Bush - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Mephisto2 · 11-04-2004, 03:54 PM

Call me an optimist, but I've been thinking the past couple of days that Bush may move in a positive direction now that he has won the election.

I'm perfectly aware that my opinion of "positive" may not be the same as someone else's, so lets leave the pedantic bickering somewhere else, and concenctrate on what I'm trying to say.

I believe some of Bush's "strong-man" (or "arrogant" to others) attitude had a lot to do with his position in America. He knew he got in by a hair's breadth and that more people voted against him that for him in 2000.

Now, with an undoubted ring of endorsement from the American people, I think he may feel a little more secure. Maybe he won't need so hard to "prove himself" or act the "hard man". Maybe he will now realize that half the American people didn't support him and will make efforts to mend bridges rather than charge over them, destroying them allow the way.

Some may say that the Republicans increased power will simply allow them to ride roughshod over the Democratic agenda. This is true; it does allow them to do so. But I hold out a (albeit slim) hope that a reinvigorated Bush will be a better, more considerate, more engaging and more open minded man.

Mr Mephisto

KMA-628 · 11-04-2004, 03:57 PM

also, he isn't bucking for re-election and he doesn't need to position his veep for a run.

Might mean that he goes the path he speaks of rather then trying to conform to the hard right or appease the left.

I still don't think that the ABB crowd will ever change their position, regardless of what Bush does or says.

cthulu23 · 11-04-2004, 03:59 PM

My brother and I discussed this somewhat common vein of thinking ourselves and we were unable to come up with any reason why Bush would suddenly veer to the middle. In his first election he promised to rule in a moderate fashion, which turned out to be so much hot air. Now that he no longer has to worry about reelection why would he suddenly change direction? It just doesn't make sense to me.

Manx · 11-04-2004, 04:06 PM

Bush will do what the Republican party wants him to do. Which has now been demonstrated to be strongly based on the social conservative agenda.

He will do this because this is exactly what Republicans must do in order to maintain their ability to win elections. He, himself, may not have any more elections to worry about, but he does know that he must support the Republican base.

As Karl Rove said, he needed the 4 million Evangelicals to vote in 2004 that didn't vote in 2000. They did. His party won. This will continue to be true in all future elections as long as the fiscal conservatives align themselves with the social conservatives.

j8ear · 11-04-2004, 04:15 PM

I was reading some entries from one of my favorite commentator's website (theagitator.com) which got me thinking alot about the myth of Bush being a hard corps right wing extremist:

Here is what Mr Balko had to offer:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radley Balko

Losing My Bearings

from here:

I understand that this election presented two very passionate, very divided factions.

But I'm having a hard time figuring the lefty blogs' lament that though he's now talking bipartisanship, a Bush second term will be more of the same right-wing extremism, or extreme conservativsm.

What do they mean? Do they mean expansion of the regulatory state? The prescription drug benefit? Campaign finance reform? Huge subsidies to farmers? Increased funding for job training programs? Trade protections for favored labor groups? Futher federalizing education? Bigger budgets for the departments of Labor, Energy, and Education? Do they mean the PATRIOT Act, which all but one Democrat senator supported? Or the war in Iraq, which most Democrat leaders also supported? Extremism on the drug war? Medicinal marijuana? Didn't hear many Democrats speaking out there, either.

Exactly which Bush first term policies were overly conservative? I'd like to know, so I can hang on to at least a shred of optimism going into January. His most radical domestic proposals likely to find opposition from Democrats that I agree with -- Social Security, reforming the tax code, trade liberalization -- have mostly been rhetoric (though he's gotten better on trade), as have his most radical ideas I disagree with -- constitutional amendments banning same sex marriages and flag burning, and radical judicial appointments (there were a few, but he didn't fight for them).

If Bush's first term has been right-wing extremism, I need a compass. I've apparently become disortiented.

As I usually find Radley's musing spot on, this one being no exception. I have no reason to believe that Bush will in anyway suddenly become right wing in any way shape or form.

Bush seems to be a very centrist politician in the domestic policy arena, except for his opposition, shared by a vast majority of Americans, to gay marriage. While obviously a man of deep religious conviction, his policies, on such things as international pre-emption, war mongering, and foriegn policy in general leave alot to be desired to those with similarly religious leanings?

It seems very plausible to me that Bush will continue to be an extremely moderate conservative.

-bear

smooth · 11-04-2004, 04:21 PM

yeah, we mean all that shit he listed. every one of those claims are made in orwellian language. read the actual legislation and you would understand why and how it's conservative. read the titles and you get squat about what the bills and positions actually mean.

just to support some of my contention: how did all of them get passed with republican support? are all of them centrists now? in fact, much reporting has uncovered the centrist republicans who were strongarmed by the administration to approve questionable bills.

the dems passing things like the patriot act make it centrist? please. they were already being chastised as liberal pansies, traitors, weak on defense, & etc. voting against things that sound so patriotric (the 'PATRIOT' act? why is it patriotic, has anyone bothered examing that? note: it's an acronym! for fuck's sake) would have been political suicide.

