that Eisenhower, Carter, and Clinton mangled that particular word, as well. It's a common mispronounciation. The difference is that all four of these people have been prepped on what to say, are surrounded by people who would look disparingly on such word usage, and would certainly point out the "correct" way to speak in public--so the conclusion some of us make is that it's intentional.

Others actually do make accusations that he isn't intelligent based on the way he speaks. I don't think that's necessarly true--but their isn't any way to verify either contention unless we can somehow proctor an IQ test to him. The result, however, is that both arguments are looked upon by the common people who don't particularly give a shit about their language skills in this respect (although they may still judge various racial group's intelligence based on speech differences--see the irony there?) think both arguments are just liberals grasping at straws when in reality judging one's actions by speech is pretty common among all groups of people--valid or not.

If you haven't read all that I'll put it in a nutshell: When Bush flubs a word, most people think, "so what, real people make real mistakes." I like Bush cuz he's a real person.

Others say, "Bush is unintelligent because he can't speak straight."

And still others say, "Bush flubs words constitently. We know upper class people are tutored in how to present themselves in public and we know that members of the upper classes judge other members based on their speech and writing. We don't expect he would have gotten very far in life if he didn't conform to upper class expectations. Since he did get far in life, we think his flubbing is intentional. We don't like Bush because we think he's trying to be folksy to get more votes."

in a nutshell anyways i'd put it:

America has long been a country where multiple truths exist and where different ideas and values can live together.

When you start challenging the other values and beliefs and believe in only a single truth/course, that creates dangers to the traditional America.

smooth,

i find it hard believe that you were not originally associating bumbling with rural people given the relationship between the first and third sections of text in the post i was referencing. but, given the informality of the discussion and the nature of the medium i will give you the benefit of the doubt.

i suppose i will do the underhanded job of taking your own verbage and twisting it into a rebuttal. we can all agree that the abstract words that appear in our political discourse carry with them lots of association and baggage. just think of the many things words like freedom, working class, patriotism, american and liberty mean to eachother.

your post alluded to the idea that liberals want to take an alternate path (being by nature progressive) and conservatives tend to prefer the status quo. ok, i'll go with that for a little while... but that idea soon runs out of steam.

the term "america" and "anti-americanism" are being used differently by each side of the discussion. one side is using the word primarily in a geographic context (america: the country between canada and mexico) and the other uses the term to invoke a more idealistic definition.

when a conservative describes a liberal as being anti-american... he is using that term to communicate the idea that the liberal in question is not aligning with the principles america stood for in the past. you admit that liberals often desire an alternate path, and that conservatives desire a status quo. so... by using that very same language, we are saying that conservatives promote the continuance of past belief systems (your words) while liberals encourage an alternate path to other belief systems.

if you define america by its past principles, actions, and history (as millions do, whether that be wise or not)... then you are forced to do something anti-american (using the preceding definition) if you choose to adopt something that is unlike the traditional belief system.

so, using the conservative view of what it means to be american... they can be perfectly even-tempered and intellectually honest when they describe a liberal as being anti-american.

there is no demagoguery or hypocrisy involved, simply a radically different view of what being american really is.

i know i haven't touched the sociological issue of the perception of class and how it affects voting on economic issues... but this will have to do for now.

good discusion, best i've had on TFP in a while.

words, semantics... i feel we're nearing a new tower of babyl sometimes.

irateplatypus,

sorry, i don't buy into your little game. it sounds like you're actually saying conservatives are justified in classifying liberals as "anti-american". you're pretending that there is no negative connotation associated with that term, and i'm sorry but it just doesn't jive.

Straight from m-w.com:

Main Entry: an·ti-Amer·i·can
Pronunciation: -&-'mer-&-k&n, -'m&r-, -'mar-, -i-k&n
Function: adjective
: opposed or hostile to the people or the government policies of the U.S.
- an·ti-Amer·i·can·ism /-k&-"ni-z&m/ noun

sure liberals are opposed to many present government policies of the u.s., but so are conservatives (especially when a democrat is in the white house). associating liberals with the term "anti-american" is exactly what smooth said it is - ideological manipulation.

there is no game... and by no means am i saying that there is no negative connotation. if a conservative accuses anyone of being anti-american... then they are saying that that person is promoting something that undercuts the ideals of our country. a very serious, grave thing to say... and certainly gives a negative impression to anyone who fits that bill.

you really are responding to an argument i wasn't making.

OK, let me try this again.

Irate, you originally interpreted my statement to say that rural dwellers mispeak words regularly or as part of their dialect.

I'm not stating that rural dwellers talk like that. I am saying that they don't attach as much significance to it as someone who has been taught that speaking in a particular way is indicative of one's social class.

The only two reasons I even singled out rural dwellers were because:

1) given that they comprise the majority of the population, a political figure needs to appear to be like them

2) they are working class individuals, save for the few wealthy people who own property in rural cities. Working class people aren't specifically trained to make judgements regarding one's social position based on how one speaks or writes while members of the upper class are taught that these are valid ways to identify one another.

Consistent with my claim that rural dwellers actually comprise the vast majority of our nation's population, I never limited them to region. In contrast to your interpretation that I was referring to southerners or the plains states, there are more rural cities than urban cities in California, Oregon, Washington, New York, Vermont, and etc.

I agree that you take no more liberty with our language than someone in New York. My point is that mispronunciation is going to raise less eyebrows in upstate New York than it will in Manhattan, it's going to matter more to people in Wall Street or Berkeley than people in Wal-Mart or at the beach--not that New Yorkers or Californians are more intelligent or talk better than people in Arkansas or Oklahoma.


In regards to your american notion:

Liberals are not operating with a different definition of "american." First of all, re-read all of my posts and you would find extremely limited instances of me even using the term "american." I only did so in the last few posts because I was juxtaposing it against the term "anti-american." Speaking for myself, I view Canadians and Mexicans as Americans and almost always refer to our nation's population as US citizens.

Secondly, you mixed goals with means. Both liberals and conservatives rely on a common ideological background--but we differ in the actions we want to take to retain them.

One of the most cherised US value is the notion of freedom of political expression. When liberals say that we want to consider an alternative to the current actions, that is one of the most "american" things one can do.

Some people claim that calling someone else a traitor is a justified form of freedom of expression. I doubt the framers would believe that to be the case given how I explained how that can result in choking off ideas.

There is a huge difference between saying, in rebuttal to one's expressed political belief, "that belief would not serve the nation's long term interest because..." and "you are a traitor for holding that belief."

The only thing I can think of that would justify a label of treason would be when someone actively tries to abolish the US political system/nation and replace it with the values and structure of another nation.

Liberals aren't trying to do that--we are trying to change the actions of our government and sometimes the beliefs of other citizens around us. But we still want it to be the United States of America, with a government that embodies the beliefs of its citizentry. If half of us are conservatives and half of us are liberals, then the government should recognize both belief systems and work to provide a consensus that we can both agree to. Labeling one side of the debate as anti-american is essentially claiming that a subset of the entire population is holding invalid beliefs.

That stance is not appropriate behavior for a government because it derives it's power from the people as a whole--not just the ones in political power.

see, this is where we part ways. conservatives often believe that changing the beliefs of the citizens is un-american in and of itself because they define what it is to be an american by those beliefs. it seems that liberals (i'm not assuming this about you smooth, although it may be so) define the american belief system by the current environment while conservatives define it as something less subject to change.

if you define the United States of America with a belief system that has constants... then any attempt to change those constants fundamentally changes what it is you're believing in. if conservatives feel a liberal is attempting to change the foundation of what they define as the United States of America (and it is agreed between us that liberals advocate the change of beliefs in some cases) then it logically follows from those premises that those actions are un-american as defined by the conservative definition.

you simply cannot claim that a common usage of the word "american" is being used. if liberals seek to change beliefs that conservatives use in their definition of what it is to be american... then the conclusion points to itself.

i'm unsure where calling someone a traitor entered the mix. certainly you're not suggesting that everytime someone is called un or anti-american the caller is implying treason.

except that when the concervatives say that protesting the actions of a government is unamerican, they're just plain wrong. this country was FOUNDED because its citizens protested and finally rejected the actions of their government. To protest perceived government wrongdoing is the ESSENCE of being American.