Mephisto2 · 11-04-2004, 04:22 PM

Very fair comments so far.

I guess I was simply impressed by the extracts of his acceptance speech I saw on TV. John Howard, the conservative Prime Minister who was also recently returned in a mirror of the American election, made some very good comments in his speech. To paraphrase him, he said that he realized that as the elected leader of the country he not only had to govern for those who voted for him, but also for those who voted against him.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again; I don't think Bush is a "bad" person. I obviously disagree with a lot of his politics, sometimes on a fundamental level, but I'm quite certain he is doing what he believes is right. I think he is sometimes led astray by the chickenhawks in his Administration (like Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rove and the ex-Tennet) but that doesn't change my optimisitc belief that, like most people, he does what he honestly thinks is right most of the time. I'm also aware that what he thinks is right is exactly what others may think is wrong, but that doesn't change the underlying precept of my suggestion here.

As I said, I hold out hope that this will turn out to be the case. To be perfectly honest, I was a little bit surprised and disappointed by the general triumphalist reaction of some of this board-member's reactions to his victory, but I guess everyone is human and every dog has its day.

Fingers crossed. He has a lot of responsibility. Let's hope he acts responsibly.

Mr Mephisto

j8ear · 11-04-2004, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

yeah, we mean all that shit he listed. every one of those claims are made in orwellian language. read the actual legislation and you would understand why and how it's conservative. read the titles and you get squat about what the bills and positions actually mean.

Orwellian? Titles? Squat? Actually mean?

Could you elaborate a little on those thoughts?

-bear

Looks like you started to elaborate as I was writing this post. I'll review and update after some dinner.

Mephisto2 · 11-04-2004, 04:29 PM

Please play nice...

Mr Mephisto

Manx · 11-04-2004, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

I've said it before, and I'll say it again; I don't think Bush is a "bad" person.

I'm less interested in a perception of good within a President than I am in the President taking the correct actions.

I couldn't care less if Bush thinks he's doing the right thing or not. Nor do I see how that has anything to do with whether Bush will walk the Republican agenda through Congress or suddenly start working with Democrats.

Mephisto2 · 11-04-2004, 04:53 PM

Well, despite the fact that I'm impressed with all of your posts so far Manx and the obivious care you've taken in expressing yourself, I think your comment above is reactionary.

The point I was making was that, unlike many posters here, I do not have some fundamental issue with Bush as a person, or that I honestly believe he is conspiring to take over the world, commit a Coup d'Etat or invade all of the Middle East (each theory suggested here at some stage), but that the nature of his election would bring about a moderation of his politics.

I'm less interested in a narrow minded reaction to a single sentence than I am in an honest discussion of the topic's theme.

Mr Mephisto

Manx · 11-04-2004, 05:15 PM

Sorry. I contributed my input to this discussion in a previous post.

I have recognized in your posts around here that you are not one to take an extremist (and I hesitate to use that word) position regarding Bush.

I simply felt there was some importance in pointing out that a perception of good in a candidate is not a valuable contribution to the debate. I see now that you made the statement in an attempt to hold off anyone who might accuse you otherwise.

Mephisto2 · 11-04-2004, 05:47 PM

No problem. I didn't mean it as a criticism.

I suppose I tend to (try) to see the positive in people as much as possible. When I say I have a "slim hope" that Bush may be more moderate, by definition it also means I have a greater fear that he will not.

And of course, stump speeches (whether requesting support or accepting victory) are no basis upon which to assume a real change in policy.

I have to admit I'm surprised that domestic moralistic issues seem to have had more of an effect upon the election than foreign policy. I guess it's just another interpretation of Clinton's famouse axiom, "It's the economy, stupid."

I propose another interpretation of this and will state "It's domestic, stupid." Whether it's the economy, stem cell research, gay marriage or taxes, Americans care more about what is happening on their doorstep than they do about what is happening overseas. And, as you say Manx, the conservatives care more about their pet topics, than the liberals do about theirs. Domestic issues drive votes. So the ones with the stronger convictions therefore cast more votes.

This is only natural and the only way I can see it change is if Iraq turns into another Vietnam. Then, when the body-bags begin to roll in, the foreign issue becomes a domestic one, as every town sees its young men and women buried or crippled.

It's unfortunate, it's sad but it seems to be the case.

Mr Mephisto

roachboy · 11-04-2004, 05:52 PM

it appears that the christian right are already looking to get paid for their turnout:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselection...343992,00.html

not much chance of unity if this kind of nonsense becomes bushpolicy.
but then again, i think the idea that bush is suddenly not a polarizing presence is kinda pollyanna.
particularly if it turns out that any of this is true:

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/kerry_won.php

tecoyah · 11-04-2004, 05:54 PM

If only all discussions in this forum took a tone and understanding, similar to this.....

Thank you both

Mephisto2 · 11-04-2004, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

it appears that the christian right are already looking to get paid for their turnout:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselection...343992,00.html

For those too lazy to to check off-board references, I think this extract is worth noting.