i'm RICK JAMES BITCH :thumbsup:

Bush is doing his best to try and play all the markets and all the people he is trying to aelienate as few as he can while reaferming support from others also the rural support of the republican party goes a lot deeper than just being manipulated a lot of people pay homage to them for the homestead act back in the 1860's because it was a republican that gave them their home mybe that is more of a subconscience thing but it is there and personally i think he is not trying to appeal to them because they are already in the bag, he is trying to come accross to the boarderliners as a harmless country boy where behind the curtains he is the puppetmaster pulling the strings

i know we all felt this president was going to be controled but every decision that is made is reviewed by him and he is the one that makes the final OK,i think he is a lot smarter than he comes accross as, just my opinion though

my bad on the threadjack, I just got caught up in the civil debate! ;)

the treason thing came from the connotation numerous conservative talking heads have ascribed to anti-american. I can see the logic you are using, although I don't necessarily agree with it.

thanks for playing, irate.

The 1860's republican was very different from today's republican. Remember, Lincoln was a republican who pushed for one of the biggest changes ever in this country. Back then, the republicans were much more like the democrats are today.

I understand the statements alone, but when you string them together like that they stop making sense. :D

Democrats and Republicans of today are anti-change. They want campaign finance reform .. as long as they can get around it. They want universal healthcare .. as long as they don't actually have to use it. They want to throw our money at a broken public school system .. they send their kids to private schools anyways. The last major bills that I've seen have seen (from both Dems and Reps) are about buying votes, not bringing about positive change in this country. As much as they seem to hate each other sometimes, the DNC and RNC are both very interested in stone-walling any third-party from their shared spotlight.

Politicians should want to empower the people to govern themselves, not seek to increase their own political power and line their own pockets.

I think President Bush would be a great guy to hang out with if he was just a regular blue collar working guy. I don't think he is fit to be the President of the United States. That's certainly not an insult. It's just that some guys are better suited for other lines of work. Bush's hobbies of working outdoors and playing sports seem to suggest he'd be better suited for a more labor-intensive job. Does anyone other than Bush himself believe he would be President if he didn't happen to be born to George Bush I?

I think the President has tried his best to fit the role. He certainly struggled quite a bit initially after the close election and no clear mandate. But then came 9-11. America was desperate for a strong comforting leader and he fulfilled that role well. He reacted like a normal person would and I think most Americans appreciated that.

Since then, however, Bush has deluded himself into thinking he's the next coming of Jesus. He actually believes that God wanted him to become President in order to carry out His mission. Just the other day, he was unable to name a single mistake he's made since 9-11. Those who agree with the President's policies see a President who is strong, steadfast and determined. Everyone else sees a President who is so committed to his views, going so far as to believe they are part of his mission from God, that he will not listen to contrary evidence. And that kind of President is a dangerous President.

Why are people so surprised Bush isn't going out listing his mistakes? For Christ's sake its an election year.

Bush Needs to go. I can't wait until Jan 2005 when the new president is sworn in..........................

And that will never happen for the same reason communism faile.d Human nature will rebel against it. Those in power want to stay in power. Douglas Adams had it right - the only people who should lead us are the ones who don't want the job.

Because one of the biggest criticisms against the man is that he can't admit a mistake even when it's obvious. Because knowing that, it would behoove him to come up with one to prove those critics wrong. Because saying "guys, I fucked up, and I'm sorry" instills more confidence than pretending you never made a mistake when it's obvious to everyone that you have made many of them.

Bush is a cowboy who runs the office like one.....



.... The moderators are circling around you guys like you are a bunch of rappers bout to pop a cap in someones ass

:crazy:

Can you back this statement up with something specific? Say...oh, I don't know...news footage of a herd of longhorns grazing on the White House Lawn? Barring that...this is a troll...and strike two.



Interesting analogy. Yet these "circling moderators" have allowed this thread, which was doomed to oblivion, from the start, to grow to well into its second page. Good job, one and all. I'm glad that I didn't follow my gut instinct, and close this thread in the beginning. See...you guys CAN hold a civil political discussion...when you want to. :thumbsup:

well, as a matter of fact.....

http://www.isoc.net/sjdesign/images/white-house.jpg


Strike two? What about strike one?