Quote:

In a post-election memo obtained by the New York Times, Richard Viguerie, a rightwing direct-mailing campaigner, issued a warning to the Republican party. "Make no mistake - conservative Christians and 'values voters' won this election for George W Bush and Republicans in congress," he wrote.

"It's crucial that the Republican leadership not forget this - as much as some will try ... Liberals, many in the media and inside the Republican party, are urging the president to 'unite' the country by discarding the allies that earned him another four years."

Quite clear, eh? Don't go trying to 'unite' the country now!

Mr Mephisto

j8ear · 11-04-2004, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

just to support some of my contention: how did all of them get passed with republican support? are all of them centrists now? in fact, much reporting has uncovered the centrist republicans who were strongarmed by the administration to approve questionable bills.

the dems passing things like the patriot act make it centrist? please. they were already being chastised as liberal pansies, traitors, weak on defense, & etc. voting against things that sound so patriotric (the 'PATRIOT' act? why is it patriotic, has anyone bothered examing that? note: it's an acronym! for fuck's sake) would have been political suicide.

You have failed to convince me that because the dems were strong armed or the republicans voted for the legislation that it far right wing extremist in nature.

The fact remains, education was further federalized, and the largest entitlement in a generation was enacted. and protectionist trade policies were persued. These are left of center ideals. Democrats and the left might not like the spirit or even the letter of these things, most likely because they were beaten to it, but they are NOT, to be sure, RIGHT WING POLICIES. Not by a long shot.

Not to mention the restrictions on ordinary citizens political speech. Speech codes and 1st ammendment limitations are decidedly left of center.

Please don't confuse me with affiliation to any particular party. I don't care who voted for what, from what party they emerged, or how they were pressured to do so. It is irrelevant to this discussion.

I continue to maintain that Bush will persue additional centrist policies, which includes banning gay marriage.

-bear

Manx · 11-04-2004, 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by j8ear

I continue to maintain that Bush will persue additional centrist policies, which includes banning gay marriage.

It is evident that you have a much different definition of "centrist policies" if it includes the banning of gay marriage.

Is it Right, Left or Center to ban interracial marriages? I believe it is none of those. Rather, iit is only a policy of the discriminatory.

If the Right chooses to hold values which are discriminatory, it should be hardly suprising when the Left refuses to compromise by becoming "centrist", as you call it.

j8ear · 11-04-2004, 07:48 PM

It is only evident that you and I have different definations of centrist policies. Nothing more.

Comparing interracial marriage with homosexual marriage is offensive and vulgar. Comparing the struggles of a entire race of people with the struggles of a miniscule and abnormal population of people is similarly repulsive.

This is where the cause for special priveledge for homosexuals goes astray. Those who do not comprehend and/or accept homosexuality as a lifestyle worthy of special protection, where the vast majority of American's fall, are label as hate mongers, bigots and far right wing nut jubs. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact it is those who place these labels that are bigots and hate mongers.

However you slice it, the homosexual movement is part of the FAR LEFT in this country. Most american's ~are~ centrist and do not want to see, hear, talk about, or be exposed to homosexuality. Live and let live, but DO NOT shove your lifestyle down my throat. Hetrosexuals do not go around "loud and proud" about their sexual orientation, and they believe the same should be true for homosexuals.

Even California voted to ban gay marriage (a few cycles back). Naturally the far left establishment disregarded the will of the people. The courts recently reigned that back in, by declaring that criminal in San Francisco had violated the law, and invalidating all of the marriage's performed.

Come to terms with reality. Insulting and degrading your audience is a poor way to garner support for your cause.

-bear

Manx · 11-04-2004, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by j8ear

Come to terms with reality. Insulting and degrading your audience is a poor way to garner support for your cause.

* See any of the 3 threads I have created which discuss the reality that the "audience" is not those who support your disgust with homosexuality.

smooth · 11-04-2004, 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by j8ear

You have failed to convince me that because the dems were strong armed or the republicans voted for the legislation that it far right wing extremist in nature.

The fact remains, education was further federalized, and the largest entitlement in a generation was enacted. and protectionist trade policies were persued. These are left of center ideals. Democrats and the left might not like the spirit or even the letter of these things, most likely because they were beaten to it, but they are NOT, to be sure, RIGHT WING POLICIES. Not by a long shot.

Not to mention the restrictions on ordinary citizens political speech. Speech codes and 1st ammendment limitations are decidedly left of center.

Please don't confuse me with affiliation to any particular party. I don't care who voted for what, from what party they emerged, or how they were pressured to do so. It is irrelevant to this discussion.

I continue to maintain that Bush will persue additional centrist policies, which includes banning gay marriage.

-bear

I'm not particularly interested in convincing you of anything, but I'll post a few things since you maligned what I said:

Republicans were strong-armed by their own party to vote in particular ways.

The entitlement enacted by Bush was to pharm corporations--not seniors. The ones who haven't already read the actual bill will find out in two years when it starts to kick in. Bush will be on his way out of the crosshairs by then, however. That's not a left plank.