Just because this is politics does not mean we all can't get along and play together right or at least have a little fun?

:thumbsup:

http://www.sensorsmag.com/isensors/dec01/6/headache.jpg

Strike one was back on the first page. And no, there's nothing wrong with having a little fun. That was a clever image, and made me laugh. However, it's the statement that you made previously, that caused me to call foul.

I am glad it put a smile on your face, that was my intention.

Everyone has opinions, mine was just not elaborate.


You have a wonderful day Sir.

I wouldn't have used that term, but I agree in principle. IMHO the "nice job guys but watch it or your ass is busted" stuff is getting a bit old and is hampering the thread. I don't see any problem with the thread other than the spelling in the title ;) This is a politics forum. It's logical to want people's opinion about the leader of our country. I also don't see the point in counting strikes against the thread just because someone posts an OPINION like "Bush is a cowboy," but if you really want evidence of that, how about when Bush said in a nationally televised address to terrorists everywhere "don't mess with Texas." ONLY a cowboy would say stupid shit like that, especially in a venue where the entire world could hear you.

...not to mention that terrorists haven't messed with Texas.

Sorry about the spelling in the title! But it could also be some kind of statement?

I'm sorry, but it's your ("Politics") own fault.

Every time we back off, about a week or two goes by and it's back to the same ole.

I'm a huge proponent of free speech, but everytime I give out a little more rope, you guys hang yourselves with it.

eh, then why not just shut this forum down? Seems to me it'd be smarter to wait until the thread degenerates, and THEN take action rather than breathing down our necks - seems to me that would promote a greater discussion flow, but hey, that's just me.

Because we aren't going to punish everyone for the transgressions of about 6 or so people.

But seriously, we slack off, people complain.

We clamp down, people complain.

So forgive me if I can't take your current complaint too seriously.

Besides, it's your choice to post in this thread inspite of us "breathing down" your neck.

Hey! Quit that, it tickles.

:D

I'm sorry.

I'll kiss you first next time :D

Well that's certainly true, and as I've said before it's your (actually Halx's) playground and we have to play by your rules - my point is that you seem to want a board where we can freely discuss issues, yet you then restrict that freedom before a violation has even occurred. And why THIS thread? From the outset the mods have been acting like they're just waiting for an excuse to lock it, when there are many threads in this forum right now where people truly ARE flaming each other, yet they're not receiving moderator attention.

I'm not asking you not to clamp down - I'm just asking if it wouldn't be a better idea to wait until something actually happens before you clamp down ;)

But we haven't clamped down.

ok, my two cents here.....

What are you afraid of happening? Are these people going to meet each other outside of here and throw down?

I know in a perfect world (and message board) everyone gets along and plays nice with each other. But, this is a unique place to voice your opinion. If you disagree with the next person are you to hold you breath and not say how you feel about his/her views?? I would hope not..... Just like in real life, friends talking amongst each other. One says what one disagrees with. They debate.

I am new to this board, and definitely new to this thread. I do not have real strong opinions on George Bush other than what is stated above. The reason for me being here? I kept reading in other threads about how delicate one must be for this particular topic. I don't understand?

Now, with that being said. I do not, or did not intend to be a smart ass or start trouble in ANY WAY. So, don't take my comments the wrong way. I just feel, and it seems that the others do too that we all need to just relax........... shhhhhhhhhhh. can you feel that?

OK....... moderators slame me now ; ) (joking)

And you thought we were off topic then!

Yeah- and as Bill O'Rights stated, it's not about "busting asses", it's about whether or not to close the thread when it's reached a level we feel is enough.

I'm sorry if it feels like we're "coming down on you" or "circling like cops on rappers", but we (maybe incorrectly?) think a little positive encouragement goes a long way to keeping the peace and making it comfortable around here.

There are lots of people who won't post in here simply because some of you turn the place into flame wars- and no one wants that.

1. "Report this post to a moderator" button. Said it a thousand times, will repeat myself as necessary. Use it, use it, use it, use it, USE IT. If you use it, and see no resonse, it may be that the moderator felt it was fine to leave. If you're still dissatisfied, PM another moderator, or a Super Moderator, or even an Admin if you feel that strongly.