Education was 'federalized' to enact requirements for funding. People actually paying attention to the results of no child left behind realize it's underfunded and the requirements can't be met. Conservatives continue to point at our 'failing' government provided education and urge to dismantle it. That's not a left plank.

Protectionist trade policies were enacted to garner votes. I don't understand how that's indicative of any political ideology--it's just shit and ironic that someone would point to it as anyone's achievement.

Yeah, maybe lefts and dems are upset because they were beat to the punch by the republicans. enacting a bill that doesn't do what the title says it will, but then people rail against the idea the title represents. it's a powerful and effective tactic. I wish the democratic base and leftists 'elites' were ignorant enough to fall for it.

Flyguy · 11-04-2004, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

Call me an optimist, but I've been thinking the past couple of days that Bush may move in a positive direction now that he has won the election.

I'm perfectly aware that my opinion of "positive" may not be the same as someone else's, so lets leave the pedantic bickering somewhere else, and concenctrate on what I'm trying to say.

I believe some of Bush's "strong-man" (or "arrogant" to others) attitude had a lot to do with his position in America. He knew he got in by a hair's breadth and that more people voted against him that for him in 2000.

Now, with an undoubted ring of endorsement from the American people, I think he may feel a little more secure. Maybe he won't need so hard to "prove himself" or act the "hard man". Maybe he will now realize that half the American people didn't support him and will make efforts to mend bridges rather than charge over them, destroying them allow the way.

Some may say that the Republicans increased power will simply allow them to ride roughshod over the Democratic agenda. This is true; it does allow them to do so. But I hold out a (albeit slim) hope that a reinvigorated Bush will be a better, more considerate, more engaging and more open minded man.

Mr Mephisto

I wish. If this really turns out to be true, I'll be VERY surprised.

cthulu23 · 11-04-2004, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by j8ear

It is only evident that you and I have different definations of centrist policies. Nothing more.

Comparing interracial marriage with homosexual marriage is offensive and vulgar. Comparing the struggles of a entire race of people with the struggles of a miniscule and abnormal population of people is similarly repulsive.

A miniscule population? Isn't that synonomous with "minority?" "Abnormal" is a relative term. I happen to feel that homophobes are pretty damn abnormal.

Quote:

This is where the cause for special priveledge for homosexuals goes astray. Those who do not comprehend and/or accept homosexuality as a lifestyle worthy of special protection, where the vast majority of American's fall, are label as hate mongers, bigots and far right wing nut jubs. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact it is those who place these labels that are bigots and hate mongers.

Nice try at projection. How, exactly, is it bigoted to want equal legal protections for someone else? Since when does "equal" protection equate with "special" protections?

Quote:

However you slice it, the homosexual movement is part of the FAR LEFT in this country. Most american's ~are~ centrist and do not want to see, hear, talk about, or be exposed to homosexuality. Live and let live, but DO NOT shove your lifestyle down my throat. Hetrosexuals do not go around "loud and proud" about their sexual orientation, and they believe the same should be true for homosexuals.

Heterosexuals aren't "loud and proud?" Are you kidding? Have you watched a beer commercial, looked at a billboard or read a magazine lately? It's said that a fish never notices the water that it swims in.

Furthermore, how is the act of marriage between two adults an attempt to "shove something down your throat?" It seems that the opponents are the ones prolonging the struggle. Let people live their lives and it won't be shoved down your throat anymore (oh, the bad jokes that could be made of that phrase).

Quote:

Even California voted to ban gay marriage (a few cycles back). Naturally the far left establishment disregarded the will of the people. The courts recently reigned that back in, by declaring that criminal in San Francisco had violated the law, and invalidating all of the marriage's performed.

Come to terms with reality. Insulting and degrading your audience is a poor way to garner support for your cause.
-bear

What far left establishment is that? The Supreme Court? How could they legally back discrimination? They have a few precedents that make that difficult. Are we looking for the modern day equivalent to Plessy v. Ferguson?

j8ear · 11-04-2004, 08:12 PM

I fail to see anywhere I have expressed disgust with homosexuality. Nor do I believe that most feel the disgust you apparently which were present so your arguement had some validity.

Do not confuse 'not embracing' with 'disgust for'.

Perhaps you could be persuaded to provide highlights of your three posts?

-bear

Manx · 11-04-2004, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by j8ear

do not want to see, hear, talk about, or be exposed to homosexuality

If I do not want to see, hear, talk about, or be exposed to something, it means I am disgusted by it.

Whatever word you attribute to my definition of disgust, please use that in place of "disgust" in my response.

As for the _threads_ I have started on the question of "audience", they are currently active, so they should be easy for you to locate.

j8ear · 11-04-2004, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cthulu23

A miniscule population? Isn't that synonomous with "minority?" "Abnormal" is a relative term. I happen to feel that homophobes are pretty damn abnormal.

Nice try at projection. How, exactly, is it bigoted to want equal legal protections for someone else? Since when does "equal" protection equate with "special" protections?

Heterosexuals aren't "loud and proud?" Are you kidding? Have you watched a beer commercial, looked at a billboard or read a magazine lately? It's said that a fish never notices the water that it swims in.

Furthermore, how is the act of marriage between two adults an attempt to "shove something down your throat?" It seems that the opponents are the ones making the largest fuss about it.

What far left establishment is that? The Supreme Court? How could they legally back discrimination? They have a few precedents that make that difficult. Are we looking for the modern day equivalent to Plessy v. Ferguson?

I agree homophobes are abnormal. Just like homosexuals. Most americans are not homophobes. A few of the far right fundamentals are (as they are also , just like the far left militant homosexuals are hate mongering bigots

The oppenents are making the largest fuss? You must be blind. They quitely go to polls, avoid exit pollers, and vote their minds. It's the loosers (the special gay rights camp) that make all the noise and declare the majority of the american electorate bigoted and hate filled.

You have your head in the sand, and are unable to see the forest for the trees. This is why your cause will continue to fail...every single time it is put to a vote, and by the huge margins you see today.

-bear

Ilow · 11-04-2004, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by j8ear

I continue to maintain that Bush will persue additional centrist policies, which includes banning gay marriage.

-bear

Banning gay marriage is not a centrist ideal. It is a Right wing ideal. It comes from a religiously based dogma which is now the base of the socially conservative Republican party. Banning gay marriage is socially conservative and thus right wing and not center. The biggest ruse that the current Republican's have been able to purpetrate to date is convincing people that they are moderate or centrist. They use the fact that many people support them to develop this argument. It is fallacious, however, because the "scale" of right, left and center does not move, reducing civil rights is still a reactionary position, and just because 50 million people voted for Bush does not make it centrist. There are probably people who consider themselves centrists but believe in banning gay marriages, but these people are far from the majority and certainly do not make the policy a centrist one.

Also, if history is any reference, people once felt the EXACT same way about interracial marriages, so using that as an example actually weakens your argument rather than strengthening it.

BTW, sorry Mr. M. for hijacking your thread a bit. In answer to your original question, I believe that a man who does not need to worry about re-election is a man who does not need to worry about moderating or dilluting his views. He will, if anything, be more forceful about pushing the Republican agenda than ever before because He feels that's what God wants him to do.

j8ear · 11-04-2004, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manx

If I do not want to see, hear, talk about, or be exposed to something, it means I am disgusted by it.

Whatever word you attribute to my definition of disgust, please use that in place of "disgust" in my response.

As for the _threads_ I have started on the question of "audience", they are currently active, so they should be easy for you to locate.

Fix your own bullshit posts.

While I'm sure they are easy to find, you have left me unconvinced that they offer anything of substance to this discussion, as so far you have provided exactly that...nothing of substance.

I support your cause, but deplore your methods.

-bear

smooth · 11-04-2004, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by j8ear

Fix your own bullshit posts.

While I'm sure they are easy to find, you have left me unconvinced that they offer anything of substance to this discussion, as so far you have provided exactly that...nothing of substance.

I support your cause, but deplore your methods.

-bear

from a junkie to a rookie:

hopefully you'll just ignore this crassness, manx. because this shit will go ignored while most likely any response will get your assed warned/censored/banned.

I'd point out some threads where this is the case, but alas, they've been deleted.

Mephisto2 · 11-04-2004, 08:39 PM

I repeat, please play nice.

"Fix your own bullshit posts" is not nice.

Mr Mephisto

j8ear · 11-04-2004, 08:43 PM

Wow, I can't win for loosing.

Crass and not nice. ~sigh~

Apologizes for not being 'nice'

I think I'm going to call it a night.

-bear

Mephisto2 · 11-04-2004, 08:56 PM

I don't care if you disagree. But labeling someone else's posts as "bullshit" is simply unacceptable. If I'd been a mod I would have given you a warning. As a lowly member, I politely ask you to be nice.

I utterly respect your rights to a differing opinion. Please shows others the same respect.

Mr Mephisto

Prince · 11-04-2004, 10:01 PM

I understand where you are coming from, Mr. Mephisto, sir.

But...to quote BBC: Vice-President Dick Cheney has suggested the administration now has a mandate for a range of conservative social and economic policies. These are likely to include issues ranging from tax reform to abortion and same-sex marriage. President Bush will get the chance to appoint conservative justices to the Supreme Court if seats become vacant, which could have an impact far beyond his presidency. The powerful nine-member court is able to take final decisions on issues ranging from the result of a presidential election to a woman's right to have an abortion.

Personally, this is what worries me the most. I don't think he will be any less determined to shove his ideals down our throats whether we like it or not. He has shown in the past, in my personal opinion, that he does not answer to the American people. Was he willing to step up to the plate about the No-WMDs-in-Iraq aftermath? No, he sent Rice to dodge the bullets.

Every action he has made so far has suggested that he does not need to consult the American people about where this country will go from here. Now that he is even more powerful than before, why would he not be even more determined to get the laws passed on abortion and gay marriages in favor of his narrow-minded views? He clearly wants to leave behind a legacy, I just hope it will be something we can undo once we get a decent president in the White House.