2. We don't close threads before "something actually happens". By all rights, and our rules- any thread that starts off immediately identifiable as a troll thread is subject to being closed. Period. We are, however, quite relaxed in regard to that rule. If we relax on it, and the shit starts hitting the fan, we give little warnings in the thread to let everyone know to cool it.

This is a discussion forum- flaming and trolling are not acceptable forms of discussion.

In an attempt to get this back on target, would some of the more conservative members give us their take on President Bush? I am curious, as most of my conservative friends have a real "love/hate" feeling about him. I get the feeling that the only reason they are standing by him is that he is a Republican(just like many Democrats couldn't have cared less who got the nomination, they just want to beat Bush).

mml, I don't count myself as a member of any political party, and in fact i have never voted for a mainstream candidate (i'm 26 so that's only 2 pres. elections) - mostly because I hate the two party system.

So obviously I'm not the person your question was meant for. What I would like to point out is a rather subtle, and possibly unintentional aspect of your post. You suggest that Republicans support Bush simply because of his party affilliation, whereas Democrats support Kerry because he is not Bush.

I think that's a very important difference. The main reason for Democrats to support Kerry isn't that he is a Democrat, but rather that they have seen first hand the way Bush handles his job, and they know that practically anybody would be a step up.

I may be reading too much into what you said, but regardless I think there is some truth to it. I admit that many (probably most) Democrats would support Kerry regardless of his opponent, but I think in this election they have much more reason to stick with him than blind loyalty.

Personally, I believe there is far too much at stake in this election for me to cast my vote for a third party candidate, as I have done in the past. I think the worst possible thing for this country would be to continue down the road that Bush is leading us. His foreign policy is reckless, and he lies to cover his innumerable mistakes.

I think Bush gets away with alot more than he should. I think he plays the press into thinking he's ignorant so they have low expectations. I'm not saying he's brilliant but not as unintelligent as he seems. I see his administartion as the person in school who foucuses on winning class president at all costs and focuses little on what they'll actually do for progress. lastly i think the appointment of ashcroft was one of the worst moves ever and was done to win over the far right. There's something to be said when you lose overwhelmingly to a dead guy.

It was quite a learning discussion.

But as a Belgian I’m also curious to know what the America people think about our country.

While it might be better to start another thread, I will try to give you a brief idea:

We don't.


I am NOT saying that in any insulting way, just the simple truth.

I am a relatively intelligent American with a much better than average knowledge of the world, and I couldn't say who your political leaders are, what their leanings are or anything. And I know more about your country than most Americans.

The fact is, that the larger/noisier countries (US, Russia, N.Korea) garner more attention than the smaller, quieter countries (Belgium, Lichtenstein, Micronesia) and hence, people know more about them.

Heck, I'm not 100% sure who is currently the Prime Minister of Canada (didn't Cretien get voted out or something?) My attention ATM is firmly rooted in Data Networks and Systems Analysis with TFP on the side.

So please don't take it personally.

If it is any consolation, you guys make great beer that I wish we had more of :D

It sucks, and it's sad, but Lebell's right. I'm going to try my best here though. If my feeble-assed memory serves Belgium is Parlimentary Democracy with a monarch, kinda like England. King Albert, I believe? He took the throne in the early '90s, right after some shake up with the Belgian Constitution. I don't remember the details. The Prime Minister is Verhofstat. (Don't ask me to spell it.)

And...some mighty damn fine waffles. :D. Sorry...I just couldn't resist, anymore. :(

While I can't speak for all other "conservatives", I do not support Bush simply because he is a Republican. In fact, most of what he does is not strictly "Republican" and I agree with the moves. I neither love nor hate Bush, I accept him for his beliefs and the beliefs that I am most concerned with tend to agree with his.

I agree with the drug benefit for seniors. While it's not in a perfect form, it is a benefit that will help people that need it. Going forward the rules can be massaged and worked to help more people. Working in the pharmaceutical industry I know what it can cost for common and not so common treatments.

I agree with his administration's stand on the supposed "outsourcing" that's going on. It does not warrant government regulation and most attempts to mitigate global employment market effects that only impact a relative few industries will fail, hurting American companies in those industries, and opening all US industries up for retribution for any protectionist policies enacted.

I absolutely agree with an aggressive stand against terrorism. The US reputation on terrorism pre-9/11 was one of weakness and no terrorist group or terrorist supporting government feared suffering significant consequences from funding or directly attacking and killing US citizens. At worst (as evidenced by Iraq) a country would face some economic sanctions, leaders would remain in power, their bank accounts would grow, other coutnries would ignore the sanctions or continue to trade for "humanitarian" purposes. 30 years of pacifism in the face of terrorism has only served to allow terrorist networks to grow and worm their way into all manner of business and government. It's time to take a different tack and cause them to feel repercussions.

Pushing back against those countries who claim to be our "allies" yet continually prove they will put even their slightest of interests over the interests of the US and the world is appropriate.

Tax cuts are good. Tax cuts are appropriate. The government is inefficient when it comes to spending our money, gauging benefits of longstanding programs, ending programs that have outlived their usefullness, etc, etc, etc. Throwing more money into the pot to be wasted is unacceptable to me. Without a doubt funding cuts need to be the next step but that does not mean we should continue to allow Congress to reach into our pockets to pay for these inefficient, unproductive, or useless projects in the interim.

His plan for offering illegal immigrant workers a chance to go "legit" is decent. Not spectacular but it moves things in the right direction. I would gladly trade a hundred unproductive and lazy American workers (not that I think this is the norm, but we all know plenty who contribute nothing and still bitch about how they are unfairly treated or go unrecognized) for a single motivated "illegal" worker. I have known plenty of migrant workers from Central America from my days as a farmer and the vast majority of them were hard working, upbeat, responsible, and, in general, great people. They deserve the chance to be a legitimate part of our society. Hell, half of them deserve it more than me.

you know statistically, 40% of the voters vote republican every time no matter what. 40% vote democrat every time no matter what, and it's the remaining 20% of swing voters that a campaign really has to worry about. Where it will be interesting this time around is that Bush has pissed off a bunch of republicans - he's even got some republicans saying publicly that they're not happy with him. Will that influence the republican 40% to perhaps vote for Kerry - or at least not vote for Bush? Should be very interesting to see what happens in November.

I doubt it. If you are referring to the Bible thumpers that are pissed at Dubya, do you really think they'll vote for Kerry (pro-gay pro-abortion)? Most might be less then happy, but I somehow doubt that they would rather have Kerry in there.

Not the bible thumpers. Bush has secured that vote very well. It's the classic conservatives. The ones who oppose the Iraq war, the ones who don't like his tremendous lack of fiscal restraint. The ones who aren't enamored with his cowtowing to the bible thumper vote. The ones who don't like the social programs he has expanded like medicare.

These are people Bush has to worry about. They could go to Kerry as Kerry touts his fiscal conservative pledge plus military record. Or go libertarian or other third party. Or they could abstain from voting this term.

One of this boards conservative members, Sixate has expressed anger at Bush to the point that he absolutely will not vote for him. (did it in General Discussion) This came out of the Howard Stern censorship situation. I highly doubt he is the only one. He won't vote Kerry, but Bush isn't getting the vote either. That's still a net positive result for Kerry.

You actually got my point. Many Democrats are so concerned with the policies of the Bush Administration and with President Bush that they are willing, even eager to put a Republican on the ticket with Kerry - John McCain. The feeling I get from conservative friends of mine is that they are "putting up" with Bush even though he has let them down. I was just curious if other conservatives or those who voted for Bush in 2000 felt that way. It is clear that the religious conservatives will support Bush, but as others have said, some of his support seems to be slipping amongst traditional conservatives.

edit/ By the way, this take on the Democrats and Kerry should not be seen as a lessening of my enthusiastic support of Senator Kerry. It is just a realistic view of the political world. Excuse me while I go straiten the Kerry for President sign out on my front lawn. :)

mml,

I performed a quick google search for "republicans against bush" and found one individual's answer to your question:

<a href="http://world.std.com/~3Diff/bushletter.html">http://world.std.com/~3Diff/bushletter.html</a>

Bush is Just a guy that has a very big job.
He is very brave, and probably under a lot of stress so I would not want his job.
I am a republican and so is he, thats why I would vote for him.