Not that Kerry would do any better, mind you. He's not a leader, he's a party puppet.

Bush may not push as hard on building his war-on-terror portfolio, though. It already came close to backfiring on him.

cthulu23 · 11-04-2004, 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by j8ear

You have your head in the sand, and are unable to see the forest for the trees. This is why your cause will continue to fail...every single time it is put to a vote, and by the huge margins you see today.

-bear

I guarantee you...in 50 year this anti-gay marriage stance will be synonomous with George Wallace blocking the door of the school. You cannot legislate discrimination. America has come too far for that.

j8ear · 11-04-2004, 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

I don't care if you disagree.
Mr Mephisto

Disagree? I apologized for christ sake.

Your post was unneccesary and rude.

j8ear · 11-04-2004, 10:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cthulu23

I guarantee you...in 50 year this anti-gay marriage stance will be synonomous with George Wallace blocking the door of the school. You cannot legislate discrimination. America has come too far for that.

I suspect (and hope) you might be right. Although it will come only after a change of tactic from the lobby. Insulting and degrading your audience will not do it.

I want to add, by the by, that you are mistaken about legislating discrimination. Drug users and prostitutes to name two, victimless crime commiters are all discriminated against by legislation.

-bear

Mephisto2 · 11-04-2004, 10:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by j8ear

Disagree? I apologized for christ sake.

Your post was unneccesary and rude.

I think you misunderstand my friend.

I don't care if you disagree with someone else's opinion. That's all. I was trying to be polite.

The only one being rude here was you. Chill.

Mr Mephisto

cthulu23 · 11-04-2004, 10:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by j8ear

I suspect (and hope) you might be right. Although it will come only after a change of tactic from the lobby. Insulting and degrading your audience will not do it.

I want to add, by the by, that you are mistaken about legislating discrimination. Drug users and prostitutes two name two, victimless crime commiters are all discriminated against by legislation.

-bear

There is a difference between a drug user and a homosexual. If you can't see that than the reason for our disagreement is all too clear.

As for insulting and degrading, your statements about abnormal people could easily be seen in that light.

All in all, I do find some hope in our common desire for squelching discrimination. We don't need to step backwards as a nation.

j8ear · 11-04-2004, 11:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

I think you misunderstand my friend.

I don't care if you disagree with someone else's opinion. That's all. I was trying to be polite.

The only one being rude here was you. Chill.

Mr Mephisto

A man spews bullshit (i.e. false attributions of things I never said) and suggests for me to substitute his words as I see fit. I call like it is.

You call me not nice. I apologize and you continue to pour salt on the situation under the guise of being polite.

Sounds good to me. Lets call this a you win/i lose situation. I have no problem with that.

Apologize for highjacking your thread. I'll avoid similar situations in the future.

-bear

j8ear · 11-04-2004, 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cthulu23

There is a difference between a drug user and a homosexual. If you can't see that than the reason for our disagreement is all too clear.

As for insulting and degrading, your statements about abnormal people could easily be seen in that light.

All in all, I do find some hope in our common desire for squelching discrimination. We don't need to step backwards as a nation.

Of course I see a difference between a drug user and a homosexual. I don't see a difference however that would allow one to be discriminted against and the other not?

I do not have a cause or agenda to forward. I doesn't matter if anyone is insulted or degraded by my observations.

-bear

11-04-2004, 03:54 PM	#1 (permalink)
Mephisto2 Junkie	Bush Call me an optimist, but I've been thinking the past couple of days that Bush may move in a positive direction now that he has won the election. I'm perfectly aware that my opinion of "positive" may not be the same as someone else's, so lets leave the pedantic bickering somewhere else, and concenctrate on what I'm trying to say. I believe some of Bush's "strong-man" (or "arrogant" to others) attitude had a lot to do with his position in America. He knew he got in by a hair's breadth and that more people voted against him that for him in 2000. Now, with an undoubted ring of endorsement from the American people, I think he may feel a little more secure. Maybe he won't need so hard to "prove himself" or act the "hard man". Maybe he will now realize that half the American people didn't support him and will make efforts to mend bridges rather than charge over them, destroying them allow the way. Some may say that the Republicans increased power will simply allow them to ride roughshod over the Democratic agenda. This is true; it does allow them to do so. But I hold out a (albeit slim) hope that a reinvigorated Bush will be a better, more considerate, more engaging and more open minded man. Mr Mephisto

11-04-2004, 04:21 PM	#6 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	yeah, we mean all that shit he listed. every one of those claims are made in orwellian language. read the actual legislation and you would understand why and how it's conservative. read the titles and you get squat about what the bills and positions actually mean. just to support some of my contention: how did all of them get passed with republican support? are all of them centrists now? in fact, much reporting has uncovered the centrist republicans who were strongarmed by the administration to approve questionable bills. the dems passing things like the patriot act make it centrist? please. they were already being chastised as liberal pansies, traitors, weak on defense, & etc. voting against things that sound so patriotric (the 'PATRIOT' act? why is it patriotic, has anyone bothered examing that? note: it's an acronym! for fuck's sake) would have been political suicide. __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman Last edited by smooth; 11-04-2004 at 04:24 PM..