Thanks elfstar, that is generally the feeling I get from people. and qtpye4u84 your follow-up makes me think that I am right. And to be honest, I am a fairly partisan fellow, and would most likely vote for the Dem even if I did think Bush was capable. I have however voted for Republicans before (Bush 41 vs Dukakis and Senator McCain on several occations)

What makes you say he's brave? What bravery has he shown? (I'm not attacking, I'm genuinely curious)

Voting along party lines is a tremendous mistake IMO. It's the lazy way out. It means you don't have to think or look at the qualifications of the candidate or even know what the issues are. You just vote whoever has (R) by his name. I consider myself a democrat, but I have been known to vote republican when I felt the republican was the better person for the job.

Your thoughts on the Bush administration ?
 

I know that I am one of the few right wingers on the board, but I want to know what some of you think about Bush, and if you are not a fan, do you think that Gore would have done as good a job.

I have many problems with Bush domestically. However I think a war on terrorists was unavoidable. If you think about it, suicide bombing did not exist 30 years ago. Now it's common practice in far to many places. I can think of no better way to solve the problem than through strength, and if they start to believe we will break any treaty or cross any border to find and kill them, maybe can stop this terrible trend.

I know how that sounds, but if you disagree, please tell me what else you think we can do.

Hate only breads more hate. Kill a terrorist and 5 more pop up in his place. There is no solution to the terrorist problem that involves war that does not include genocide.

We need to combat the problem by changing the perception people have of us. We need to stop our unwavering support of Isreal. We need to do what they want and just leave them alone. Reducing our dependency on forgien oil would be a great start to curving terrorism, we would then be able to leave the middle east and say have it your way. Let them sit there and fight amoungst themselfs until they grow up.

To me it seems that Bush is one of the greatest threats to America in a long time. He is willing to take away our freedoms (since when do we need free speach zones?) He uses the word unpatriotic to bully people into doing what they know is wrong.

For someone who is a self proclaimed christian he sure doesn't follow the bible very well. The bible teaches us to love our enemy as ourselfs. It teaches us to turn the other cheek. Violence only leads to more violence.

My biggest gripe about Bush is he has to much of the American additude that "Everything should be done my way". He doesn't think about the consiquences of his actions. Let's face it we are in a world now where we can't just have everything our way. We need to work together if we want to make things better. This means we need to ask ourselfs what would the rest of the world think when we do things.

Would things be different if Gore was president? Of course they would. Would they be better? I have no idea. I'd hope that the forgien oppion of us would at least be better.

Bush's opinion of you are with us or against us is horrible. Since when does Bush decide what is the best for everyone else in the world? How would you like it if your neighboor down the street one day said "Everyone in this city must be in bed by 10 at night and to work by 8 in the morning" What gives him the right to say that? If he was the mayor does he have the right to say that? What if he is the governer? Or President? What is best for him is not always what is best for everyone.

I have my thoughts, but rather than participate in the discussion I will simply issue a general warning that this could quickly get out of control. We will lock this thread down if it becomes uncivil.

Please, feel free to disagree. Just do it politely.

Sure it did, we just didn't hear about it like we get to now. News coverage is an amazing thing in these days. The ability to create homemade explosives has been around for a good while.

I'd like to see some actual facts to back this up.

Martyrdom itself has been around since our earliest points in history, and if they couldn't make backpacks to blow themselves up, they would just kill people by hand, knowing it would result in their own death.

I posted this in hope of hearing alternatives to our current path. I think it may be our only chance to curb terrorist activity before it destroys the way we live, but I honestly don't know.
I am open minded, and I am very uneasy about the state of things currently. I just can't think of another way.

Please be thoughtful, and help me to see another way.

Martyrdom itself has been around since our earliest points in history, and if they couldn't make backpacks to blow themselves up, they would just kill people by hand, knowing it would result in their own death. [/B][/QUOTE]

You are totally corrrect. I was thinking more of major attacts for political gain.