11-04-2004, 05:52 PM	#14 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	it appears that the christian right are already looking to get paid for their turnout: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselection...343992,00.html not much chance of unity if this kind of nonsense becomes bushpolicy. but then again, i think the idea that bush is suddenly not a polarizing presence is kinda pollyanna. particularly if it turns out that any of this is true: http://www.tompaine.com/articles/kerry_won.php __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

11-04-2004, 05:54 PM	#15 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	If only all discussions in this forum took a tone and understanding, similar to this..... Thank you both __________________ Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

11-04-2004, 07:48 PM	#19 (permalink)
j8ear Gentlemen Farmer Location: Middle of nowhere, Jersey	It is only evident that you and I have different definations of centrist policies. Nothing more. Comparing interracial marriage with homosexual marriage is offensive and vulgar. Comparing the struggles of a entire race of people with the struggles of a miniscule and abnormal population of people is similarly repulsive. This is where the cause for special priveledge for homosexuals goes astray. Those who do not comprehend and/or accept homosexuality as a lifestyle worthy of special protection, where the vast majority of American's fall, are label as hate mongers, bigots and far right wing nut jubs. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact it is those who place these labels that are bigots and hate mongers. However you slice it, the homosexual movement is part of the FAR LEFT in this country. Most american's ~are~ centrist and do not want to see, hear, talk about, or be exposed to homosexuality. Live and let live, but DO NOT shove your lifestyle down my throat. Hetrosexuals do not go around "loud and proud" about their sexual orientation, and they believe the same should be true for homosexuals. Even California voted to ban gay marriage (a few cycles back). Naturally the far left establishment disregarded the will of the people. The courts recently reigned that back in, by declaring that criminal in San Francisco had violated the law, and invalidating all of the marriage's performed. Come to terms with reality. Insulting and degrading your audience is a poor way to garner support for your cause. -bear __________________ It's alot easier to ask for forgiveness then it is to ask for permission.

11-04-2004, 03:57 PM	#2 (permalink)
KMA-628 ....is off his meds...you were warned. Location: The Wild Wild West	also, he isn't bucking for re-election and he doesn't need to position his veep for a run. Might mean that he goes the path he speaks of rather then trying to conform to the hard right or appease the left. I still don't think that the ABB crowd will ever change their position, regardless of what Bush does or says.

11-04-2004, 03:59 PM	#3 (permalink)
cthulu23 Banned	My brother and I discussed this somewhat common vein of thinking ourselves and we were unable to come up with any reason why Bush would suddenly veer to the middle. In his first election he promised to rule in a moderate fashion, which turned out to be so much hot air. Now that he no longer has to worry about reelection why would he suddenly change direction? It just doesn't make sense to me.

11-04-2004, 04:06 PM	#4 (permalink)
Manx Loser	Bush will do what the Republican party wants him to do. Which has now been demonstrated to be strongly based on the social conservative agenda. He will do this because this is exactly what Republicans must do in order to maintain their ability to win elections. He, himself, may not have any more elections to worry about, but he does know that he must support the Republican base. As Karl Rove said, he needed the 4 million Evangelicals to vote in 2004 that didn't vote in 2000. They did. His party won. This will continue to be true in all future elections as long as the fiscal conservatives align themselves with the social conservatives.

11-04-2004, 04:22 PM	#7 (permalink)
Mephisto2 Junkie	Very fair comments so far. I guess I was simply impressed by the extracts of his acceptance speech I saw on TV. John Howard, the conservative Prime Minister who was also recently returned in a mirror of the American election, made some very good comments in his speech. To paraphrase him, he said that he realized that as the elected leader of the country he not only had to govern for those who voted for him, but also for those who voted against him. I've said it before, and I'll say it again; I don't think Bush is a "bad" person. I obviously disagree with a lot of his politics, sometimes on a fundamental level, but I'm quite certain he is doing what he believes is right. I think he is sometimes led astray by the chickenhawks in his Administration (like Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rove and the ex-Tennet) but that doesn't change my optimisitc belief that, like most people, he does what he honestly thinks is right most of the time. I'm also aware that what he thinks is right is exactly what others may think is wrong, but that doesn't change the underlying precept of my suggestion here. As I said, I hold out hope that this will turn out to be the case. To be perfectly honest, I was a little bit surprised and disappointed by the general triumphalist reaction of some of this board-member's reactions to his victory, but I guess everyone is human and every dog has its day. Fingers crossed. He has a lot of responsibility. Let's hope he acts responsibly. Mr Mephisto

11-04-2004, 04:29 PM	#9 (permalink)
Mephisto2 Junkie	Please play nice... Mr Mephisto

11-04-2004, 04:53 PM	#11 (permalink)
Mephisto2 Junkie	Well, despite the fact that I'm impressed with all of your posts so far Manx and the obivious care you've taken in expressing yourself, I think your comment above is reactionary. The point I was making was that, unlike many posters here, I do not have some fundamental issue with Bush as a person, or that I honestly believe he is conspiring to take over the world, commit a Coup d'Etat or invade all of the Middle East (each theory suggested here at some stage), but that the nature of his election would bring about a moderation of his politics. I'm less interested in a narrow minded reaction to a single sentence than I am in an honest discussion of the topic's theme. Mr Mephisto

11-04-2004, 05:15 PM	#12 (permalink)
Manx Loser	Sorry. I contributed my input to this discussion in a previous post. I have recognized in your posts around here that you are not one to take an extremist (and I hesitate to use that word) position regarding Bush. I simply felt there was some importance in pointing out that a perception of good in a candidate is not a valuable contribution to the debate. I see now that you made the statement in an attempt to hold off anyone who might accuse you otherwise.

11-04-2004, 05:47 PM	#13 (permalink)
Mephisto2 Junkie	No problem. I didn't mean it as a criticism. I suppose I tend to (try) to see the positive in people as much as possible. When I say I have a "slim hope" that Bush may be more moderate, by definition it also means I have a greater fear that he will not. And of course, stump speeches (whether requesting support or accepting victory) are no basis upon which to assume a real change in policy. I have to admit I'm surprised that domestic moralistic issues seem to have had more of an effect upon the election than foreign policy. I guess it's just another interpretation of Clinton's famouse axiom, "It's the economy, stupid." I propose another interpretation of this and will state "It's *domestic, stupid." Whether it's the economy, stem cell research, gay marriage or taxes, Americans care more about what is happening on their doorstep than they do about what is happening overseas. And, as you say Manx, the conservatives care more* about their pet topics, than the liberals do about theirs. Domestic issues drive votes. So the ones with the stronger convictions therefore cast more votes. This is only natural and the only way I can see it change is if Iraq turns into another Vietnam. Then, when the body-bags begin to roll in, the foreign issue becomes a domestic one, as every town sees its young men and women buried or crippled. It's unfortunate, it's sad but it seems to be the case. Mr Mephisto

11-04-2004, 08:12 PM	#24 (permalink)
j8ear Gentlemen Farmer Location: Middle of nowhere, Jersey	I fail to see anywhere I have expressed disgust with homosexuality. Nor do I believe that most feel the disgust you apparently which were present so your arguement had some validity. Do not confuse 'not embracing' with 'disgust for'. Perhaps you could be persuaded to provide highlights of your three posts? -bear __________________ It's alot easier to ask for forgiveness then it is to ask for permission.

11-04-2004, 08:39 PM	#30 (permalink)
Mephisto2 Junkie	I repeat, please play nice. "Fix your own bullshit posts" is not nice. Mr Mephisto

11-04-2004, 08:43 PM	#31 (permalink)
j8ear Gentlemen Farmer Location: Middle of nowhere, Jersey	Wow, I can't win for loosing. Crass and not nice. ~sigh~ Apologizes for not being 'nice' I think I'm going to call it a night. -bear __________________ It's alot easier to ask for forgiveness then it is to ask for permission.

11-04-2004, 08:56 PM	#32 (permalink)
Mephisto2 Junkie	I don't care if you disagree. But labeling someone else's posts as "bullshit" is simply unacceptable. If I'd been a mod I would have given you a warning. As a lowly member, I politely ask you to be nice. I utterly respect your rights to a differing opinion. Please shows others the same respect. Mr Mephisto

11-04-2004, 10:01 PM	#33 (permalink)
Prince /nɑndəsˈkrɪpt/ Location: LV-426	I understand where you are coming from, Mr. Mephisto, sir. But...to quote BBC: Vice-President Dick Cheney has suggested the administration now has a mandate for a range of conservative social and economic policies. These are likely to include issues ranging from tax reform to abortion and same-sex marriage. President Bush will get the chance to appoint conservative justices to the Supreme Court if seats become vacant, which could have an impact far beyond his presidency. The powerful nine-member court is able to take final decisions on issues ranging from the result of a presidential election to a woman's right to have an abortion. Personally, this is what worries me the most. I don't think he will be any less determined to shove his ideals down our throats whether we like it or not. He has shown in the past, in my personal opinion, that he does not answer to the American people. Was he willing to step up to the plate about the No-WMDs-in-Iraq aftermath? No, he sent Rice to dodge the bullets. Every action he has made so far has suggested that he does not need to consult the American people about where this country will go from here. Now that he is even more powerful than before, why would he not be even more determined to get the laws passed on abortion and gay marriages in favor of his narrow-minded views? He clearly wants to leave behind a legacy, I just hope it will be something we can undo once we get a decent president in the White House. Not that Kerry would do any better, mind you. He's not a leader, he's a party puppet. Bush may not push as hard on building his war-on-terror portfolio, though. It already came close to backfiring on him. __________________ Who is John Galt?